Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[MordyS]

vote: archaebob cause we've played together before

I post that RVS is inane. So right now I'm going to short circuit it. Question to Muffin: What do you think Town gains from having a RVS? Do you think that smiley faces make you seem less threatening and more Townie?

Also question to anyone who hasn't posted yet: Do you agree or disagree that RVS's are a waste of time?

[MordyS]

Ok, seriously - how did you know I had a Pikachu avatar when I haven't made any posts in the thread yet? The fact that you posses this information means you went and looked at past games of the other players in this game, which is an extremely stretchy move as town when you're only on page one. NOBODY does that. I think it's more likely that you're scum scoping out your victims so you know how to avoid their scumhunting techniques.

Serious Vote: Gammagooey Who said the RVS wasn't useful?

Researching fellow players before you start playing is absolutely not scummy. Making a serious vote based on it is bizarre, and sounds like railroading the newbie. Also, I find early bandwagons help clarify people's positions, so this couples a good reason (your quote above), with a good strategy (clarifying positions thru bandwagoning). As such:

Vote: AlmasterGM

[MordyS]

@Archeobob: Try to keep your posts together if you can (especially one-liners like that).

It absolutely is scummy - Town don't read up on all the other players in the game before the game has even started. That is a scum move.

AWESOME! Let's do this.

Why? Why is reading people's history before a game a scum move? Here's why it can be a town move: It helps you read people's tells, which you only need to know how to do if you're town, as scum already knows who everyone is. Claiming that it's a scum move because he needs to know how people scumhunt is totally inane and worthless. I've never met scum who benefit from figuring out how town scumhunt (if you can even pin down something so ephemeral). And finally: If he's a newb, and his claim is easily verifiable, then you're totally wrong. The fact that you're continuing to push this line of reasoning I find ridiculously scummy.

Honestly, I was pushing on something that was maybe a 2 out of 10 on the scummy scale. But the way you've pushed back has brought you up to a six or seven. And that's why bandwagons can be valuable. They get flustered scum to start saying bizarre things.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Early bandwagons are valuable because they immediately start clarifying people's positions, put pressure on players, and force conversation. And in the rare case that someone hammers on the bandwagon, that indicates an instant-scum, since only scum would hammer 3 pages in. A bandwagon does not mean an inevitable lynch. Though considering AlmasterGM's statements so far this game, I wouldn't mind an inevitable lynch.

[MordyS]

What Almaster says about MordyS actually holds water. It makes sense, to me at least, for a town player to research a player they're suspicious of, but to go and look up everyone or even random people at the very beginning?

How is this possibly a scumtell? Seriously, please explain to me how scum is more likely to do this than town.

[MordyS]

@everyone (you don't need to reply, just think about it); did you register and immediately start playing in a game, or did you register and flick through a few games before you started playing?

You said it's rhetorical, but I wanted to answer it publicly. I started playing around April and I read about five to six full games before playing my first newbie game.

[MordyS]

I'm a big fan of Meta Knight and Kirby myself

FOS: Chinaman

[MordyS]

Taking all this into account though, I can't prove or deduce that MordyS was looking up other players.

I'll help you out. Except for the players I've played with before, I haven't looked up any of the players in this game yet. I may as the game goes along though. At some point I tend to look up every player in a game. Also, no one is discussing whether I've looked up players before.

[MordyS]

URATFM: MordyS

What does this acronym mean?

[MordyS]

Ok. This game is about to get my full attention (now that ultrafun /b/ times has been shut down). Firstly, can archeabob answer the question I posed to him post 74 before I get on to anything else?

[MordyS]

Ok, archaebob was looking for more people to weigh in on this foilist13 situation, so I'm about to do that. After a full reread, the thing that stuck out the most to me was;

Taking all this into account though, I can't prove or deduce that MordyS was looking up other players. I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it.

I got caught up, as did archaebob, on the name typo. It was a minor thing (we've all made reading mistakes), but it did indicate, especially coming in the middle of a discussion, that he wasn't doing due diligence to his reading. But on reread, what I noticed more was, "I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it." This is the kind of sneaky, scum-language that drives me nuts where he hedges on either side.

There's another example of this from Muffin (I'll quote Chinaman, who first noted this in post 49):

I would actually venture to say the biggest scumtell so far comes from Muffin who is "inclined to agree" nice and early so if the BW stays strong toward end of deadline, he can say "I said I agreed on p2!". It's an agreement without a vote, HoS, or FoS.

So what does this mean? I don't think this early in the game either of these tells mean that the players are definitively scummy, but it does bother me that they've decided to "lay low." Muffin somewhat mediates this in post 89 (though the OMGUS vote is ridiculous). He's otherwise struck me as participating, though I plan to keep an eye on him in case he tries to buddy/hedge in other places. foilist13, though, seems to have accidently stuck his foot in his mouth on a typo (my name, versus Gammagooey), and then tried to extract himself by, in my view, trying to sneak out of the spotlight. (This is more of a tone thing, I'm not sure I can notate it exactly.)

Did you miss the part where I said I couldn't prove or deduce that he was researching? It cannot be disproved either, and despite the fact that it is far from conclusive evidence, it is something to have somewhere in mind.

Isn't it clear that if you can't prove or disprove this, then it's a null tell? Not to mention that even if we could prove that he researched EVERY SINGLE player before starting play: I think that could easily be Townie play! So I don't know what foilist needs to keep in mind.

Finally, and this is speculative, foilist may have jumbled the names in the first place because any townie is interchangeable with any other townie if you're scum. (I do get a fairly townie read from Gammagooey at the moment.) He is lazily piling onto someone else's case (AlmasterGM), in such a lazy manner that he can't even be bothered to double check which townie he's going after. Not to mention that, unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I am), foilist still has a vote on me because of this typo. Not in a big rush to correct his mistake.

Unvote

Vote: foilist13

[MordyS]

No matter what you or I or chinaman or anyone else says or would like to believe, fossing someone doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't matter what anyone says because only votes are counted.

This isn't precisely true. Trying to create a good read here has nothing to do with the actual effects of an FoS, only with the perceived effects of an FoS. Which is to say: If Chinaman believes an FoS is more potent than doing nothing at all, he isn't a hypocrite if he makes an FoS but lays into you for doing nothing. If Chinaman, however, agreed that an FoS did nothing, then you'd in fact have a case against him. (Ie: My personal opinions on FoS's, Votes, etc, mean nothing here. All that is important in verifying Chinaman's hypocrisy is whether he is actually at odds with his own beliefs. And as far as I can tell, he is not.)

[MordyS]

@MordyS - I believe I answered your question in my response to Archaebob, if not ask again and I'll answer.

I don't believe you've answered my post at all, but instead of reposting it, I'll just repost this bit: If it was just a typo, how come your vote is still on me? (I do hope you reread the entire post, though, and respond to the whole thing, since it's not going away. You're currently my #1 scum target.)

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Sorry, just realized you moved it onto Muffin. Long posts with broken quotes make my eyes wander.

[MordyS]

That could be a Townie play, but I find it far less likely than a scum player looking for things he can point fingers at. if you disagree with me on that point then there is nothing I can do.

There is something you can do. You can explain why you believe it's more likely that a scum player would research games beforehand. But even that is beside the point. As Gammagooey never claimed to research people before the game, that was just an argument concocted by AlmasterGM, you can explain why you so quickly jumped onto a pretty awful argument.

I didn't remove my vote from you, because it is my habit to leave my vote where it is unless I plan to change it. Just taking it off is not something I normally do. I'm sorry if that bothered you.

This is beyond scummy, dude. You put your vote on me because you were confused about who we were discussing. After you were jumped on, you left it on because it is your habit to leave your vote where it is? It doesn't bother me personally. It bothers me because it smacks me of scummy behavior. You really didn't care where your vote went. Why not? Because you didn't buy your own argument. You were just looking to get your vote out there. If you really believed your case, the moment you realized your mistake, you would have put it on the person you had a case against. But you didn't buy your own case, which strikes me as disingenuous, scummy, and something you have failed to address in all these posts.

[MordyS]

It makes more sense for a mafia player to research the other players beforehand, because it gives him an idea of their playing styles, and he can look for things to point fingers at them with. That makes perfect sense to me, and I can't fathom why it wouldn't to you.

It is less likely for a town player to research the other players first because there are more people, and there is no immediate benefit to doing so.

I'm going to put this aside for a moment since it's not the crux of my issue. Suffice it to say, your argument lacks merit in my opinion. There is immediate benefit to researching fellow players (I've already started researching you to figure out whether this style a scumtell, or your way of going about these things). "There are more people." There are maybe two or three more players for a town player to research than there are for a scum player. Hardly a difference worth discussing. But let me put this aside, because it's the least thing that is bothering me about you.

I felt no pressure to change my vote whatsoever. Neither you or anyone else is in any immediate danger of being lynched, so I'll take my time.

This is what is bothering me. You felt that Gammagooey was scummy because you believed he might have been researching players before the game began. You made a mistake, though, and thought the case was against me. You voted for me. Once your mistake was illuminated though, you "felt no pressure to change [your] vote whatsoever." How about the pressure of pursuing your case? If I had brought this up, and you answered with, "I forgot my vote was there," or "I don't know what I was thinking," or "The truth was I wasn't in love with my Gammagooey case in the first place so I didn't feel completely compelled to vote for him," I would have bought that. But instead you continue to defend your Gammagooey case WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY giving no good explanation for not changing your vote to him.

So one more time I'll ask: Why, after realizing you made a mistake, did you not vote for the person you felt you had a legitimate case against?

It is bothering me that no one is responding to my post on Muffin. What, are one of you his scum partner trying to take attention away from your scumbuddy?

I'm waiting for Muffin to respond first, and currently, my attention is on this situation with you.

[MordyS]

Three questions for the generally fabulous SpyreX:

1. Are you neglecting this game in favor of other games?
2. Do you have anything to contribute outside your iffy "killing" argument?
3. Do you really buy that "killing" argument yourself? It seems like a stretch to me. Yes, maybe coupled with other things it could be a scumtell, but on its own?

To be more direct:

God, you're annoying. I hope you get killed quickly.

Killed in mafioso language has a fairly specific connotation and using it like you did supports that.

Even if it were true that killed has a specific connotation ("nightkilled" presumably?) do you believe the "I hope" mediates that somewhat since he's not saying, "I can't wait to kill you," but rather, "I hope someone kills you?" (The only major issue I think you may be tracing is that by saying "I hope you get killed quickly," if he means nightkilled, he's assuming that archaebob isn't Mafia himself. An assumption he can only make if he knows the role - ie: If he himself is Mafia. This seems like a bit of a stretch, but I could buy that case.)

[MordyS]

It is bothering me that no one is responding to my post on Muffin. What, are one of you his scum partner trying to take attention away from your scumbuddy?

Oh shit. I just realized, this is a scumtell (or something messy), ain't it. If "no one is responding to [your] post on Muffin," and not responding to that post is supposedly a scumtell that "his scum partner [is] trying to take attention away," then does that mean that everyone in the game is scum?

Illustrated:
If not responding to a case = scumtell,
and no one has responded to the case,
then everyone is logically scum.

But since we know that everyone in the game isn't scum,
that means that not responding to a case is not a scumtell,
which means -- well. I don't know. I already think you're scummy for other reasons. Why don't you tell me what this otherwise signifies, foilist13? I've got a strong gut feeling that it means you're feeling pressure and you're annoyed that instead of jumping all over your Muffin case (which, by the way, I took a look at. I want to hear what Muffin says before I respond, but I wasn't impressed), I'm still knocking on your door. Sound about right?

[MordyS]

I think that you're making it easy for us to lynch you, but I also think that you could be explained away as an irritatingly stubborn person. I'm undecided as to which.

The way I feel too. Leaving my vote on at the moment (a little pressure doesn't hurt, and it still looks like he's totally ignoring my questions), but this could be poor town-play.

[MordyS]

Foilist13: Answer me why when you realized that you voted for the wrong person, you didn't vote for the right person. Please stop posting bullshit nonsense that doesn't answer the question. Just answer this bloody question.

[MordyS]

I wouldn't feel horrible lynching foilist13 today. I still don't feel like I've heard enough from lexprod and cruelty, though. Cruelty, you write:

I think that you're making it easy for us to lynch you, but I also think that you could be explained away as an irritatingly stubborn person. I'm undecided as to which.

How would you determine which it is? I'm wondering myself whether foilist13 is just stubborn (to the point of looking horribly scummy), or scummy and scrambling. I'm not sure how to separate it, though, as instead of a mea culpa, every answer foilist13 gives just retrenches himself.

I don't have to justify every vote I make past a certain point. The original vote was barely out of the RVS and based on extremely limited evidence. When you pointed out my mistake it was just an "oh" moment, but I wasn't paying attention to that at the time.

No, you do have to justify every vote you make. Every single vote, when you make it, how you make it, and how long you leave it on. That you think this is beyond reproach totally confuses me. If someone else did something like that (made a case against someone, voted for the wrong person, didn't move their vote when the mistake was pointed out, and then got indignant when asked why they didn't move their vote) wouldn't you be rightfully suspicious?

[MordyS]

Two questions:

AlmasterGM, your vote is still on Gammagooey. Even after a number of people have explained that Gammagooey wouldn't be scummy even if he had investigated players beforehand, and that he probably didn't do that anyway, you still have your vote on him. Why? Has he done something else you feel is scummy?

Gammagooey: Obviously AlmasterGM's case on your is bad, but outside pursuing a bad case, do you find him otherwise scummy? Do you buy SpyreX's argument that "killing" is a scum-tell?

[MordyS]

I don't like AlmasterGM's case, I don't like the few posts from him, cruelty, or peanutman. I believe your posts and Muffin's posts, while copious, have been fairly low-content (and asking people who they believe are scummy instead of making your own cases is more of the same behavior). I think Gammagooey is probably Town. Afatchic seems mostly town (there's a town tell I noticed that I'm keeping in my pocket at the moment), though I'd like to see more out of him. I hope to God SpyreX is Town, because if he isn't, I'm scared to death.

[MordyS]

I missed Chinaman in that post. I actually agree with SpyreX that the Muffin/Chinaman interaction smells a lot like town-town.

[MordyS]

I guess I'm the only one who has stuff to do holloween weekend? See you guys sunday, maybe later this evening. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

It's Sunday. I'm looking forward to hearing from you today, lexprod.

[MordyS]

You might also have a few other people to look into if this is really important to you.

Interesting, peanutman. Are you of the opinion that people's vote records are not important, and that people shouldn't have good reasons for voting?

[MordyS]

Yes, I think SpyreX is a very strong player and I just finished a game with him where he was a very strong Town player. My comment was acknowledging that.

[MordyS]

archaebob, I just looked over that example. (I'm pretty sure from my last game that SpyreX would rather not use meta to clear a target, but I'm willing to lend it a bit more weight.) Do you feel it's different here? Foilist13's scumtell in that game (and holy shit, no surprise they wanted to lynch him ASAP), was a blatant suggestion that he knew there was a Mafia roleblocker in the game. I'm guessing he just wanted Mafia to believe there was no cop (to take any possible heat off himself, since he was the cop), and offered that misguided suggestion. Obviously he didn't want to give his real explanation ("I'm a cop and wanted to take the heat off myself") so he doubled down on the bad/bizarre explanations (including one particular post that suggests he doesn't understand how percentages work).

Here though, I can't think of one pro-Town reason, misguided or otherwise, for the way he acted. Do you agree? (Which isn't to say he couldn't just be playing extremely poorly here -- simply that your meta doesn't vindicate him.)

[MordyS]

Well, foilist13, here's my suggestion:

Last game I played, there was a town player who had very poor town play. She was going to get herself lynched. In addition to a lot of very poor defenses (appeal to emotion, bad logic), she offered some good reads of other players that helped us win the next day when we quickly lynched the last scum left. If you really feel unable to respond to an attack, I suggest putting it aside and spending the rest of your energy writing good, solid reads on other players so that your lynch (should it come to that) won't be in vain. And I don't mean things like,

Have you noticed that you have as many votes on you as I do on me? Albeit the less reputable players, yet you are ignoring the possibility that you may be lynched.

I mean full attacks, pointing out gaps in logic, scummy behavior, etc. Your Muffin post would be a good start, if I didn't think it was fairly weak (not to mention I find long blocks of confusing quotes and text a little scummy).

[MordyS]

Yeah. That's what I was responding to. His responses were ridiculous because he kept lying. He didn't want to admit, "Hey, I'm a cop and I was making a dumb case to throw scum off my ass," so he made other arguments. But they weren't the truth, since the truth was this thing he didn't want to say. I'm trying to think what the analogue could be here, but I don't see what it could be.

[MordyS]

I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it

I'll get to some of this other stuff later, but lololololololololol. That's real pro-town stuff there, mate.

[MordyS]

Oh shit. Didn't even notice that in my first readthrough. When I get to school tonight, I'm going over this trainwreck with a fine-toothed comb.

[MordyS]

I suspect MordyS because of this post:

EBWOP: Early bandwagons are valuable because they immediately start clarifying people's positions, put pressure on players, and force conversation. And in the rare case that someone hammers on the bandwagon, that indicates an instant-scum, since only scum would hammer 3 pages in. A bandwagon does not mean an inevitable lynch. Though considering AlmasterGM's statements so far this game, I wouldn't mind an inevitable lynch.

1) How do they clarify people's positions? This is a false assertion - it doesn't clarify
2) It doesn't put pressure on anyone. I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it. Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum.
3) Why do we need a bandwagon to have conversation? There's been plenty of conversation in this game thus far without your early bandwagon.
4) Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because of the possibility of the quickhammer - they're problematic because they can be hard to stop once they get rolling.

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me without having to deal with the obvious flaws in the actual case. By making the wagon a good theoretical idea, he can avoid having to answer any concrete evidence. In some cases, I'd pass this off as stupidity - however, Mordy has been around long enough that I think he should know better. Unexcused badlogic is scummy.

1. Essentially, it clarifies people's positions because it forces them to weigh in on the bandwagon one way or another. Are they for it because they believe the participant is scummy? Are they against it because they think she's delivered a towntell? Do they believe the participant is scummy, but they don't think they make a good lynch candidate, etc. But this is inconsequential. It's my personal scumhunting beliefs, and I think bandwagons have been useful in games that I have played. Feel free to disagree, but it's not a scumtell that I disagree with you (just like your scumtell isn't that you believe bandwagons are bad, it's all the other stuff we're about to go into).

2. "It doesn't put pressure on anyone." I think this is self-evidently untrue. "I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it." I think this is self-evidently scummy. "Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum." Also self-evidently untrue.

Essentially, and there's some stuff to dig through here, so I'll do my best to start digging: You claim that bandwagons don't put pressure on people because you were able to short-circuit the bandwagon on you by ignoring it. Not only do I not believe you've elided the bandwagon, but I don't understand how you believe that ignoring a bandwagon means that bandwagons don't pressure people. If you need a strategy for dealing with a bandwagon (especially a toxic one, like ignoring it), then clearly it has pressured you. Moreover, I'd suggest that this early bandwagon, even though I've since moved my vote, has done its job. You've come back with a document ripe for discussion.

(INTERMISSION: afatchic, you wrote earlier that AlmasterGM's argument against Gammagooey was silly, but not necessarily a scum tell - since he may have just been over-anxious town trying to find a case. I didn't totally disagree with you at the time - that was actually a possible good read, I thought - but now, I want to know what you think about his last post. In particular, the fact that he's totally abandoned his Gammagooey case to OMGUS two of the people who attacked him for it.)

3. I think this is a good place to fit in that: The bandwagon reason for voting for you was only the second reason I had for making the vote! You've totally ignored the first reason (which was your utter logic fail). The second reason just made me comfortable voting on something that I was unsure about (as I had afatchic's defense in mind from the beginning). Ie: Even if I was wrong, and your fail logic was just bad towning, I'd still get valuable information out of the wagon. And lo and behold: I FEEL I DID!

4. Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because there's a threat of someone being hammered, they're dangerous because there's a threat that the target will be lynched? Um. Okay? I think there's an obvious tautology here, but ignoring that for a moment: You weren't a random target! I thought your earlier posts were scummy and I think you continue to act scummy. I wouldn't have cried myself to sleep if you were lynched.

I think this is an attempt by Mordy to recruit followers to the bandwagon on me without having to deal with the obvious flaws in the actual case.

Yay! Some meat. Ok, AlmasterGM, here's why you're newly appointed Scum Target #1. My actual case on you was that you made a super bad case on Gammagooey, one that I felt indicated scumminess. You have not yet told me what the obvious flaws in that case are. Yet, you end your own post with, "Unexcused badlogic is scummy." THE EXACT CASE I HIT YOU WITH. If attacking someone for apparent badlogic is scummy, then my case on your was excellent! Even if you felt your case wasn't badlogic, you admit in the beginning of your post:

First, I'm dropping the Gammagooey argument. I reserve the right to say 'I told you so' at the endgame if Gamma is scum because I'd never do that, but since the general consensus is that it's not a scumtell and others have done it before, I'll let it go.

So if you admit the general consensus is that it's not a scumtell, and that general consensus is enough to get you to drop the case (OH MY GOD, BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS ABOUT TO BE AMAZING), then you admit that to a normal member of the general consensus, your case on Gammagooey was bad. If to a normal person (SAY ME, OMG, I HOPE YOU'RE HOLDING ONTO YOUR SOCKS), that case is bad, and as you yourself wrote, "badlogic is scummy," that means (HERE'S THE PITCH) that I was totally justified and validated in your own words for holding you as scummy and voting for you. By your own calculations, my vote on you was completely justified and you deserved it.

Oh yeah, scumster, take this too.

Unvote

Vote: AlmasterGM

[MordyS]

You keep evading the basis of my argument - I'm not indicting you because you voted for me, I'm indicting you for supporting this "early bandwagons good" theory which I think is scummy.

Ok, let me put a definitive hole in this so that you have to deal with my BRAIN-BUSTING argument against you and can't be all, "Wa, I also had a good argument." Ready? Cause this argument is about to go poof.

If I've expressed the opinion, either explicitly or implicitly through my actions, that bandwagoning can be valuable, and I was Town at the time that I expressed the opinion, obviously that opinion is not a scumtell on me in this game, correct? (This should be very simple, but correct me if I'm missing something obvious.) On Day One of Mini 843 (Fast and the Furious), post 27 (and then later on), I act on the same belief. Not only was I town in that game, but it's a game town ended up winning. So if you believe it's not helpful for townie, you're entitled, and feel free to start a topic on Mafia Discussion to discuss it. But it's a principle I believe, I've used before as town, and I'll continue to use in future games until I believe it's no longer useful. It's not a scumtell.

[MordyS]

I'd just hate for dude to duck my logic kung fu by harping on something ridiculous. Figured I'd shut it down nice and early.

[MordyS]

Unstoppable wagon piles up on foilist13. If foilist13 is town, and archaebob is scum, archaebob stays quiet and he's got a perfectly easy lynch on day one and a lot of fingers to point it at (me, SpyreX, whoever else jumps on top) on day two. So the fact that he spoke up with meta that at least slowed the wagon (if not ended it), makes it an implicitly townie act. Only non-townie scenario is that archaebob AND foilist13 are scum, but look at this thread and tell me if that makes any sense at all. Not sure if SpyreX has anything more slam-dunk than that (he may very well), but that's what has me convinced archaebob is town.

[MordyS]

In other words, we already know foilist13 is flustered townie and his vote was probably OMGUS. Which leaves the we-already-know-you're-scum AlmasterGM and peanutman (BTW AlmasterGM, don't think I forgot about your cute little sneaky appeal to emotion here, "It's going to be your argument that will be the "self-evidently untrue" one if I'm lynched this round." You think you're such a playa, dontcha) voting. Not sure if afatchic is scum, or just spaced.

[MordyS]

How the hell do we unravel someone scummy like AlmasterGM, and everyone starts focusing on someone who has been pretty rock-solid towny? It blows my mind. Anyway, I have nothing new to contribute. Archaebob looks like he can defend himself (and if he couldn't, then maybe he deserves to be voted). Everyone can go back and read my AlmasterGM posts, though I'd like to point this out:

Two days ago, AlmasterGM wrote in response to my attack on him:

I will admit, this is a well concocted argument. I'm going to need some extra time to break it down and analyze it.

He has not posted since then. This is his MO. He comes under fire and then disappears until the heat is gone. Not one of you, except for Muffin (who I'm about to rip apart so hard that his scum-juice comes loose) has even apparently tried to reconcile his super-scumminess with your lack of pressure on him. I don't know what the hell is going on. I mean, town rarely lynches scum on the first day, so I guess maybe the notion of hitting the scum jackpot immediately is new to many of you. But can we please not let this dude ride under the radar to avoid culpability for his actions. Here's a one-two punch for all you bloody archaebob voters: Archaebob answers attacks on him, AlmasterGM DOES NOT. Put that in your scum-pipe and smoke it.

Now, as for you, Mr. Muffin Man. First the dumbass stuff.

This post is a heap of WIFOM and doesn't really address the issue. Saying "bandwagoning is pro-town" is a null tell at best.

No, that's not the definition of WIFOM. (Side note: I read theory recently that scum are really the only people who like to use WIFOM. Especially this early, and especially when it's this inapplicable.) But YES. It's a null tell. That's my argument! That if I ever used the argument as a Townie, that means it's not a scum tell here. I wasn't arguing that it was a town tell. I was arguing that it wasn't a scum tell. Did you not realize this (thus making you yet another VI that I have to play with) or do you just wreak of scuminess?

I personally don't like trying to predict D2 results and behaviours, as it mostly just serves to give scum a list of do's and don'ts for avoiding suspicions. MordyS can you please explain why you're wasting time predicting day2 stuff? I'd rather we focus effort on D1.

This made me want to pull my hair out. It wasn't a bloody prediction. Oh my god. I can barely even type this it's making my brain want to explode. I was explaining why it wasn't in scum-archaebob's best interest to clear foilist13. Why wasn't it? Because if he didn't clear him, he'd be lynched and archaebob wouldn't shoulder the blame for the lynch since other people were pushing for it harder than him. WHO WAS PREDICTING SHIT? IT WAS ANALYSIS FOR TODAY?

Seriously guys. I'm almost ready to open the ad hominen gates and stop acting like any of you are rational actors at all. There's so much bloody good logic in this game, and then I login to Muffin acting like a Village Idiot, and archaebob, like one of three people I lean way towny on for today, at what? L-2 or something?

As for AlamasterGM, I think he's probably town. The early serious vote seems to be more of a newbie town mistake or some combination of No True Scotsman and Confirmation Bias fallacies. Ultimately I see Alamaster as somebody with the right idea but the wrong direction, if that makes any sense. I will have to read some meta on Alamaster to further this.

Go read your bloody meta. Meanwhile, go read the post where I show why AlmasterGM is scum. I'll give you a hint, though, for next time you want to clear him as "newbie town mistake," (btw, AlmasterGM is not a newb AFAICT. Fun times!). I am not simply attacking him for his "serious vote" on gammagooey. In fact, I MENTIONED THAT EXPLICITLY! I said that I was wavering towards afatchic's defense (that he was merely over anxious town) until he started responding. And btw, as someone so concerned about WIFOM, why don't you tell everyone about how "dumb townie V. scum mistake" is the CLASSIC WIFOM.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Only L-3. That lowers my blood pressure a tad.

[MordyS]

1: Constant pressure on people to give up info. I think the type of info bob is looking for is information that can ultimately damage the town.

Explain this. You've made this argument a few times, but I'm not sure I buy it. You claim that there's an advantage to keeping your cards close to your chest, but I've never seen a Town player (including you in the meta I've looked up) play cards this close. You know what also damages town? People being stifled for communication and not feeling able to discuss/argue about issues.

Extreme activity.

Maybe/Please, sorry. I don't buy it. More words = more analysis. Scum try to limit the amount they type because each sentence could be a scumtell. Town isn't so worried. Which brings me back to you: You've posted very little content this game. It makes it ironic when that's one of your primary modes of attack. So consider this post a little thunder and lightning; maybe it'll get you to post a little more. Or will that be too damaging to the town? (Also, are you kidding? "(maybe? please?)" If you've gotta beg for people to buy your logic, it probably isn't logical.)

[MordyS]

Right now, I'd be happy for you to be lynched because I think that you're controlling the game and I'm not at all convinced that you have the best of intentions.

Sorry for the long string of responses. Hopefully someone will post a response before I get a chance to hit the submit button on this and it won't look like I'm flooding the board. Anyway, he's not controlling the game. Maybe trying to, but his votes have been all over the place, and primarily on lurkers.

Let me phrase it this way: Let's assume he has bad intentions. His intentions at the moment appear to be pressuring lurkers to vote. I think it's a waste of time (lurkers suck, after my second game ever I decided to stop bothering with them unless their lurking figures into a larger case), but I think it's ultimately a pro-town thing. Even if his intention was to distract town from himself, or from a scum partner, it's immediately pro-town to get other people talking and posting. So it's hard for me to see that as disastrous for the town, and I certainly don't see how he's doing a good job setting the agenda, unless you believe the agenda is you and everyone else attacking him for asking dumbass questions.

(Side-note to archaebob: They aren't wrong, even if they aren't right. I don't think you're scum, but I think your posting style and a lot of your content has been inane. Less asking, 'how do you feel,' questions, and more posting: "BANG YOU'RE DEAD CAUSE SCUMMERS NEVER PROSPER" arguments, plz? And stop promising it'll all make sense once all the lurkers post. You're not Obi Won Kenobi.)

[MordyS]

I'll forgive you for now, since this is literally the first day of the game, but everyone should know that I pay close attention to who is posting, and who isn't, and that lurking will draw more attention to themselves than just about anything else they could do.

If his fascination with lurkers is just opportunism, he set it up in the very first day of the game.

[MordyS]

I've given the foilist13 thing a lot of thought (ie: I should be sleeping, but instead I'm thinking about freaking foilist13). Here's my problem with him as a lynch candidate. If he's scum, that means he's really stupid AND stubborn scum (since he not only made a mistake on which townie he was voting, but he then refused to backdown from that mistake). I can buy stupid scum, and I can buy stubborn scum, but I don't buy that we got them both in the same package. Ie: Stupid scum votes for the wrong person, I call it on him, he backs off and looks bashful. He doesn't start making up retroactive reasons for voting for the wrong person. I'm not saying he's not scummy looking, he definitely is. I just don't think he makes an amazing lynch candidate for today. Also, taking cruelty's advice under consideration, he's plateaued fairly well.

By contrast, it's now Thursday and AlmasterGM hasn't posted since Monday when I bashed his skull in with a logical cudgel. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure I know who his scum-buds are and I don't think it's foilist13. If foilist13 + AlmasterGM are scum-buds, that means that foilist13 didn't just screw up by voting for the wrong guy, etc, he always tied his first apple wagon (I LOVE THIS EXPRESSION) to his scum-buddies star. Let's say they're both scum and AlmasterGM flips; OBVIOUSLY foilist13 is the next to fall.

(Ok, private confession time: I kinda often get burnt on reading bad town play as scummy. I'm sure the position play here is policy lynching, but I'm gonna ride with my gut. I don't see foilist13 as scum at the moment. My brain is screaming that his logic is fried and his arguments are poached -- yes, these are egg metaphors -- but my gut says he's town. By contrast, my brain and my gut are totally in agreement on AlmasterGM. He doesn't make sense and he acts like scum. Ie: He gives me heartburn.)

[MordyS]

Final thing before going to sleep.

If I win that early bandwagons are anti-town, then it is very consequential because it means you are pushing an anti-town policy.

I've been working on a post for about thirty minutes trying to explain why this is a scumtell. I've erased like a thousand words discussing linguistics and I'm going to try something simpler. I'm going to explain why it's a scumtell narratively. I was rubbed the wrong way by it that first time I saw it, and what occurred to me was that it's not how I'd expect a player to express that particular thought. I'd expect:

If it's true that early bandwagons are anti-town, then it is very consequential because it means you are pushing an anti-town policy.

But I couldn't figure out why I'd expect it to be expressed that way until I filled in the statement. The full statement expressed that AlmasterGM was saying was,

We're having an argument about whether early bandwagons are anti-town or not. If I win this argument, then it is very consequential because it means you are pushing an anti-town policy.

What was bothering me was this unexpressed piece. My pushing an anti-town policy isn't contingent upon AlmasterGM winning the argument. It's contingent upon whether early bandwagons are anti-town. But grammatically, he was linking his winning an argument to my being anti-town.

Why I believe this is significant: Town players sift through data (arguments, language, posts) looking for evidence of town or scum tells. Scum players aren't going to find any evidence though when they make their cases, since such evidence doesn't exist. What they do is find things that they believe they can feign as evidence, but the strength of their argument comes from themselves, not from the evidence. Ie: It's their winning an argument that makes someone anti-town, not any particular substance in the argument. I believe this is a scumtell, and a fairly substantial one. It's also somewhat conjecture; I'm not sure whether an argument like this has immense value, but it's been bothering me for a bit, so I thought I'd post it and let other players weigh in.

[MordyS]

Your vote: 13 pages later, you're clinging to a statement I made on page 1. You have no other arguments against me. LOL.

I think that's all you've gotta take away from AlmasterGM's post. The rest is blustering at a ratio of 1:2 (signal:noise). The problem isn't the original argument, the problem is all the stuff you've done since the original argument. The original argument could've been excused by saying you were over-anxious townie. It's the way you've responded and continue to respond to it. When I read post 316, it had scum written all over it. Moreover, I think it's telling that your mechanism for defending yourself is attacking me (whether it's comparing me to a fifteen-year-old, throwing a fit about my use of capital letters, or accusing me of stretching too far with my arguments). You don't actually defend yourself as much as try and discredit your attacker.

Re: Foilist13 v. AlmasterGM; AlmasterGM is clearly not stupid. I don't think he makes bad arguments because he's confused and flustered. His style clearly indicates someone very intelligent. I just think he's obvscum.

I also wanted to point out that two people (at least) have tried to defend AlmasterGM's original argument against Gammagooey. (Btw; I love that its 13-pages ago-ness is reason to drop it acc. to AlmasterGM. Maybe if you had dealt with it immediately, we wouldn't be stuck discussing it 13-pages later.) This is something to keep in mind for after AlmasterGM flips as scum, and I'd like to hear afatchic and Muffin weigh in on the recent dialogue -- not on the original case.

I also don't buy the case against AGM. I think he genuinely thought he had a case when posting it. I don't think he was faking that or anything. I do think that it was blown out of proportion and he was attacked a bit hard about it. That was good though since it quickly brought us out of the RVS.

As for AlamasterGM, I think he's probably town. The early serious vote seems to be more of a newbie town mistake or some combination of No True Scotsman and Confirmation Bias fallacies. Ultimately I see Alamaster as somebody with the right idea but the wrong direction, if that makes any sense. I will have to read some meta on Alamaster to further this.

I actually bought this argument early on. It's been the responses that have set off my scumdar.

(Side point: AlmasterGM, you do literary/linguistic analysis on your debate team? Or you just meant you make narrative arguments? I don't really know what you were trying to add there, except maybe an appeal to authority.)

[MordyS]

EBWOP

Actually, though, the reason I've been taking forever is because I was a) annoyed with your 15-year-old-esk arrogance and b) trying to overcome all the "OMG IT'S SOOOOO TRUE!" rhetoric of that one point in your argument. After getting past all that …

I love the fact, btw, that apparently this game doesn't exist for you outside refuting attacks on you. While you were "overcoming" my rhetoric, and being annoyed with my "15-year-old-esk arrogance," did it occur to you to come into the thread and maybe do some reads, make some arguments and try to scumhunt?

[MordyS]

It's esque, btw.

[MordyS]

Really? Because I haven't seen alot of defense from Archaebob to the different accusations or questions directed at him. I've seen a lot of questions from him and his ever-present lurker-voting, but not much in way of defense. I've seen him expect answers from many others, often immediately, but he seems to reserve himself the right to answer later, and only to certain parts. Mordy, could you help me find all the ones you claim Bob makes.

I just reread him in iso. I thought I remembered a long defensive post, but I guess that was Gammagooey responding for him. He has promised to respond at some point, and make some esoteric claims at hidden/secret reasons for holding his cards close to his chest. That said, I've got a town read on him. He did say this in a few different ways:

But if you pay attention to my posts up to this point, I haven't exactly been keeping my positions a secret. Many of my questions are pretty pointed, and all of them are direct.

Go ahead and skim that meta I linked. You'll see what's coming next. I just think its important right now to ensure that nobody is slipping by undetected, since that's what screwed me over in the last game I played as town.

So yeah, he should write a defensive thing sometime soon, but he's basically explained that he's most concerned about lurkers. I personally believe that. When I first started playing, I was very concerned about lurkers all the time. (Nowadays I think lurking is anti-game even more than it's anti-town, so I just want mods to handle it, so I don't bother toooooo much with it)

[MordyS]

Is that really a formulation they use on your debate team? If I win this argument then...?

Cause that's just awful grammatically and logically.

[MordyS]

I also find it odd that you forgot that Gammagooey responded for Bob because there was quite a few reponses to Gooey's actions in this case.

It's less that I forgot he did it and more that it made me think Bob had also written such a post. I don't know about reevaluating him. I still have a town read on him for something he did, and he absolutely hasn't become more scummy than AlmasterGM. But I do think he should deal with this stuff and stop pushing it off. We certainly shouldn't end the day until Bob deals with the arguments against him.

[MordyS]

I should have said this earlier, but I'm V/LA till Monday.

[MordyS]

First of all: I'm back! Heya. Second of all:

I love when people actually take it seriously and are like OMG U R SO SCUMMY IM VOTING 4 U.

I'm a little confused by this. AlmasterGM seems smart enough that he knows the truism that sarcasm/humor doesn't carry well over the internet (especially when the "sarcasm" is stated so dryly like, "I'm just going to wait for a wagon to formulate and then decide whether I like it or not," that I can't even tell what the humor is).

If the joke is predicated on, "lol, let's relax about the whole reading the thread, scumhunting thing," then it's a scum-joke. If the joke is, "lol, wouldn't it be crazy if I actually believed this? I'd be totally scummy in that circumstance," then it's a really poorly advised joke. I just don't get what axle this would have to hinge upon for it to make sense as a pro-Town comment.

This is also the second time that AlmasterGM has used this defense (that his comments shouldn't be understood literally, or as having any significance beyond possible humor) on one of his comments. The first time was in his iso post 10:

I don't think you meant to. I think you slipped while trying to make a case against Mordy.

Is this a joke?

That entire approach strikes me as anti-town. For most of town, their only ability is scum-hunting, and the way they choose their words and study other's words is the entirety of that ability. Asking people to discount what you say, or try to interpret you in the

most generous

way possible strikes me as anti-Town at the least. Combined with every other discussion all along the way, it strikes me as way scummy.

Anyway, I'm interested to hear what AlmasterGM's claim is going to be, as he already softclaimed vanilla in his iso 6. AlmasterGM, when you claim, if you're not, in fact, vanilla (something I'm assuming from the fact you feel you need to claim any further than that post), can you include the reason why you soft-claimed vanilla in iso 6? Danke!

[MordyS]

Ok, and since we're rapidly heading towards the end of the day (be it through lynch or mod-induced conclusion), here are my thoughts on some other people:

Re: Peanutman (who I'm glad people are looking at, because he's my #2 scum candidate at the moment). Some of this assumes AlmasterGM is going to flip scum, and is preemptively finding connections between the two. Some of this is just examining him solo.

In his first post, he RVS votes Gammagooey (for an RVS reason; "the name doesn't seem to flow"). AlmasterGM jumps onto Gammagooey for his oft-examined reason (he may have been researching other players before the game began), landing his vote next to Peanutman's. Peanutman doesn't remove his vote until after AlmasterGM's vote has been attacked. Ie: If two scum wanted a decent early bandwagon strategy, it might work to put one vote on during RVS, try to create a "serious" argument (to borrow AlmasterGM's description of his vote on Gammagooey), and thereby avoid any looks at scumwagoning. Once AlmasterGM was attacked for that vote, Peanutman removes it. (Mind you, he claims there that he just hasn't been around for the last two days, which is a potential reason for not unvoting till then. I'm just theorizing the possibilities at the moment.)

In the same post there was this:

I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way. Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?

Where Peanutman essentially tries to push foilist13 into making a case against me instead of just accepting what he - foilist13 - himself considered to be a mistaken vote. There's obviously nothing wrong with scumhunting, and certainly nothing wrong with investigating me, but trying to get someone else to make a case instead of making the case yourself is somewhat disingenuous, and this was the first thing Peanutman said that put him on my radar.

He defends this prodding with;

Therefore, regarding Foilist, I am trying to understand his logic, and, if his claim is true, I wanted to know what he found scummy about Mordy

If I remember correctly, his "logic" was that he made a vote mistake and then - maybe - left it on me because of OMGUS. OMGUS and mistakes aren't scummy, so Peanutman is trying to dig for something that isn't there under the guise of giving the "benefit of the doubt." Which reminds me:

Peanutman has used the term benefit of the doubt five times this game.

I usually try to give people the (1) benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games.

I'm not just giving Foilist the (2) benefit of the doubt, you have it as well. I'm not claiming you're scum, but my vote is on you because I still have my suspicions. If you were to pursue your line of thinking, I shouldn't be voting anyone at all, correct? That is not the intention of me giving the (3) benefit of the doubt. I just won't get tunnelling someone because of one seemingly scummy action and blow it out of proportion.

@everyone, I use the term (4) "benefit of the doubt" in the sense that I will not confirm anyone scum in my mind; I will try not to tunnel a single-player to the detriment of all others.

I give the (5) benefit of the doubt at first for a mistake here and there, but too many things just don't add up in my mind. If it was just one thing, I would take note of it and keep looking around, but I can't let all these things go unjustified.

I'd like to point out the fourth use in particular. When I read that post, I immediately went through Peanutman's meta. By naming "benefit of the doubt" as a term he uses, and placing it in quotation marks, I assumed it was a common argument he liked to employ in early stages of the game. He's certainly used it plenty in this game. So I read some of his past games. In those games (838: Jeopardy Mini, and 802: Newbie) he uses the term benefit, though only once in the expression "benefit of the doubt." As such, it appears to be a fairly new strategy for this game. That's not necessarily problematic, but I noticed the way he did use the word "benefit" in prior games.

I have a feeling that, in the end, it's two townies arguing to the (1) benefit of the scums.

However, his absence since last Friday does seem odd, and I give him the (2) benefit of the doubt that something IRL is occupying him. I would like him to answer to his prolonged absence and, like others have mentioned, his parroting and lack of useful content before being lynched.

That being said, I know the town would (3) benefit much more from investigating others who are looking supsicious at the moment, such as Lasaiki (newest "suspect").

And to answer your question about the deadline, I would keep it as is because that is the way the mod has set this game up and might find suspicious people who are willing to have the rules changed, perhaps for their own (4) benefit instead of the town's.

It is a theoretical debate as to who (5) benefits from a shortened deadline, town or scum.

That being said, I post my suspicions when I am comfortable with them and I know that the town can (6) benefit, such as you can see below.

@Nameless, with that in mind, for the (7) benefit of the town, could you please use less sarcasm and abrasiveness in your posts?

You might have misunderstood what I was saying. In the context of lynching an anti-town player (who may or may not be scum), I was thinking through the (8) benefits of it

However, for the (9) benefit of the town, could you please build a case against me?

I felt that TMJ could have been a VI, but also that the town wouldn’t (10) benefit on focusing on one single person the whole day

All these possibilities of things happening during the night will not, in fact, make us more sure of someone. If anything, it could lead to more set-up speculation and confusion, (11) benefitting the scum-team.

(Exhausting!) Anyway, in those two games, Peanutman was vanilla townie, and in both those games, his use of the word benefit (except in example 2) is in the context of interrogating whom certain actions would benefit: town or scum. (Such as, "more set-up speculation and confusion, benefitting the scum-team," or "It is a theoretical debate as to who benefits from a shortened deadline, town or scum.") In most of those cases (every single one?) the question is whether a certain activity or not "benefits" the scum. Therefore, when I reread his positioning as giving the "benefit of the doubt" in this game, I couldn't help but link it to his skepticism and analysis in his past games. Wouldn't a scum player, who while a Town player generally asks to whose benefit any particular action is, be worried about giving and receiving the benefit of the doubt for actions when he's scum?

(Possible flaws with this argument: "Benefit of the doubt," is kinda an expression as distinct from the single word benefit. So here's the non-complicated, non-stretchy argument: This is the first game he's constantly concerned with giving - and presumably receiving - the benefit of the doubt. In previous games, he is always trying to crunch people's agendas.)

That being said, there is something in your last quote GG that is quite unsettling. I'll repeat it here.

I was going to say that I didn't see a whole lot of case on peanut aside from him voting for archae and defending foil.

Am I to therefore assuming that anyone who votes archae or defends foil is scummy? Do you have knowledge that I don't of archae and foil's alignment?

This is an odd attack on Gammagooey. If Gammagooey in fact had knowledge of archaebob and foilist13's alignment (the assumption being that Gammagooey is scum and therefore, in this circumstance, knows that foilist13 is scum and archaebob is town), then why would he accuse someone who "defends foil" as scummy? Why would Gammagooey blow the whistle on his scum-partner? He might want to defend a town player to build up town-points for later when the town-member was revealed. But unless he was planning on bussing the fuck out of foilist13, he'd have no reason to call him scum here - and attack anyone defending him. And as he's had his vote (and most of his attacks) on AlmasterGM all day, we can assume his strategy wasn't bussing foilist13 to death.

Whether it's de facto indicative of scum, I wouldn't know because I haven't played that many games, but I do notice that he dictates the pace of this game without explicitly sharing any of his own views very often. And I am quite uneasy with that because I get the feeling his has a hidden agenda, only shining light and where it's most advantageous to him.

I don't think this is a super scum tell, but lol at the fact that Archaebob is some kind of secret mastermind "only shining light and where it's most advantageous to him." If anything, he's seemed a little over-his-head this game constantly asking other players to agree or disagree with his cases. I attributed that to newness: He isn't confident in his scumhunting abilities and likes asking a lot of questions to try and figure out where he stands himself. Even if he is scum, he hardly sounds like someone masterly taking control of the game. To paraphrase something Cruelty (I think?) said earlier about foilist13: I don't think he's got ice-cold water in his veins.

Anyway, here's the last piece:

Wow, this is in no way helpful to the town. I can understand people being too busy to re-read at times or build a case. But to say you won't because the thread is "muddled", that's beyond me. Whether town or scum, I wouldn't want you around if you're just going to be swayed by the town one way or another without doing any of the leg work.

Unvote, vote : AlmasterGM. AGM now at L-2.

Looks like the wagon is on you. Time for you to decide whether you like it or not?

This is the first time Peanutman mentions AlmasterGM this game. (He quotes other people saying his name a couple times, but doesn't comment directly upon him or use his name.) He tried to keep as distant from him as long as possible and once it became clear AlmasterGM was going to be lynched today, he jumped on the bus. (Obviously if AlmasterGM flips Town, I'd change my opinion on this -- but for now, considering how much of today has been dominated by discussion of AlmasterGM, I think it's telling that until this last post, he never bothers to engage with him at all.)

Ugh. I've got a third person I want to discuss, but I'm going to hold off the long read for now and try and post it sometime in the next two days. Actually, come to look at this post, I think I'll divide it into two posts for easier reading. Apologies for the verbosity.

[MordyS]

Now, both of these posts were votes on Almaster, and for two different reasons! The whole point of each of those posts was not just disagreeing with Almaster, but disagreeing and saying he was scummy for his actions/opinions. So, if you say you are inclined to agree with those guys, wouldn't you thus be saying that you also think Almaster is scummy, for those two separate reasons given?

I think this is OTM. I've got a long read on Muffin that I'm going to post before the day ends, but this is gold, A+ material. It's also the reason why I think an AlmasterGM lynch is the best for today. There's a lot of people (foilist13, Muffin/Sociopath, Peanutman) whose posts will be illuminated by however AlmasterGM flips.

[MordyS]

Also, AGM has pretty much already claimed to have a power role of some kind, so I expect we'll ultimately wind up being deterred from lynching him today anyways.

I don't buy his softclaim of having a power role. Not only because I think he's scum looking for a way out (and might pick a role that'll force a counterclaim and give scum a good NK target if he sees he's on his way to a lynch), but because he already softclaimed vanilla.

[MordyS]

Iso means isolation. Ie: Reading just the posts from that person in the thread. Open here just means that the game was opened to be played, I believe. Not that it's an open setup.

[MordyS]

xp to Papa: You absolutely missed more cases. I've made cases against Foilist, a few against AlmasterGM, and one against Peanutman.

[MordyS]

Papa, my case on foilist is in my iso 10-15, my case on AlmasterGM is in my iso 32.

[MordyS]

Not to say MordyS's original point that AlmasterGM attacked as badlogic is bad logic. I'm just saying that attacking people for bad logic isn't scummy no matter how many stupid arguments you come up with. I assume MordyS should have something to say about this given how triumphant he was about the argument to begin with.

You misunderstood my argument against him. I'm going to rephrase it here, but I recommend you go back and reread it. Essentially, he called me scummy for calling him scummy for making a badlogic argument. But he made his own badlogic arguments. Which means that his attack on me for attacking him was unjustified. (Yes, this becomes convoluted, which is why I recommend reading the original post.) I wasn't attacking him for being a hypocrite. I was attacking him for calling my attack scummy when in fact he would otherwise agree that my attack was legitimate. Does that make sense?

[MordyS]

You know, I've written more words on AlmasterGM this game than I've written about anyone else, but if you'd like a couple more:

I believe AlmasterGM's case against Gammagooey is more likely to come scum than town because it's inane badlogic designed to incriminate someone early in the game. Town generally looks for good cases to pursue. Scum doesn't have good cases, so good scum invent plausible cases and bad scum force bad cases. AlmasterGM is somewhere in between, and when he first stated his case, I thought - huh, this is the scummiest thing to happen this game. (With the caveat, as I've said numerous times, that he could easily have been over-anxious Town.) What made made him seem obvscum was the way he responded to my case -- by arguing over whether early bandwagons are good or not, whether I'm scummy for attacking him for badlogic, and for his general bad attitude and anger at being questioned. It seems to me that Town, who want Town to win, would have dealt with my case calmy and intelligent. Possibly they would have said, "If you really believe that Gammagooey didn't do anything scummy, I can see why you'd be disturbed by attacks on that," and then go onto scum hunting. If that was what had happened, I would've probably forgot about that early attack. But instead AlmasterGM escalated his scumminess with every response.

For more details please read my iso where I can into all of this in expansive detail.

[MordyS]

What's the "VT Gambit?"

[MordyS]

Oh, VT = Vanilla Townie. Yeah, I gotcha. Dude has had a lot of

gambits

this game that have been

designed

to illuminate who scum are.

[MordyS]

Sanjay, do you mind me asking how carefully you've read the thread so far? I understand it's long and there's a lot of dense posts, but I'm getting the impression that you're trying to play catch-up by asking old questions anew and pretending that you're uncovering something fresh.

[MordyS]

Almaster the game I read with you in it was Stratego mafia, and you definitely weren't this aggressive in there, is there a different game in particular I should be reading to see this prejudice you speak of?

I was a cop in that game, so I had to play conservatively. Read some of my vanilla town games. Honestly, though, there is really nothing to be gained from this - if I was scum, I wouldn't be playing to my scum meta.

Blah blah blah I am so confident in my abilities I can never be wrong! I'll claim: Doctor.

Ok, let's skip the VT gambit for a second. Now that you've claimed a PR, wanna answer Gammagooey's original question that you ducked by lying?

[MordyS]

Wait, Papa, you think that he softclaimed VT one page (what was it? 3? 2? 4?) and just now claimed doctor to protect some other theoretical doctor? WTF?

[MordyS]

He clearly claimed doctor because he doesn't want to be lynched. Now either he's actually doctor and wants us to lynch someone else today and he'll be NK'ed, or he's actually scum and is lying about being doctor. There's no third possibility where he's actually VT and is claiming doctor to protect some theoretical doctor from being NK'd... just ridiculous dude. So there are only two possibilities for the softclaim VT. Either he softclaimed to take scum attention off him during the NK because he's actually a doctor, or he softclaimed to lie then and now that he's heading towards lynch, he's going to try to force the Town doctor out with a counterclaim.

AFAICT those are the only two possibilities.

[MordyS]

How about: he's a VT who's trying to protect the doc while simultaneously saving his own skin.

If he's not scum they'll be all OH GOD DOC YES KILL HIM NAO and we'll just be down a VT. A VT who'd normally have no chance of getting NKed I might add, given all the wringing of hands/gnashing of teeth/rending of garments ITT that he's not dead yet.

So you're backing off your explanation. Can you give an explanation for him softclaiming VT? Or do you really think he softclaimed it because he wanted to take any PR attention off him. Because 1) I doubt there was any PR attention on him. He was on so many people's scum lists any scum (all this assuming he isn't one himself) would've left him alive to sow confusion in town, 2) he could've easily have given the answer he gave me on this page -- ie, that he's been way more aggressive in other games. instead of lying about his role, and 3) lynch all liars.

[MordyS]

Also, 4) "Also, Option 3 is what we call a townie gambit, and it's perfectly legit imo tbh," why exactly is this a legit townie gambit? Honestly, look at his circumstances. He's probably going to be lynched, and he already softclaimed VT. What exactly does he stand to gain from gambiting a false doctor claim?

[MordyS]

How can you tell whether a doctor is obviously lying about targets?

[MordyS]

This is what I don't understand.

I was a cop in that game, so I had to play conservatively. Read some of my vanilla town games. Honestly, though, there is really nothing to be gained from this - if I was scum, I wouldn't be playing to my scum meta.

My previous vanilla softclaim was forced. I was questioned on my prior meta, and I had the following options – a) ignore the question, b) tell them to look at my PR meta and implicitly claim prematurely, or c) tell them to look at my town meta. I felt the third option was the best. I don’t think this behavior is scummy, either – it’s not like I hardclaimed vanilla on Day 1 and then tried to claim PR three days later in lylo.

The problem here is that you didn't have to say anything. If you're a doctor, you just had to answer the question of why you're more aggressive in this game than in that game (where you had a PR). Anyway, as Sanjay points out, those Minis don't answer the question anyway. In 844 you're a mason, in 851 you're a VT, and in 863 you're still in orbit. Gammagooey's (it was him, right?) question was: I saw a game you were in where you were cop and were way less aggressive. Your answer was: Check out my VT meta where I've been just as aggressive. (A totally legit defense at the time -- well, legit enough.) But now that you're claiming doctor, his question comes back in full force. I saw a game you were in where you were cop and were way less aggressive. Your answer now is pointing to a game where you were a Mason, a game where you were VT and a game currently in process? Show him (us) a game where you had a PR like cop or doctor and were just as aggressive.

(And so that we don't all get confused, I'm pretty sure Gammagooey didn't mean aggressive like aggressive scum-hunting. He meant that AlmasterGM was being loud and outspoken in an aggressive and hostile manner. Btw, last I checked, even if you're trying to switch up your PR meta, acting loud and outspoken in a hostile manner is never gonna work if you're a PR.)

[MordyS]

Shocker. Peanutman unvotes when he's got a convenient excuse to abandon the bus.

[MordyS]

Something I was thinking about on the subway up from class (yes, I think about Mafia on the subway); the chance of hitting scum on D1 is higher than the chance of hitting doctor.

Also, I think AlmasterGM is lying, and I think he's trying to ferret out a real town doctor by claiming town. He hasn't answered a single question I've asked him about his claim (well, he did answer that one with three games, but as Sanjay points out, they actually didn't answer the question at all). Maybe he's hoping that if he remains quiet, the bandwagon will disappear off him again?

[MordyS]

From my perspective, they are both likely to be scum, but they are also both very plausible candidates for VI.

Foilist13 for sure. But AlmasterGM does not strike me like the quintessential VI at all. He seems much too savvy for that.

[MordyS]

Ok, so explain again how your case on Peanutman goes away if foilist13 flips town? Because my case on Peanutman is dependent upon AlmasterGM flipping.

[MordyS]

Look at my iso 52, particular the very last bit where I note that Peanutman hasn't mentioned AlmasterGM this entire game until he jumps on the wagon. Classic bus behavior, imho.

[MordyS]

Because I think it's more likely that foilist13 is VI than AlmasterGM. So all things weighted, I think it's more likely that AlmasterGM is scum.

[MordyS]

Why did you FoS Sanjay?

[MordyS]

Why's that?

[MordyS]

It's obvious foilist13 is into the lynch because he realizes the options are either him or AlmasterGM (moreorless). The question is, is he town that's into the lynch because he believes AlmasterGM is scum, is he scum into the lynch because he's bussing fellow scum, or is he scum into the lynch because he wants to lynch the Townie. But there's nothing surprising about him pushing the lynch itself.

[MordyS]

Archaebob's defense of AlmasterGM on the last page is one of the weirdest things I've seen in this game yet. I kinda understand why SpyreX wants the real doctor to counterclaim at this point. But you know what? If Foilist13 flips town, I think Archaebob is right. I think at this point, we'll learn a ton.

(On the other hand...)

[MordyS]

Ok. I'm gonna hammer. Does anyone have a problem with that?

[MordyS]

Despite MordyS's soft-claim as a triple voter

lol

That is all. I thought I was the hammer vote because archaebob seemed to imply the next vote was the hammer. Honestly, I'd still rather lynch AlmasterGM.

[MordyS]

So inconsequential, but this is what confused me:

Foilist, peanutman, and Sanjay are scum. I'll post more about Sanjay later on, so don't hammer yet, but this is overwhelmingly my read on the game right now.

I assumed this meant we were at L-1. I'm guessing he just meant: Don't put three more votes on him.

[MordyS]

Is AlmasterGM really voting twice or is it mod-error?

Woops fixing.

fixed

[MordyS]

Well, now I'm all excited I'm going to get the lynch I want.

[MordyS]

Now it's tied! Instead of Gammagooey switching his vote to ALM (which I suspect he'll do), I kinda want Papa Zito and the other non-voters to be forced to vote for someone. Let's force people to commit. Is there anyone currently playing who doesn't believe foilist13 OR AlmasterGM are scum? Can we be jerks and be like: If you're not voting by the end of the day, you're lynch candidate for tomorrow?

[MordyS]

(And by that, I mean you, Peanutman + Muffin.)

[MordyS]

I do think it's super notable that Muffin + Peanutman aren't voting for anyone. Not sure what it means that PhaerieM isn't, but I'll attributed that his replacing in. You guys have been here the entire game! 30 bloody pages for day one! You seriously don't think ANYONE is scummy at this point? WTF fucks.

Ok, going into end of Day One: I think scum are AlmasterGM, Peanutman + Muffin in that order. If AlmasterGM turns up town, foilist13 takes his spot and SpyreX + Gammagooey get second looks. If foilist13 flips town -- uh, duh. I already said scum are AlmasterGM, Peanutman + Muffin. That wouldn't change a thang.

[MordyS]

oh, yeah. I misread who was voting for who.

[MordyS]

That's generally a good point, but I wanted to get my opinion out before the day ends. For reasons I'll leave unstated (but to the thinking, that should suffice -- to use a Medieval dictum).

[MordyS]

Sociopath has posted more recently (Nov 17, 2009 6:05 pm) than AlmasterGM (Nov 16, 2009 5:37 pm), if we're talking about lurking close to the deadline.

[MordyS]

Well, Muffin is my third choice for scum, so it won't pain me too much if we lynch him.

[MordyS]

Oh, what the hell.

Unvote, Vote: Sociopath

[MordyS]

So let's get a claim and then a hammer?

[MordyS]

You know what I love a lot about the Muffin/Sociopath lynch? That Peanutman basically didn't mention Muffin until Papa Zito started pushing for the lynch, and Almaster, outside yelling at him for buddying with SpyreX and me, has barely engaged with him. C'mon Peanutman. Be a hero. It's hammer-bus time.

[MordyS]

I still think it's Peanutman + AlmasterGM for the last two. Gonna do a full reread first, tho.

[MordyS]

Yes.

[MordyS]

I built a fairly large case against you yesterday.

[MordyS]

Tbh, I think lynching you would be really helpful right now.

[MordyS]

MordyS: why the sudden change in playstyle at the end of the day 1, and today? You're very tight-lipped now. Is there a reason for it?

Yes, there is. I'll have what to say in a bit (despite feeling Peanut is a good lynch, I haven't voted for him yet), but at the moment I'm -- to quote cruelty, I believe? -- hold cards close to my chest.

[MordyS]

EBWOP holding*

[MordyS]

Briefly (I neglected other games when we were going into n1, so I've also been neglecting this one a tad now that we're out of it); I don't necessarily buy that Peanutman "pushed" the Muffin case in any meaningful way that would excuse him. Especially if AlmasterGM turns out to be scum -- then it could have just been trying to sap the wagon off AlmasterGM enough to turn Foilist into the lynch (since at that point it seemed likely a majority was gonna flip). Esp when you read:

So, Sanjay, who do you suggest we lynch? Papa Zito brought up the fact that Sociopath hasn't really posted anything since he replaced in a week and a half ago. I would have to reread Muffin in iso before but, as I said, I don't think AGM of Foilist are scummiest. Therefore, I would be open to exploring a Muffin/Sociopath lynch. If PapaZito, you and I all vote for Sociopath, the three wagons are tied at 3 votes each.

I will reread Muffin in iso to determine who's the better "realistic" lynch IMO.(realistic = would garner enough town support (i.e. min. 4 votes) to be lynched).
unvote

@Sociopath, I suggest you start posting, even if you aren't done reading; it's been over a week.

Where the @ seems a bit like coaching, and the initiative appears to be introducing parity between the wagons (ie: If we switch, they'll all be tied, not that Sociopath will be lynched.) Notice that when the other two voted, he didn't. His entire plan was tied to the three of you voting for Sociopath, but in the end, he let only two of you vote for him -- which would've culminated in Foilist being lynched had nothing else had changed. It seems likely to me that some bad luck led to the entire town jumping onto Sociopath. To me, it reads like a failed gambit.

Re: Archaebob, let's not lynch a townie just because he screwed up. I still have a solidly town read on him (much having to do with his defense of foilist) and I think he authentically believed Muffin was town. It doesn't make any sense to me that at L-1, with a lynch all but guaranteed, Muffin's scumbuddy tries to defend him. That's the time to bus (and bus, I believe, happened). In fact, I'm willing to bet that among the people attacking Archaebob at the moment, there are scum. So I think cruely and peanutman would each make a good lynch today. They're both trying to take advantage of what looks - to me - like innocent townie error - and turning it into a mislynch. If I'm right about who is scum, that would make one of them a fail townie and the other scum. (If they're both scum, well, yay.)

Anyway, in summary: I'd prefer lynching peanutman, but I'm down with the cruelty too.

[MordyS]

Here's the significant vote count, btw:

Vote Count:
AlmasterGM (3) MordyS, foilist13, SpyreX
foilist13 (4) cruelty, archaebob, AlmasterGM, Gammagooey
SocioPath (3) Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay

Note Voting (2) SocioPath,peanutman

If Spyre + I hadn't switched, foilist13 would've gotten the lynch, and Sociopath, despite peanutman pushing him, would've only kept AlmasterGM from getting the lynch, but not had gotten the lynch himself. It would've been like running a third party candidate for an election who steals enough votes from the most popular candidate that the less popular candidate can win. (And yes, foilist13 had more votes for awhile, but this was right after we learnt about the new majority rule changes, and AlmasterGM was picking up steam again.) Essentially I want to know, if Peanutman was into the Sociopath lynch, why wasn't he on the wagon nice and early?

[MordyS]

Here's the other piece of evidence to support my argument:

However, I'm noting how quickly some people have switched their vote, especially considering their near certainty that Foilist or AGM were the only viable candidates to be lynched today.

For example, Spyrex has seem convinced of lynching AGM, not believe the doc claim at all, yet will quickly jump on any bandwagon near the end of day, perhaps given his lust for blood. As for MordyS, he seemed to lead on that Foilist and AGM where the only two options (based on his question at post 728). That being said, Muffin was always on his most wanted list.

If you felt this was a good lynch, why are you suddenly so upset that SpyreX and I were on it? I thought you were pushing the lynch. Additionally, your mention of me here is particularly scummy. You want it both ways: You want to cast a bad light on my vote ("MordyS, he seemed to lead on that Foilist and AGM where the only two options") even while admitting that Muffin was always on my most wanted list. So if Muffin was always on my most-wanted list, why would you feel the need to mention that there's anything weird about my vote?

[MordyS]

And you can't deny that I was key early on in getting the Godfather lynched. I'm not saying I should be obv-town because of it, but it seems useless to build a case against me based on that.

I've seen scum buddies play "key" roles in getting their partners lynched, and I've played a game where my scum buddy did to me what I'm suggesting you did to yours (verbalize a push for lynch without committing a vote -- either as part of a gambit or to create distancing). I don't think you did tons for that lynch, I think you're overplaying your role in it, and your post doesn't address what I'm accusing you of doing. The timeline supports my argument -- and you still haven't answered why you didn't VOTE for Muffin when you made your case.

There is no one in this game that I take for granted are town. Sure, there are some I would rather not see lynched based on faulty or illogical cases or more important issues, but I wouldn't want to be blinded by evidence against someone because I have a "solid town read" on them. And I say this because you seem to be completely ignoring Bob's different playstyle since the Muffin BW. What do you make of this? Also, you say that he screwed up? How so? How would town-Bob have screwed up in Day 1? I can see how scumBob screwed up, but enlighten me on the town-Bob scenario.

Town-Bob sincerely believes AlmasterGM is scum (as do I). No one has made a strong case against Muffin (I hadn't even posted my case, just alluded to it), and suddenly everyone is voting for Muffin. He gets flustered, doesn't understand the vote, rails against it. I suspect coming into today, his behavior changed because he remains flustered. I think he's fairly newbie, and probably thought what you (and/or Cruelty) thought: He's going to be an easy lynch to push because of his vocal skepticism of the Muffin lynch. That's how I read it.

I was basically posting aloud, because you had mentioned that we had to choose between AGM and Foilist (narrowing the town's scope) but you still always felt that Muffin was scummy. Are you nervous that I mention you, when it isn't completely positive or negative? I thought it was better to share these thoughts with the town than to keep them to myself. In fact, I was saying it seemed scummy but given you "points" for having a basis for your vote on Muffin (i.e. it wasn't completely blind on your part).

lol. Yeah dude. I'm nervous. Or, more likely, I find it suspicious when someone tries to show how something seems scummy, even while they're simultaneously admitting that there are other factors that alleviate the scumminess. It makes me think that they're trying to sow distrust and make townie looking players look less than townie. OR in this scenario, that they're trying to scare town players off of voting for their scumbuddy Godfather.

[MordyS]

Btw: No way SpyreX included Peanutman in that assessment. He was talking about the people actually voting on the wagon.

[MordyS]

Actually, I'll take it a bit further. If he is scum:

SocioPath (5) Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, SpyreX, MordyS

I'd put HEAVY money on that whole list being town.

That's the list. No Peanutman. Is that surprising?

[MordyS]

Sure, there are some I would rather not see lynched based on faulty or illogical cases or more important issues, but I wouldn't want to be blinded by evidence against someone because I have a "solid town read" on them.

Are there some you would like to see lynched based on faulty or illogical cases?

[MordyS]

Great. You still haven't explained why you didn't vote for Muffin. Don't worry. I'll wait.

[MordyS]

V/LA for Thanksgiving Weekend

[MordyS]

Vote: Peanutman

I trust my gut feelings. Also, did PhaerieM ever explain why he was getting a scumvibe from me? And did Peanut ever give a good explanation for why he didn't vote for Muffin when he made his initial suggestion to wagon him? (Let's 3 of us vote for him and he'll be tied with the other wagons -- oh, you two vote. I'll vote later.)

[MordyS]

I explained why Peanutman. But here's an argument in a nutshell (pun, lol):

He argued that we should "shift" the lynch to Muffin, but without actually shifting his vote at all, which strikes me a lot of secret intentions. He hasn't answered why he didn't vote after he said he would. His answer for not voting only makes sense if he's the hammer vote, but he could've voted long before that. And then today he basically tried to take full credit for the lynch, which strikes me as LOL.

[MordyS]

@archaebob:

I would love to lynch AlmasterGM, but I'm satisfied lynching his scumbuddy and then lynching him. For the record, tho, I'd happily lynch either.

re your peanutman question:

And you can't deny that I was key early on in getting the Godfather lynched. I'm not saying I should be obv-town because of it, but it seems useless to build a case against me based on that.

Also, something I noticed while reading Peanutman in iso:

And I say this because you seem to be completely ignoring Bob's different playstyle since the Muffin BW. What do you make of this? Also, you say that he screwed up? How so? How would town-Bob have screwed up in Day 1? I can see how scumBob screwed up, but enlighten me on the town-Bob scenario.

There's defending Bob, and then there's playing for him. And you are slowly creeping into the later.

So essentially he asked me to explain why I didn't think archaebob was scum, and when I did, he accused me of playing for him. So, peanutman, another question you can answer when you deign to answer why you didn't vote for Muffin yesterday: Why would you ask me to explain someone's behavior and then accuse me of playing for him after I answer your question? Was it entrapment? Did you forget you asked the question? Are you just willing to say anything to discredit the case against you?

[MordyS]

Oh no, cruelty. (Say it ain't soooo...) Why are you voting with me if AGM is your #1 target?

[MordyS]

Peanutman hasn't posted in six days.

(Can we lynch him plz?)

[MordyS]

As for the reasons for not having a vote on Muffin, I think you are completely misrepresenting and deliberately ignoring my original posts and previous answers to this. You don't have to agree, and you can think I'm scummy for it, but don't say I haven't answered it when I have, repeatedly. But I'll give it to you one last time, read closely :
With PZ's vote on Muffin, I saw hope that the day could end on a different lynch than AGM/Foilist, lynch's I wasn't feeling (as I had already stated). I saw an opportunity to vote someone else, a recent lurker no-less, and remembered a case that PhaerieM had made on Muffin. Therefore, I unvoted and encouraged others to look at Muffin, as I was doing. I didn't vote Muffin at that time because I wanted to get a proper read on him before doing so. By the time I did get a chance to read him in iso and form a solid D1 opinion, the wagon was at L-1. I wanted to give Socio a chance to claim, post, do something before hammering. AGM hammered before Socio chimed in (who knows if he actually would have). That's why I said, D2, that I played a role in the lynch, because I knew some would claim I wasn't one of the voters and I therefore did nothing for it. I felt that my actions contributed to the lynch, even though my vote was pre-empted by AGM's. It's not that I orchestrated it all, but I wasn't standing idly by

I know you said one last time, but please, once more. Explain how this ^^^^^^^ makes sense with this:

So, Sanjay, who do you suggest we lynch? Papa Zito brought up the fact that Sociopath hasn't really posted anything since he replaced in a week and a half ago. I would have to reread Muffin in iso before but, as I said, I don't think AGM of Foilist are scummiest. Therefore, I would be open to exploring a Muffin/Sociopath lynch. If PapaZito, you and I all vote for Sociopath, the three wagons are tied at 3 votes each.

I will reread Muffin in iso to determine who's the better "realistic" lynch IMO.(realistic = would garner enough town support (i.e. min. 4 votes) to be lynched).

If your only concern is which lynch was more "realistic," then you could have quickly joined the Muffin wagon. Instead, you spent the entire duration of the wagon posting sporadically about how you have yet to read Muffin in iso, you're almost going to read Muffin in iso, and then finally, when it was at L-1, how reading him in iso didn't change your mind but you're still not quite ready to hammer him. And, as I mentioned before, you even attacked people (myself and SpyreX) for joining the wagon. If you honestly believed that AlmasterGM + foilist13 were bad lynch candidates, and that Muffin was a good lynch candidate, then your refusal to put a vote down and your criticizing those who did is a tad confusing.

Moreover, you wrote that, "I would definitely hammer at this point but will wait for Socio to respond first. My read-through of Muffin didn't change my mind." The implication of this sentence is that you had a scum read on Muffin -- and therefore reading him didn't change your mind. If you had a scum read on him, you weren't just exploring other lynch options. You were confirming that your scum read was real by reading him in iso. Not only is this incongruent with what you're claiming here, but it's also incongruent with your other actions. For instance, you voted for Foilist13 because you wanted a lynch, even tho you didn't think he was the best lynch candidate.

So here's the question for you: How come when it comes to foilist13, you were happy to vote, but when it came to Muffin, someone who you felt was scummy, you continue to insist to me that you didn't want to vote until you read him in isolation to confirm that feeling -- waiting until not only a full wagon had formed but someone else had hammered him?

I have no doubt at this point that peanutman is lying. I'm just unsure whether he's a townie who has legitimately confused himself, or he's scum who didn't want Peanutman lynched and was holding off until the end from voting for him on the hopes that a different lynch would surface.

[MordyS]

AlmasterGM ftw!

[MordyS]

Why do I suddenly want to lynch archaebob?

[MordyS]

Why aren't you feeling the Peanut lynch? Maybe we can talk it out.

[MordyS]

If I'm not wrong, that makes it L-1. Wanna claim, Peanutman?

[MordyS]

Oh, nevermind. Archaebob unvoted since the last count.

[MordyS]

Unvote

(Unless I hear a counter-claim? No? Bah.)

[MordyS]

I believe Peanutman's claim. I think the risk of claiming a PR with one member of a scumteam already dead is too high for average scum to try (too much chance of a counter-claim). I don't think that tells us anything about his sanity (so AlmasterGM could still be scum), but at this point I'm willing to admit I was wrong -- Peanutman probably isn't scum. The good news is that if AlmasterGM *is* scum, he can't kill Peanutman tonight or it'll become clear that he was faking his doctor role. If he isn't scum, we'll still get one more night of investigation and hopefully it'll help clear someone / help establish his type of sanity.

Anyway, taking those two off the table, the two other super possible lynches for today are archaebob + Cruelty. I trust Papa Zito's opinion after the Muffin lynch, which could be a good heuristic for a Cruelty lynch, but the presence of AlmasterGM + foilist13 (scum/mistake makers) dissuades me. I could be down with an archaebob lynch, tho. His recent material has me a little flummoxed, and his protest against the Muffin lynch actually isn't a bad recent to lynch him. He's at least bad at reading players (thus he protested so vigorously) if not scum himself. Also, I'm guessing at least one scum player WASN'T on the lynch. That leaves Gammagooey, Peanutman, Archaebob, and cruelty. I'm not lynching Peanutman today for above stated reasons -- so it's between Gammagooey, Archaebob + cruelty in my eyes. Archaebob has risen the most red flags for me (tho before the day ends I'm gonna read Gammagooey in iso again).

Thus:

Vote: Archaebob

[MordyS]

EBWOP: bad reason* to lynch him

Also, I want to echo whoever said that if you're a doctor/cop, you should counterclaim. Killing a second scum, even at the cost of outing a PR, would put town in an amazing position.

[MordyS]

I don't at all understand what you are saying here. Can you please walk me through the logic?

Happily. If AlmasterGM is scum, and Peanutman dies tonight, then that means he didn't protect him. Why wouldn't the doctor protect the cop? Epso facto, the doc is lying. Therefore the cop can't be killed tonight if AlmasterGM is scum. If AlmasterGM is town, then he protects Peanutman, and likely dies himself (I assume, if he's town, that scum left him alive because there was a lot of scrutiny on him), which means the cop stays alive for at least one more night. Does that make sense?

Why do you trust Papa Zito's opinion more than you would normally, and why do the presence of AGM and foilist dissuade you?

Papa Zito was right about Muffin. Effective scum-hunting goes a long way in my book. AGM + foilist13 are either scum (a reason to distrust them), or have displayed poor playing this game. Both are good reasons to be skeptical of their scum-hunting. I'm using a heuristic to try and figure out who might have a good read on who the scum are -- this was simply me demonstrating it in short-hand.

How is my protesting against a quick-bandwagon on someone who I didn't think was a smart move for the town to lynch a good reason? I still don't think that was a smart move. It was lucky that that wagon hit scum at all, and had Socio flipped town, we wouldn't have gotten any information whatsoever.

You go read the thread, Mordy. My resisting that wagon was utterly consistent with my play, and I have no doubt I'd be under quite a bit more heat had I suddenly just hopped over to the big wagon like everyone else.

I really am not liking the casual way you voted Archaebob. You didn't specify any reasons, except that he has raised "red flags" and that he protested the Sociopath lynch yesterday. I think that his protest was consistent with his earlier play. I haven't ever seen Archaebob do things casually, and he requires ample reason to do anything.

Yes, it was consistent. But he also protested a wagon on scum that lynched scum. It's unfortunate if he turns out to be town that was just trying to do the best thing, but he still protested a scum wagon. SpyreX (our martyred townie) said as much: If Muffin flips scum, it's time to look at archaebob again. I was hesitant to do so before because I thought I had stronger scum reads on Peanutman. In the absence of that read, though, it's time for me to acknowledge that he was absolutely correct. Whether it's internally justifiable or not, you still protested a scum lynch. That's something to take a second look at.

What are you basing this guess off of?

The speed of which the wagon formed plus the predominance of other wagons during the day. If I were scum, I'd hold off the wagon in the hope that I could get one of the other candidates lynched instead. I think it's reasonable to think that if there are two scum (presumably aligned, but I really don't know), even if one got on the wagon in time, it's unlikely that two of them lynched their partner. Especially since two people staying off the wagon and on a different wagon could've theoretically forced a different lynch. It's a probability play, but I think it's cool.

Oh, and why is this exactly?

Read above. Also read my response to your "I'm starting over" post which raised all kinds of red flags for me. Actually, now I'm wondering; What if foilist13 + archaebob are scum partners? Archaebob defended foilist13 on Day One and foilist13 just came to his rescue today. Idle speculation, but would actually totally diminish the town-tell that archaebob gave on Day One.

I still like the Cruelty lynch, and if we buy what Peanut is saying, I think that his is best by far.

Do you not believe it? If not, why not?

MordyS, there was something extremely scummy about that last post. And it's not OMGUS.

I'm all ears, scummy dude.

[MordyS]

Archaebob, can you explain this exchange between you and Muffin?

Comment on what, specifically? The exchange between you and foilist? Please clarify or link/quote/whatever.

I agree that foilist appears to be reading/replying selectively and the fact that he is continuing is raising my eyebrows, to say the least.

I also agree though, that your approach has been less than diplomatic.

@ Muffin - have I been particularly undiplomatic in this game?

I mean, y'all from 846 have a very specific idea of what kind of player I am, though the truth is I've been trying out different metas for all of my games. I don't think I've been notably abrasive in this game so far, except perhaps in direct response to foilist.

No, I don't think you've been particularly abrasive or undiplomatic. Certainly more cooperative than 846, but then again I have a high threshold for that sort of thing.

Why did Muffin change his mind between the first post (you're less than diplomatic) and the third (you haven't been particularly abrasive or undiplomatic)? All that happened in the middle is you asked him if he believed what he just said. Rereading his early conversations with you, it sounds a lot like what you accused Chinaman + Muffin of doing: Having minor inconsequential tiffs to distance yourselves. Except even worse, since as far as I can tell, the only vote either of you placed on each other was Muffin on you in RVS. And because it seems like the moment Muffin accuses you of something, you complain about the attack without defending yourself... AND THEN HE AGREES WITH YOU AND DROPS THE CASE. <--- Important part capitalized. Can you explain this?

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Sorry for the flooding of messages but one more thing I think I should mention: I'm assuming that either 1) Scum don't have a roleblocker or, 2) AlmasterGM-scum can't claim he's been roleblocked tomorrow since he didn't claim he was roleblocked last night, and presumably, if scum had a roleblocker, they would have blocked the exposed doctor. (Which would eliminate the possibility of a successful protect, not to mention would make AlmasterGM look even scummier if he claimed being roleblocked.)

[MordyS]

Are they not told? On IRC they're always told whether they're blocked or not. Is this something the mod could let us know about?

[MordyS]

Hopefully he'll answer in the thread. Anyway, here's how it helps us: If you can be roleblocked without getting a message about it, then they can roleblock you tomorrow night and kill the cop (assuming there's a roleblocker). This is important to analyzing tonight's actions. If you do get a message when you're blocked, that means they didn't roleblock you last night, which suggests to me that either they don't have a roleblocker, or you're lying about being doctor. If however you're normally not informed, we can't make those conclusions.

[MordyS]

Yeah, Sanjay -- he didn't just stump for your lynch by any measure of reading comprehension.

[MordyS]

A couple of people asked why I said Mordy started looking scummy to me. There were a lot of logical inconsistencies & just plain wrong statements in that multi-post rant Mordy had before I said that, & they struck me as way off. Mordy was someone I'd been pretty convinced of as town before, but those posts really got me looking at him. I will have to go back & read them again in order to give details. Sorry, I just feel kind of lost with so much going on.

Please follow up on this ASAP and don't let it linger. Unspecified accusations ("logical inconsistencies & just plain wrong statements") is scummy if not backed up with examples. (Scummy because it's casting suspicion on a player, but without giving them a chance to respond, or other people a chance to evaluate your case.)

[MordyS]

It is Alice in Wonderland.

[MordyS]

And yes, Mordy. I protested a scum lynch. But to call that scummy, the burden is on you to prove that my protest was illegitimate. And I still think that lynch was a risky, bad move for town, and that you are LUCKY it caught scum. Very lucky.

Actually, you're wrong here. Your protest was illegitimate. The burden of the proof is on you to prove it was legitimate. There's a dead scum body, and you're not innocent until proved guilty. I'm sorry you disagree, but those are the breaks.

I defended foilist13 day one? This is a fucking joke, right?

Nope. In fact, it was your defending foilist13 day one that gave you a town read in my eyes. Here's the exact quote (for posterity):

Foilist, don't worry. I'll give you the full-fledged wall post of a case you deserve before we get around to lynching you.

Spyrex, here's something you might want to look at. Foil was cop in this game, and got himself lynched with a slip up in the third line or so of the post I've linked you to. His play from that point was as idiotically stubborn and as scummy looking as it has been in this game. I tunneled him, and we lynched him pretty quickly; the catch, though, is that he was actually town.

Therefore, I'm not actually positive that foilist is scum. It is clear to me though that he hasn't learned his lesson from that game, and is therefore somewhat useless to the town.

This post was very possibly the single greatest factor in foilist13 not being lynched yesterday. I'm not saying that you're scum buddies with him. I honestly have no idea who you're scum buddies with. But I'm surprised at your vehement denial. It was a pretty big moment in this game. Dost thou protest too much?

And this is stupid. It's pure conjecture, and not even good conjecture, and I find it down-right criminal that you are using this as a serious reason to push for my lynch.

I disagree.

This, however, is not so good thinking. My town read on you yesterday was contributed to strongly by the fact that you seemed like a dedicated, independent thinker. I hope you will continue to act in the same way, and not start any of this "follow the person who happened to be right" bull-shit.

Why are you citing the opinion of our martyred townie, as if that somehow makes him more likely to have been right? This is getting increasingly weird.

I'm going to treat these as the same question: Why am I relying on other people's opinions/arguments? Because that's what intelligent people do. They consider other people's opinion, weigh the value of them, and either adopt or discard those opinions. Papa Zito got scum lynched. Whether he knew 100% that Muffin was scum, had a gut feeling, or simply thought it was a better lynch, it doesn't matter. He's led a wagon on scum. That gives him credibility in my book. I believe giving him that credibility is an intelligent move. With SpyreX, he is not only cleared town (which means I know his comment had no ulterior motive), but I also respect his opinion from a previous game I played with him. I know he's an excellent scum hunter and an excellent thinker. Again, being willing to entertain other people's opinions is what makes someone an intelligent player. You see this decision as bizarre. I see it as a good play.

Also: Your post is a classic example of OMGUS. You haven't actually attacked me with anything outside my own attack on you. If there was something legitimately scummy in that attack (like total fail-logic, or a scum-slip) that would be one thing. But you disagree with my opinions and have decided that because you disagree with them, that makes me scummy. You need to distinguish between style of play and actual scumminess or you're going to continue to confuse OMGUS with legitimate lines of attack.

Why you over Cruelty? Tbh, you're more scummy today.

[MordyS]

Oh yeah, two more things I meant to address.

That is, assuming you are town. I'm becoming increasingly more convinced that there is someone on that wagon who KNEW it would work, and was onboard for that very reason.

Explain please. Why are you becoming more increasingly convinced of this? And related:

I completely reject this notion that it somehow makes sense to draw categories in this game based on who was on that wagon. I mean, what were your reasons for jumping onboard exactly, Mordy? From what I remember, you sorta just said "what the hell," and hopped on. Frankly, I think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that your "what the hell vote" somehow makes you less likely to be scum than my "are you fucking kidding me I'm not going to switch wagons like this for no reason" refusal to vote.

I said before the wagon even began that Muffin was my third favorite lynch for the day. In that context, my switch to him makes perfect sense. Do you not remember me listing him? Or are you willfully "forgetting" it?

[MordyS]

I agree with this assertion. Cop should investigate who he finds suspicious and tell us tomorrow.

[MordyS]

Nope. I don't have a theory. Just speculating about a possible link, so when you flip scum we remember to look back at this moment where you defended foilist13 and he returned the favor. It's not some grand theory. Just noting something curious.

Sleep well, dude.

[MordyS]

Eh. In my experience it's not a good idea to try and direct cop investigations. That's maybe a conversation for a theory thread tho. If you disagree, I guess feel free to direct it. Personally, tho, I think it's a bad town move. (I guess if you really wanna have that conversation we could have it here -- but I almost feel like this thread is congested enough.)

[MordyS]

On the town/scum coin, it's scum. But it's not terribly scummy (I can see a number of circumstances where a town would try the same thing). So more scum than town, but honestly not enough of either to give me goosebumps.

[MordyS]

So while I've got you guys here, is it just me or is archaebob reacting kinda hysterically to being attacked? Rather badly, I'd say.

[MordyS]

Because the cop is the guy with the role and there are various problems introduced when "town" tries to direct the cop. I'll reread your case, but that Chinaman vs. Muffin argument was inane nonsense. And I've attacked Sanjay + IIRC Chinaman. An example:

Sanjay, do you mind me asking how carefully you've read the thread so far? I understand it's long and there's a lot of dense posts, but I'm getting the impression that you're trying to play catch-up by asking old questions anew and pretending that you're uncovering something fresh.

I guess this is gently informing him of making some minor mistake? (Sarcasm.) Your approach to being attacked, btw, (trying to attack me with whatever dirt you can think up) isn't effective. Try to defend yourself and attack people you legitimately believe are scummy. Stop trying to discredit me. Or at least find something good to discredit me with. Your cases are a waste of time.

[MordyS]

I tried to read archaebob's cases on Sanjay, but totally didn't get them. Can you explain the thing about Sanjay knowing foilist13 was scum because he knew Sanjay was town and therefore because he didn't vote foilist13 that means he's also scum? Cause that case made my brain explode.

[MordyS]

Mind explaining this one? Or will you only pursue this if someone else does in fact confirm that it's not "just you"?

What am I explaining? Why I asked other players to confirm my read of you? Because I did. Any other reason I have is none of your business. As far as pursuing it -- I'm voting for you already and pushing for your lynch. I think I'm kinda committed to archaebob-scum at the moment.

[MordyS]

In fact, you haven't made any complaint about it either. If my case made your head explode, why didn't you mention it when you first read it?

Because I didn't pay much attention to it the first time you posted it. I glanced over it, it wasn't compelling, and since my attention was elsewhere I didn't follow up on it. I'll spell out why it's dumbassery tho. The crux of the case is that Sanjay easily should've realized foilist13 was scum because foilist13 "knew" Sanjay was town and only scum could know that. Of course you ignored the possibilities that, a) foilist didn't "know" Sanjay was town, but had a town read on him, b) he did "know" Sanjay was town, but Sanjay didn't realize he "knew" it and assumed he had a town read on him. That's why it made my head explode.

You are explaining why you think my reaction to you is hysterical, rather badly you'd say.

Oh, okay. Because when I attacked you, instead of deftly defending yourself you basically decided I was Public Enemy #1 (even being aware you were at risk at OMGUS'ing, you mentioned that this wasn't that), and started attacking me with improbable cases. I discussed Sanjay/Chinaman about as much as I did other people. There isn't a notable difference in the amount I dealt with him and, say, PhaerieM, Gammagooey, Papa Zito or SpyreX. I've actually talked about him and attacked him more than a few people. And he's certainly mentioned me often. For you to bring this up to explain (in your mind, I guess) how I would dare attack you strikes me as illogical and hysterical. This is the same in a number of your other attacks. I don't mind being attacked, but you're going about it very poorly. It makes me think you're scrambling, and while town has been known to scramble, it's often a good indication of scum.

Btw: I asked Benmage about the doc/block thing, he said he couldn't tell me. So -- make of that what ye shall.

[MordyS]

@archaebob, please quote that other game and please quote the attack he made on me and please show why they're similar? Thanks.

Also, please answer why you believe someone on the Muffin wagon knew he was scum. You have continued to avoid that question. Thanks.

[MordyS]

Well, I reread the thread. It was actually worse than I thought. At least the way I initially read it, archaebob was making a case. A bad case, but a case. On reread I see that he actually just made up a reason for why Sanjay voted for foilist13 that had nothing to do with what Sanjay actually said. Reading Sanjay in iso it makes perfect sense why he switched to foilist13. Anyway, how close are we to lynching archaebob-scum?

[MordyS]

- My gut went "OH MOTHERFUCKER" when I read the post that he voted me in. Instead of going off the deep end, i'm taking things slower this time, to make sure I'm not being OMGUSy, or falling prey to confirmation bias.

confirm vote: MordyS

Lulz. So, let's quickly review what has changed in between Archaebob having a town read on me and him deciding I'm so clearly scum that he not only needs to vote for me, but *confirm* vote for me: I attacked him and decided he was my preferred lynch for the day. Anyway, I really hope you're scum archaebob, because if this was a town reaction you've got a lot of learning to go. (Well, if it's a scum reaction, the same, but maybe more forgivable. I've flipped out as scum when someone has attacked me. This one time I really freaked out because I thought the case against me was flawed and I couldn't believe I was gonna be lynched because of a BAD case. That seemed totally unfair, so I tried to attack the person making the case against me for having badlogic and thus being scummy. Does this sound familiar? I actually made out alright. He was kinda hysterical himself.)

Let me help you out. You think I'm scum and you want me lynched? Go back, find some things I said that you think are actually scummy (not just reasoning/conjecture you disagree with), present them logically, and explain what is scummy about them. As is, it sounds to me like you're acting hysterically. Thus my comment earlier.

@foilist13: Doing an option+f on my iso, Sanjay comes up 27 times. Chinaman comes up an additional 14 times. Doing an option+f on Sanjay's iso, I come up 38 times. If you want some comparison, Phaerie comes up only 9 times in my iso, Papa Zito only comes up 12 times, and Gammagooey only comes up 41 times. If you wanna read through and see the contact of those mentions, feel free. But don't vote because you "assume" he's telling the truth. That's lazy play.

[MordyS]

It now seems as though this is realistically between MordyS and Archaebob, and I am inclined to choose MordyS.

How is this even true? There was one vote on me. How is this realistically between me and Archaebob? There isn't a single scummy thing I've done. The one case against me that you agree with turns out to be factually incorrect. This is the reason why I wanted to lynch you yesterday -- awful, awful, awful play.

[MordyS]

I have to give it some thought. I looked at that thread and actually saw a lot of behavior similar to the behavior he's shown in this game (lots of asking people their opinions, lots of lurker-watching). I didn't see him come under attack quite like he is here. But you could be right. I'd like to hear more from him tomorrow. If he is town, maybe this analysis will make him take a deep breath. Here was the vote at the end of yesterday:

FinalVote Count:
foilist13 (2) cruelty, archaebob
SocioPath (7) Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, SpyreX, MordyS, foilist13, AlmasterGM

Not Voting (3) SocioPath, peanutman, Gammagooey

If the scum team is Sanjay, myself and SocioPath, that means that if all three of us had voted for foilist13 instead, he would be at 5 votes and SocioPath would only be at 4. Foilist13 would have been the lynch of the day. For Sanjay + myself to be scum, you have to believe that we both abandoned otherwise decent townie wagons to wagon our Godfather together. This is another reason why I think only one scum bussed SocioPath are the most: The numbers don't work for two scum to bus him. There was a perfectly good other lynch that could've been pushed. It really only makes sense if at most there was one scum on the wagon.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: at the most*

[MordyS]

This post is ignoring the fact that *both* peanutman and gammagooey had stated their intentions to hammer Socio before the deadline.

True, but they could only hammer Socio once Sanjay and I brought him to L-1. Even if the logistics don't work out perfectly (I take your point about Sociopath being AWOL), there's still this to consider -- Sanjay and I were both on the wagon fairly quickly. Does this sound like a scum bus to you? Especially when neither of us were alternative candidates? And both of us had expressed opinions about Muffin/Socio-scum in the past? It seems far more likely to me that one of the scum wasn't on the wagon, and that the other scum was one of the two people who hopped on in the end with nary a word nor explanation (like, say, foilist13, whose explanation for voting was: "Well I'm in no position to go crying, so sure." what does that even mean?).

[MordyS]

And here begins a long-ass response.

Why is that, Mordy? Why am I scummier than cruelty? If you had some reason for thinking me scummier, it isn't even remotely clear from the thread. I also don't understand why you left foilist out of your list of possible scum candidates.

I'm going to tell you a secret. You were scummier in the beginning because I picked you at random out of the two. I couldn't see a reason to vote one over the other and I wanted to vote for someone who wasn't on the wagon. Gammagooey by contrast strikes me as more townie than either of you. So I picked you, and you made me feel really good about my choice when you went insane. The indications of that insanity will be explored in this post. Read on.

It sounds like he already decided that I was the one he wanted lynched, and constructed a seemingly logical thought process around that assumption. He gives us this whole progression of what appears to be logic, narrowing down his range of possible candidates to Gamma, cruelty and me (surprise surprise)

I'm going to be blunt here. Prove that I decided I wanted to lynch you and then formed an argument. Like I said, I wanted to attack someone who wasn't on the Muffin wagon. It was between you and cruelty. I picked you. You have your odd posts, like everyone else (many of them catalogued in the beginning of the day - your change in style, your disappearance - many from Day One) and that seemed like a good thing to hone in on. Here's a secret about scum-hunting, sweetheart: You pick someone you think might turn up scum and you hunt them. I didn't have a 100% read on you being scum when I chose you. Your response, by contrast, has been illuminative. If you want to compare/contrast this to Day One, look at how I picked at foilist13 + AlmasterGM. Neither of them did anything on the face of it that was scummy (AGM pushed a silly case on Gammagooey, foilist13 accidently voted for the wrong person). What made them scummy was the way they reacted to the prodding and pushing. This is similarly what makes you scummy. If you have some kind of belief that I've tunneled on you and am persecuting you (as your "surprise, surprise" comment seems to indicate) explain why I consistently defended you in Day One (and in Day Two while I was hunting Peanutman).

This is completely and utterly bogus, especially since Papa Zito has said himself several times that he didn't actually have a strong scum read on Muffin.

I've made this comment before, and the fact you still haven't processed it suggests that you're either a) not reading carefully or b) ignoring it. Not having a strong scum read does not mean you have no scum read at all. Some people consistently lynch scum while never having a strong scum read. They intuit scumminess, or feel it in their gut. If Papa Zito says, 'It was a total coincidence that I started the wagon on scum,' then I'll concede your point. As is, tho, you're making a distinction by graduation and pretending it covers the issue.

I haven't heard any arguments for this being the case, but the one that MordyS presents is down-right ridiculous. In the quote, he explicitly states his agreement that my play has been consistent, but says that I should be lynched anyways since I protested a wagon on scum. So what's your theory then, Mordy? Lynch everyone who is wrong?

Actually, I didn't "explicitly state" my agreement that your play has been consistent. What I said was, "whether it's internally justifiable or not." You may be familiar with this rhetorical trope. It means that even if you can justify your many protests, I still believe you deserve a second look. I actually don't care if your protests are internally convincing. Scum can also make internally convincing arguments for protesting scum wagons. It's not hard to make an argument. Yours in particular doesn't excuse you at all. Your argument is that the wagon was random and you wanted to vote for someone more likely to turn up scum. Except the wagon wasn't random. There's a lynch all lurkers policy in Mafia for a reason, not to mention that I had a scum read on Muffin long before the lynch. There's was nothing random about the lynch. Your insistence that it was random, and your insistence that its randomness exculpates you, is terrible. And no, if you read carefully, I didn't say "lynch everyone who is wrong." I said take a second look at the most vocal opponent of a scum lynch.

Equally disturbing is his deliberate use of Spyrex's "martyrdom" as justification for his vote on me. Spyrex said, according to Mordy, that if muffin flipped scum, I deserved a second look. Well...I'd say I already got that second look, at the beginning of this day. If, in your second look, you were still unable to find anything inconsistent about my play, then I expect you'd want to move elsewhere with your positions. How about a third look? What if I'm still consistent then?

You're no longer consistent. You're making bad arguments and tossing around faulty accusations. So you can drop that little line there. As for SpyreX, I already explained why I used his opinion. This is yet another case where you failed to read carefully. I said that SpyreX has been proven townie. I can implicitly trust that what he said was pro-town. Do you understand what this means? It doesn't mean he's 100% right about everything he says but it means that since I trust his scum-hunting abilities, and I know he's for sure town, I can put some stock in his opinion. Let's try this in an easier format so you can't ignore it again:

1) I trust SpyreX's scumhunting abilities, but...
2) I don't know he's town, but...
3) He flipped and now I know he's town, therefore...
4) I can implicitly trust his scumhunting.

3) The wagon "probably" didn't have both remaining scum on it, so it seems "reasonable" to assume that at least one of the scum stayed off the wagon. This is because the wagon moved way too fast, and the two scum could have probably gotten somebody else lynched instead.

First of all, this logic is bull-shit, as demonstrated by Phaerie. Second of all, this is a bull-shit reason to want to lynch me. Look especially closely at that last sentence, which I've bolded. Mordy thinks that though it's a probability play (and a bad one at that), it's still "cool". This is a down-right absurd justification for a vote, even worse than anything I've seen from AGM this game.

Actually, PhaerieM just demonstrated that two scum couldn't totally change the lynch of the day. She didn't demonstrate the psychology of scum players and why I feel the wagon probably didn't have both remaining scum on it. Read my response to her. Read it again. Read it a third time. Stop ignoring the things I write to make a strawman case against me. It's a great probability play, and I'm happy to play it.

I'm especially interested in this notion that foilist and I might be scum-buddies.

It was an idle thought. I said as much when I wrote it. The fact that you've responded so poorly to it (arguing strenuously that there's no possible way it could be true) rings strange to me. If it's not true, just say as much in one sentence. This is the second post you've brought it up in. It sounds like I struck a chord.

I agree with cruelty.

I do too. Foilist13 jumping on that case like that was really something weird.

I believe Peanut's claim at this point, largely because I think i've caught both remaining scum.

What does this mean? If you hadn't "caught" both remaining scum, would you not believe Peanut's claim? How about on its own merits cause -- guess what -- you suck at scum-hunting if you're town (if yesterday is any indication, and I personally know you're sucking at it today). So don't decide to believe him because you've "caught both remaining scum." Evaluate the claim on its own.

Interesting. Did that argument we were just talking about actually make Mordy's head, explode, or did it? If it did, then it shouldn't matter who posted it. Saying that Sanjay's reasons for voting foilist made perfect sense immediately after everything else he had just finished saying are what have me convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he is scum. I see no scenario that is remotely possible in which the above could be Mordy-town's genuine response to having discovered who made the argument he didn't like.

You may have a point here. It's a bit too convoluted for me to unravel, and I'm going to show you why that argument was wrong for a different reason, but here's what happened. I read the case you made on Sanjay, but it was worded inarticulately and I had no idea what you were trying to say. (I actually just wrote 500 words trying to parse out what I think you were trying to say, but I'll skip that. If it's important, we can come back to it.) If your argument is that scum Sanjay noticed foilist13 thinking he was town and decided to distance from him, and your argument is predicated on him noticing too late for your tastes, there's a simple issue: there's no reason scum-Sanjay would notice foilist13's comment any later than town-Sanjay. Anyway, I'm willing to take the hit for this. I really don't understand archaebob's argument against Sanjay from here fully, which may indicate that there isn't much of a good one. This is probably the reason I barely noticed it the first time (which would explain why I didn't comment on archaebob's case against Sanjay). If it becomes really important, I'll sit down and reparse it. It looks really specious to me, tho.

And what's his response? To sweep everything under the rug, and casually ask how close we are to lynching me:

Uh yeah. Whatever.

I see no scenario that is remotely possible in which the above could be Mordy-town's genuine response to having discovered who made the argument he didn't like.

MordyS, why do you think I switched to foilist13?

This is actually really easy. Go read Sanjay in iso. His voting for foilist makes perfect sense to me. Look at his 8th post in iso ("foilist13, here is my main question: WHAT THE HECK?"), where he recommends his lynch in post 10, attacking him in post 14, his FOS in post 26, his concern in post 39, and then in 48 the major discussion from which you make your inarticulate argument. But the entire game Sanjay has been suspicious of foilist13 (with the brief exception of his timeline post). I was absolutely not surprised that he voted for him and do not believe it was scummy.

MordyS's logic is sound?

Unfortunately for you? Yes.


SUMMERY
I know people hate reading super long posts. Consider this post my manifesto against archaebob. In it I make two concessions (I admit that I didn't have a super scummy read on archaebob when my case on him started -- but I wanted to vote for either him or cruelty and I picked him. With the caveat that Sanjay might be right that insane-archaebob is still town archaebob, I have a mostly scum read on him at the moment. I also admit that I probably didn't understand archaebob's case on Sanjay that I was discussing. I do explain why I don't believe Sanjay was scummy for voting foilist13. It's very possible I'm still missing something in archaebob's case.). I also mostly re-explain everything I've already said. If you can read (ie: aren't archaebob), you can probably skim most of it. I've written it in posts before.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Sorry, I attributed an archaebob quote to PhaerieM in there. It should be obvious which one I made the mistake with.

[MordyS]

Make you a deal. Write any case I've left unanswered against me. But write each case next to a number, and write it in three sentences or left. I thought I answered all of them, but I might have missed one. (Do make it quick tho. My macbook cord just died and once I'm out of battery, I'm going to be afk until I can get it replaced tomorrow afternoon.)

[MordyS]

Additionally, archaebob, you now have three outstanding questions that I've asked you and you have not yet answered: 1) Why did you decide scum was on the Muffin wagon? 2) Please quote the attack Sanjay made on his scum buddy the last game, quote the one he made this game, and show the tone similarity 3) What do you think of Peanut's claim on its own merits. Not because you have a town read on him out of PoE?

[MordyS]

@foilist13 - Explain why you accepted archaebob's case against me (w/r/t not mentioned Sanjay) without actually looking up the evidence yourself. The manifesto was explaining why his cases are bogus, which forms the crux of my current argument: archaebob responded to pressure very poorly. Now explain. Now. Please. Thank you.

[MordyS]

EBWOP:

I don't even think you called him scummy, there was just a bunch of OMGUS, and insults.

OMG LOL. Do you realize I attacked archaebob first? Are you even following the fucking thread?

[MordyS]

Some things on their own (like if you made the argument) aren't as troublesome in the context of a larger case. Sanjay had been attacking foilist13 all day. One slightly iffy case didn't raise my suspicions because of that broader context. If you had made that case, it would be scummy tho because it would be one piece.

That's the answer. Now keep to your deal. And answer my questions.

[MordyS]

And here goes my connection. I've got access on my phone, so I might contribute short posts, but it's not conducive to long sprawling quote-filled posts. Anyway, things I'm waiting for: foilist13 to respond to my questions, archaebob to respond to my questions. ttfn!

[MordyS]

You skipped all the points you ignored the first time yet again.

I said ask a question and I'll answer it. Seriously, is there something wrong with you? I don't wanna sound rude, but this is getting annoying. Ask a question, I'll answer it. If you have a case, state it.

(Side note: Borrowed a friend's power cord, so I'm back in business.)

[MordyS]

On reflection, that was rude. Archaebob: State your case. Ideally in an easy to read list. Stop claiming you have more without writing it. Stop claiming I'm avoiding questions without saying exactly which questions I'm avoiding. Doing these things is scummy and make me feel good about my vote.

[MordyS]

Well, I want to lynch someone who wasn't on the wagon. I think I've said that a number of times. That's why I wasn't considering foilist13 for today. As for as acting hysterically, though you may actually not be able to see it, you've made a lot of awful cases and bad arguments -- which suggests to me that you're discombobulated. This is what I've been observing throughout the last couple pages.

This is seriously the big thing I've dodged, dude? I haven't dodged a thing. You need to read more carefully. Actually, can I recommend you read over this entire day? If you're town, I suspect you'll have a post in about twenty minutes about how you need to reevaluate everything you've thought. Almost everything you've said has been hysterical.

[MordyS]

Until you have explained why you aren't at all irked by the contradictions I have brought up in Mordy's play, i consider every assertion you have made regarding my being "ridiculous", "illogical", or even "wrong" to be a scum-tell.

I think I've answered every "contradiction."

[MordyS]

lol. Whatever dude. Either you're scum or awful town. In either case, I want you lynched today.

[MordyS]

My peanutman case disappeared? You're asking why I didn't default to cruelty? I basically flipped a coin after peanutman claimed cop to determine my next target. You came up. So I pushed a little and you went nuts.

Archaebob: Is it fair to say that if I hadn't attacked you, you wouldn't be so convinced I'm scum? Doesn't that make you a wee bit suspicious of yourself?

[MordyS]

Well, no. I was using that as a turn of phrase. I did pick archaebob freely. I couldn't say exactly why, but my gut said attacking him might turn something up. But very a miniscule feeling. It was practically 50/50 in my head.

[MordyS]

Like I said. Had a feeling it might turn something up. Also, (though I could just be reading into my actions in hindsight) I mistrusted my town read on you. I was hoping that pushing on you could make me feel more secure about it. After all, there have been a lot of cases against you this game and I've pretty much dismissed them all because I had a town-read on you. It was about time to get up-close-and-personal.

[MordyS]

Well, for one, my opinion was that Peanutman was certain scum. So I distrust my opinions often. When it turned out my almost-certain feeling was wrong, I was willing to take another look at some other cases. After all, if I could be wrong about Peanutman, I could be wrong about you.

[MordyS]

I think this is what is happening: Archaebob needs me to be scum in his eyes for whatever reason. (Maybe he's town who is unwilling to admit he's wrong again. Maybe he's scum who needs to discredit my attack on him.) Every time he asks a question, I answer it. And he's frustrated. Look at how he totally ignores my responses to throw out new info that I answer. And now that he's exhausted all his "ammo," he wants his case to speak for itself. Except he doesn't have a case, so it can't speak.

Look, Archaebob, if you're town, unvote, admit you're wrong, and do some real scumhunting.

[MordyS]

I think it's plausible. I'm not sure if it's true. I think at this moment he's the best lynch for today, though.

[MordyS]

I really believe that at least one of the scum members wasn't on the wagon. And I really don't know what to do about foilist13. He's either poor town or poor scum. How exactly does one distinguish between the two? (Tho I don't like that he posted without answering any of the questions posed to him, and then disappeared for the rest of the evening.)

[MordyS]

I actually agree with cruelty again that this whole debate between archaebob and me could easily be a distraction from scum-hunting. So I'm going to pull a more minor element of the debate out that I think will actually help town find scum. I asked archaebob why he believed there was scum on the Muffin wagon. He responded:

1) I never decided this. I said I was becoming increasingly more suspicious that this might be the case. This is because I didn't feel like I could reconcile the speed and randomness of the Socio wagon with only town players having been involved. However, I've never pursued this seriously as an argument, so I'm rather surprised that you need to me answer it so badly.

This is actually a very important discussion imo. Like I've written before, I strongly believe at least one scum wasn't on the Muffin wagon. Archaebob has called that conjecture badlogic, and when coupled with his argument that scum were actually driving the wagon, it's understandable why he'd differ. (A side psychological point: I was on the wagon, and so it's no surprise I would like to see and portray it as mostly clean and townie. Archaebob was off the wagon, and so it only helps him to see and portray it as scum-driven.) The reason I'm bracketing this discussion out of this larger argument is because I think determining the likeliness of locating scum on/off the wagon will be really useful in lynching today. So here are a few reasons I think it's likely at least one scum player wasn't on the wagon:

1) Like SpyreX mentioned, it moved very quickly. This is a point I personally agree with. It was so close to deadline that people (IIRC, I even said something to this affect) were worried that a third wagon would just totally screw any intelligent lynching for the day. It was surprisingly how quickly the wagon was formed. One could read that quickness as town looking for a strong lynch -- even if there wasn't an explicit scum-read on Muffin/Sociopath, lynching lurkers can always galvanize the town.

2) This was the Godfather that was lynched. I have no idea whether scum have other PR's, but a Godfather is an incredibly powerful role. The decision to bus him seems very gutsy. Even if one scum member decided to go for it, I'm skeptical that both would find the cost-analysis favorable.

3) It didn't actually feel like anyone was bussing him. The kinds of remarks that tend to accompany bus-votes (accusations of being scum, other sorts of distancing) were more or less totally absent. I'd have to reread the relevant sections to be totally sure, but it seems like most people were okay with the lynch, but didn't feel particularly strongly about it. Why would scum, looking to profit from bussing capital, not make a strong scum case on Muffin/Sociopath at all?

4) This is contestable, but even after I had voted (putting him at L-2), I still didn't feel like the wagon was necessarily going to hold. I mean, there was some excitement and it felt like momentum was building, but after seeing a few wagons assemble and disassemble it didn't feel like an inevitable lynch. Yes, it was very close to deadline, but we still finished before deadline. If scum wanted to make a last minute defense and try to push the lynch elsewhere, I feel like there could have been success there. (Only one person -- the person on whom I am currently voting -- tried to push the wagon in a different direction. Obviously archaebob felt that he might have some success pushing the wagon off Muffin/Sociopath, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered arguing. So even he should agree, putting aside what his motivations for trying to shift that wagon were, that it wasn't fait accompli that Muffin would be lynched.) If scum could have pushed a lynch on someone else, why wouldn't they?

5) From my personal experience, both scum are never on a scum wagon. I've never seen it happen. It might have happened, I'm sure, but I've never seen it. Not once. And it makes sense why I've never seen it. If there are 3 scum, why would 2 bus the third when all 3 could wagon someone else? PhaerieM is correct that there are mitigating circumstances here -- Sociopath seemed MIA -- but even with that, I have a hard time believing there were two scum on the wagon.

Here's why I believe this conjecture is important. There were seven players on the wagon (Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, SpyreX, MordyS, foilist13, AlmasterGM) and five players off the wagon (cruelty, archaebob, SocioPath, peanutman, Gammagooey). If you agree with my points above, and indeed think it's very likely that at least one scum wasn't on the wagon, then that means there's a 1/4 chance of hitting scum if we lynch someone who was off the wagon. By contrast, if we try to lynch someone on the wagon, it becomes a 1/7 chance. That's part of what I meant by it being a good probability play. I'm convinced at least one scum wasn't on the wagon, so I'd rather take a shot at the people off the wagon. Especially since I'm coupling the people off the wagon with my belief that Peanutman's claim is true (which is why I wanted archaebob to weigh in on whether he believed Peanutman's claim, I'm not totally satisfied with the answer). If you believe Peanutman's claim is true, that actually means we'd have a 1/3 chance of hitting scum if we lynch someone who wasn't on the wagon. IMHO, these are amazing odds. I think Gammagooey is town and between archaebob + cruelty I think archaebob is the better lynch. That's where my vote is staying for now.

The essential question that needs to be asked is: Which is more likely, that both scum bussed Muffin/Sociopath or that at least one scum was off the wagon? For me, the answer is obviously the second.

(There is more to write about this. I really believe that everyone who voted before me was town. Anyone who voted that early was on the wagon before it had really picked up steam. I don't see a good reason for Sanjay, PhaerieM, or Peanutman to bus Sociopath that early. It's possible - theoretically - that one of the scum partners got on the wagon in the beginning, and the second scum partner got on when the wagon was already inevitable. But that seems like a very longshot to me.)

[MordyS]

One more big post for the night:

If I'm forced between AGM And Foilist I'm going Foilist, but damn what a crappy choice to make. If we had more than a couple days I'd push for a Sociopath wagon because there's no way in hell he's just having that hard a time just catching up.

Actually, you know what, let's do this. Cruelty can wait. Hop aboard.

unvote: cruelty
vote: SocioPath

Sorry you guys, I got a bit frustrated as you can tell from my last post, and kind of checked out for a few days. I shouldn't have done that, and especially so close to the deadline. I'm very happy to see that there is at least a tiny bit of momentum on my Muffin case, and therefore will vote him. As I stated before, I was/am in the same boat as Papa, I don't feel AGM or Foilist are the right lynch today, but would vote for Foilist if it comes down to those two. Now that it looks as if some of you are taking my muffin case seriously, I will happily vote for the person I truly want to be lynched.

Give me a bit to catch up on the last few days, and I'll see if I have anything more to add.

vote: Sociopath

Vote: Sociopath

I don't have a stunning alternative lynch recommendation (I could see Cruelty's posts coming from town, though if he is I hope he takes my calling him useless to heart).

Sociopath's lurking could be genuine and it could be not, but it's going to suck if Sociopath survives to endgame with thirty pages less of data than anyone else. Vote Sociopath to keep that from happening.

Plus it'll be exciting to see what PhaerieM does once we take away her favorite candidate.

Not only do all these votes feel townie to me, but here was the vote count after SpyreX + I switched over:

Unofficial:
AlmasterGM (1)foilist13,
foilist13 (4) cruelty, archaebob, AlmasterGM, Gammagooey
SocioPath (5) Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, SpyreX, MordyS

(Note: Peanutman had been included in this unofficial vote tally by accident. I'm removing him from the quote for ease of calculation.)

Which means that there were 4 votes for foilist13 at this point and 5 for Sociopath. PhaerieM noted that Gammagooey and cruelty had said they would hammer. But I just reread the thread. When the vote count was at this point, Gammagooey and Cruelty hadn't agreed to hammer yet. They only did that a couple pages later. What does this mean? That at this point, Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, and myself, each, individually, not even as a scum-pairing, could have voted for foilist13 instead and he would have been at 5 and Sociopath would have been at 4 instead. And like I've mentioned, I don't think the Sociopath lynch was inevitable in the least.

Therefore, as far I'm concerned, Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay and myself are as confirmed town as I can see it. Any one of us could have kept our vote on foilist13 / put our vote on foilist13 and pushed that lynch instead. With ease. None of us had a good scum-reason to bus Sociopath. I'm sure archaebob will contest this, but this feels ironclad to me. (At the very least, this is iron-clad evidence that Sanjay and myself can't be scum together. If we were, we could have both kept on voting foilist13 - which would have kept him at 6 (!!) votes and left Sociopath at only 3 (!!). I think everyone would agree that had that happened, Sociopath would most definitely not have been lynched yesterday.)

[MordyS]

True, I wasn't thinking about an SK. And yes, anything is possible. But I can only deal with what seem like really good percentage plays. So people can take what I said with a grain of salt. This was simply my feelings on things. (It's not actually WIFOM -- it is more likely that it played out the way I'm describing it. WIFOM is when there's an equal chance of either thing happening. But you're right in keeping an open mind.) So if we vote off the wagon (my preference), I think the vote is between archaebob, cruelty + gammagooey. If we vote on the wagon, I wouldn't be willing to vote anyone but foilist13 (he's the only unclaimed person on the wagon who came in after the Papa votecount, and like Gammagooey pointed out, he'd be awful to keep around for lylo). But like I've said, I'd rather not today.

[MordyS]

You are ignoring that both Gammagooey and peanutman said they would hammer after the claim. This means that had you and Sanjay not been on the wagon, they surely would have, putting foilist up to six, and socio up to five.

Actually that's not true. Read the post where I explain the chronology. Sanjay and I both switched two pages before Gammagooey said he would hammer. Not sure where peanutman said he would hammer, but we switched before that as well.

Archaebob, I'd drop this recent line of attack. I switched to Muffin because people were into the lynch, and as it was my third choice (as I stated) I wasn't too disappointed to switch to him. As far as you go: My big contradiction is that I thought you were a dumbass newbie and then I decided you might be scum? Seriously? Tell me how this isn't OMGUS.

A question for you: I wrote last night that Gammagooey promised to hammer two pages after I switched wagons. Why did you write the post that I just quoted in light of that? Did you not believe me (and were too lazy to check yourself)? Did you not read what I wrote? Did you read it but forgot it? Are you scum?

Answer this please, ASAP ^^^

[MordyS]

Happily. This was in the middle of my Peanutman case, immediately after Archaebob's big 'I need to reevaluate the game' post.

Why do I suddenly want to lynch archaebob?

It gets echoed in my vote post:

Anyway, taking those two off the table, the two other super possible lynches for today are archaebob + Cruelty. I trust Papa Zito's opinion after the Muffin lynch, which could be a good heuristic for a Cruelty lynch, but the presence of AlmasterGM + foilist13 (scum/mistake makers) dissuades me. I could be down with an archaebob lynch, tho. His recent material has me a little flummoxed, and his protest against the Muffin lynch actually isn't a bad recent to lynch him. [...] Archaebob has risen the most red flags for me (tho before the day ends I'm gonna read Gammagooey in iso again).

When the time came to vote, he had the most recent red flags. Unless Archaebob thinks I was preparing an opportunistic switch to him after Peanutman claimed cop (and how could I possibly know that was going to happen no matter what my alignment), I was already getting red flags about him before I even started the case. So when I decided to pick between cruelty + archaebob, even if cruelty was supposedly the "scummier" player, archaebob had the far more recent red flag.

[MordyS]

Here, or when I first spelled it out? I mean, when I switched my case from Peanutman it was really two competing votes and I didn't feel incredibly strongly about either. So we're talking about graduations of scumminess -- a gut feeling here, a frowny face there. I was (and am) scumhunting. This is what that looks like.

[MordyS]

Well, I took those into account too. Idk - it seems pretty obvious rereading it what I was doing. If you felt it was unclear, tho, then yeah. Presumably I could have been clearer, but that seems like the human condition. Lol

[MordyS]

In order of scumminess:

1. Your reaction to a little pressure. Upon voting for you, you went into full OMGUS mode. You made an awful case against me, practically frothing. In my experience, this is what scum do when they're attacked with a case they don't feel is good enough. (Ie: "Yes, I'm scum. But I can't believe you're trying to lynch me with that case!") I've done the same when I was scum.

1a. You don't read my cases, you ask me questions I've already answered, and you push spurious logic (like the assertion that Gammagooey/Peanutman already committed to hammering) even after it has been disproved.

1b. When I ask you questions, you ignore them until I've pressed on them so hard that you're forced to respond. And then you respond by totally minimizing the questions. (Why do you think there was scum pushing the wagon? Oh, because it went so quickly and anyway I don't really believe it THAT much. Do you believe peanutman's claim? My mind doesn't work that way, but I guess I'd be cynical.)

1c. By contrast, when I answer your questions you suggest that you have even more questions without actually asking them, or that I've failed to answer your other questions but without specifying which ones I didn't answer. In other words: I've been open and dianoetic while you've been closed and obscure.

2. You protested the Muffin/Sociopath lynch vigorously. In fact, you're the only person who protested it quite that much. You have an explanation that justifies why you protested it, but it remains a justification. Ie: Even with a good explanation (and I don't fully buy yours), it was still an inherently scummy act.

2a. Side note. Yes, I excused archaebob's protest earlier today. At the time I had a newbie read on him. I said as much, that I thought he was a dumb newbie who was being bandwagoned by scum. My opinion has since changed. I think I was quick to label him a newbie when evidence suggests that he's more of a competent player. I made an argument yesterday about why I suspected AlmasterGM over foilist13 -- AGM isn't a VI, and therefore it's more likely his mistakes were scummy. I've come around to that position on archaebob as well. Therefore, an entire host of mistakes he has made over the day (some that I've noted publicly, others that I just noted mentally) now seem more scummy.

2b. Some examples: His propensity to ask a lot of questions of other people and lurker-hunt, to give the appearance of participation while actually limiting his own scum hunting. His refusal to answer questions asked of him in a timely manner, but his simultaneous willingness to refuse to even participate until someone answers his own. His generally poor case-building and scum-hunting.

3. I believe strongly that at least one scum member wasn't on the wagon. That means my lynch for today is between you, cruelty and Gammagooey. Gammagooey has struck me as town and continues to strike me as town. Cruelty, upon rereading his answers for today, has been remarkably collected, reasonable, and intelligent. Moreover, Cruelty + Gammagooey both said they would be willing to lynch Muffin. True, they didn't place a vote, but they also didn't protest the lynch vigorously. By process of elimination this leaves you. Moreover, as I've already mentioned, you've acted erratically and seem panicked and scrambling today.

[MordyS]

If we lynch Mordy today, and Mordy flips town, then you can quicklynch me tomorrow, and I will not protest AT ALL. Mordy flipping town would indicate that i really have no clue how to play this game.

If you're in fact town, this is a horrible thing to write. If town lynches me today and then quicklynches you tomorrow, you'll be doing everyone a grave disservice. If you are town, then yes, you really have no clue how to play this game. But we have a win condition. If somehow you push a lynch on me, then I expect you to defend yourself tomorrow. Not to concede to a quicklynch.

The fact that you're certain enough about me being scum that you're willing to be quicklynched tomorrow if you're wrong tells me two things:
1. Either you're scum and you're hoping you'll get me lynched and then somehow divert being lynched tomorrow. (Perhaps by making a too-scum-to-be-scum argument.)
2. Or you're town with awful hubris in addition to your poor play. I'm not even 100% convinced you're scum. I happen to think you're the best candidate at the moment, but if you flipped town I wouldn't be willing to just be quicklynched. Unless you're a confirmed sane doctor you never absolutely know the alignment of another player. The fact that you believe you absolutely know my alignment is cause for concern. And should be cause for you to reevaluate what you think you know in this game.

[MordyS]

Near the beginning of the game I believe I glanced through it. I haven't looked through it in awhile, though I do remember reading you write somewhere that you were intentionally trying to switch your meta up. So I'm not sure what value reading your town meta will have. (If I'm misremembering that, let me know. I think it was in the conclusion to one of your games, maybe?)

[MordyS]

I'm still weighing it in my mind. Re the division of responses tho, I'm much more inclined to believe a meta argument coming from someone else than from the person themselves. I intend to look over the game he requested I look at, tho that'll probably have to be later in the week.

Here's the thing, tho, and I've noticed this a couple times. Not everything is a contradiction. I didn't respond strongly when you said I should consider archaebob meta (I said I'd consider it, it was a possibility), and I haven't responded particularly strongly here when archaebob asked me to look at his meta (I said that I think I had glanced at it, and I'm questioning the value of it). With regard to this particular case, I'm wondering a) the value of investigating archaebob's meta to make conclusions about his play here and b) if there is a value, what exactly that meta tells me. But in general, I'm not the pope. I'm not making grand declarations. I'm working through information as it arises and I'm considering things, trying to think about them logically and empathetically. If I expressed what seems like contradictory thoughts on the meta, especially if the thoughts are both phrased so hesitantly with considerations, that's likely because I'm weighing between the two. It's kinda silly to treat my thought process as something more like mutually contradictory facts.

In general, re: Meta, it would help me to see specific posts quoted, with specific arguments attached. Things like, 'He acted X there, and was town,' (like you said, Sanjay) doesn't contain a primary document for me to analyze myself. Maybe there are differences between this case and that case. Other things like, 'Read my participation in a different 30 page game,' is the opposite problem. What exactly am I looking for? There's too much signal-to-noise to really get a good read imo.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Just to clarify, Sanjay, I realize you said that he was a very confident scum person when he played scum, which might suggest his hysteria upon being attacked here is a town-read. So specifically in terms of that I have to ask: a) Can I reasonably believe his meta in a different game can tell me something about this game and b) Is that really a similar case? I haven't seen, from the brief scanning I did of that game, anyone go after archaebob like I did in this game. I'm unsure that the two cases are comparable. If you feel they are tho, I encourage you to post some quotes that you think bear a reasonable relationship to this game.

[MordyS]

I'm not dropping it. I could lynch cruelty if it came to that. And like I said, I plan on reading Gammagooey soon (once this particular thing has run its course). I think I actually said earlier who I think my possible lynch options are. In order: archaebob > cruelty > gammagooey > foilist13.

[MordyS]

If this becomes between archaebob and me, it will be epic town failz. Especially considering the fact that - possibly with the exception of my misreading the Sanjay/Archaebob thing - I haven't done a single scummy thing today or this game.

[MordyS]

I would like to see the response post you had promised, then feel free to take off until Friday.

[MordyS]

Yeah, whatever. Clearly there are scummy things you've done, more so than any other player. I'd list them, but I'd essentially be quoting Archaebob, so I won't until I have something new to add. The bottom line is he's right. As for factually incorrect, that part of the case is no longer what I'm basing my vote on, but I still haven't checked it out for myself.

You know what? Fuck it. Foilist13, you can't make your own case, you can't deal with information in the thread, you've been playing terribly/scummily since day one, you jumped onto the wagon after my cut-off point, you're indicating archaebob's "super strong case" which I have totally dealt with and dispersed. I don't know if Archaebob is scum or not. He's certainly been scummy, but at this point, you're practically a policy lynch. I don't really care how this makes me look either.

Unvote
Vote: foilist13

[MordyS]

Because I'm frustrated. Between archaebob, foilist13 and PhaerieM there are practically thousands of "cases" against me that none one of them has seen fit to bring. Instead they allude to them and promise to get to them very soon. You might be right about archaebob -- he's probably a fail-townie. Foilist13 might be a fail townie too, but at least archaebob looks like he's trying. He's not just appealing to other people's cases (or non-cases). He AT LEAST has an OMGUS to explain his bad play. Foilist13 has no excuse at all.

And finally, if archaebob is town, and I'm lynched today, then archaebob will be lynched tomorrow. It'll be a huge town disaster. So I'm going to push foilist13 as hard as I can so that if I'm lynched tomorrow, hopefully fail-townie archaebob has some room to maneuver tomorrow and scum can't stack lynches two days in a row.

It's kinda criminal what's happened in this game over Day Two. I blame it partially on my tunneling on Peanutman and partially on SpyreX -- a player who actually knows how to play leaving. I'm just disgusted and I'd like to lynch the guy who deserves it.

[MordyS]

EBWOP Leaving = obv being NK'd. I'm sure he wasn't happy to go.

[MordyS]

Yep. There I go again. Making bad cases and lying to the town. (Sarcasm.) Maybe I'm just offended by foilist13's horrific play and getting ticked off by how you've joined him scraping the bottom of the Mafia skill barrel.

[MordyS]

Actually, you've played exceedingly poorly. That's not an ad hominem. I'm not insulting you personally. I'm insulting your skill and that is absolutely germane to this game. Moreover, not only do I barely expect your kind of playing from newbie games (of which this is not one), but I find it incredibly frustrating that I have to consider with you and foilist13 whether you're scum or just completely lack an inability to think critically. Which is to say: If you can think critically, you are absolutely scum. Ditto with foilist13. And yet, instead of being able to pursue a sound strategy of, say, lynching liars, lynching badlogic players, etc, I have to spend my bloody time reading your meta to uncover whether your complete asinine bullshit is actually a town tell or not.

Can you see why that might be frustrating? As you continue to push a case against me that I've completely explained, while you have simultaneously avoided defending yourself at every twist and turn? Can you see why I might be annoyed, especially when Sanjay comes and says, "Well, archaebob being a total idiot might be a town tell." And then foilist13 displays contempt for any suggestion of reason or thought as though such considerations are either beneath him, or just simply not worth wasting time on. How exactly am I supposed to scum hunt when pointing out bad logic and lying (and yes, you have consistently ignored points I've made, misrepresented my positions, and claimed to have made cases that you in fact did not make -- all things I loosely consider lying). I almost wanted to be lynched at one point just so you could realize how much of a bloody idiot you are, but then I remembered you could, and probably are, scum, and I'd get no satisfaction from rubbing that nonsense in your face.

Do you understand where the perfectly legitimate frustration comes from? By contrast, your hysteria, as I've pointed out, comes in the form of inanity, lies, and total disregard for logic.

[MordyS]

Platitudes? Jesus christ. You barely know English.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: I really have tried being polite to archaebob, but at this point I don't know what else to do. I've answered every question he's asked me. Since that question is primary: "WHY DO U ATTACK ME?" it hasn't been a particularly hard question to answer. I have about a dozen questions against him that he has not answered. For instance, he still hasn't explained why he continued to push the story that Gammagooey promised to hammer two pages earlier than Gammagooey actually did.

Did you lie, archaebob? Are you a liar?

[MordyS]

I'm going to avoid instigating anymore at the moment

Uh. Is this a scumtell?

[MordyS]

If someone puts archaebob at L-1, once he claims I'll hammer him.

[MordyS]

I believe archaebob is now at L-2?

[MordyS]

Archaebob, claim please. And maybe it's time to write that defensive post.

[MordyS]

A couple more questions for archaebob:

The only thing I could have done, really, was try to pull another "nobody post until he posts" stunt, but I guessed that it wouldn't work, and that I would just be forfeiting my ability to influence the D1 lynch. I decided to let him slide with the lurking, focusing my energy instead on trying to move the wagon over from AGM to foilist.

How is letting someone slide in order to conserve your own "ability to influence" a townie action? Imo, townies should not be concerned about their own influence, only about producing pro-town results. If it's anti-town to lurk, isn't it anti-town to let lurking slide?

Sociopath's flip has given us an incredible wealth of information, and I want to have a good handle on it before I post anything.

Have you ever explained what information you feel you can divine from the wagon? What is this "incredible wealth?"

Let it be recorded in this very official record that I owe foilist13 a rebuttal to the six points against Cruelty in his post 953 before Day 2 comes to a close.

I haven't seen this, did I miss it? Are you still planning on rebutting foilist13's six points before Day 2 comes to a close? Or is this another promised post that has not yet come?

And...guess what! I thought I knew who the mafia were, and I was wrong! Maybe, just maybe, I'm actually humble enough to realize that I might not totally know what's up, and therefore want to avoid assuming any sort of role as top of the town immediately at the start of Day 2.

Words to live by.

A question for the rest of you, because I've been trying to make heads and tails of it, but am coming up empty-handed:

Honestly guys, this latest vote from peanutman is almost a dead giveaway. I mean, really, peanut? Between AGM, foilist, and me, you actually think that I'm the most likely to be scum, and the most productive day one lynch for the town?

This is NOT for talking about now but it will be. This is a bad news bears kind of statement.

It is irritating to no end that no one is bothered by the fact that AGM is random and impulsive, and has no interest in helping the town, he simply doesn't want to be lynched.

This is the above quotes bastard brother who, together, have started a bank robbing spree and collect the skulls of squirrels.

If you want to know why BOTH of these statements are bad news....

Too bad. Lynch. Someone can pull it together tomorrow.

I have the sense that this is very important. (Also, when I noticed it digging back through the thread, it made my heart smile because SpyreX clearly also saw a connection between foilist13 + archaebob.) What does everyone think SpyreX was alluding to here, though? I'm gonna give it more thought, but if someone has any idea why SpyreX was so ticked off by these statements, I wanna hear theories.

[MordyS]

My archaebob FAQ:

My fullest, most complete case (Here), a question about archaebob ignoring cases (Here), and three of my original questions (Here) that he dodged (Here). Finally, my most recent questions (Here). Except for the three he dodged, he has not answered any of these yet.

Also, bonus: My question to foilist13 (Here), and his answer that basically he's willing to accept arguments without checking out the evidence himself (Here). As far as I know, he still hasn't looked at the evidence himself.

So when archaebob comes back to this thread and claims I've never made a case against him, or he's answered all the questions against him, the FAQ is handy and here.

(Btw, does anyone else think maybe SpyreX was killed so he couldn't say what was so "bad news bears" about that post? It's a little WIFOM, but considering who he wanted to look at tomorrow if Muffin flipped scum, it points in one person's direction -- well, maybe two.)

[MordyS]

Oh my god, guys. This is a little exciting case I just dug up.

In all honesty, I'd totally prefer lynching a lurker over a scummy player who's being active. I consider it the priority of Day 1 to make everyone establish a position and a pattern of play, so that we can get to the real scum-hunting after the first flip. I'm much more worried right now about the day ending with Muffin, China, and fatchic being allowed to keep to the shadows than I am of leaving foilist or AGM alive an extra day.

Muffin, you need to post.

(Seriously. SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY. HE WROTE THIS.)

Sociopath is a replacement. What justification is there for lynching him? You think his lurking is at all an indication of him being mafia?

This makes very little sense. Can people please explain why foilist/AGM is suddenly not a good lynch anymore? I'm very suspicious of all these sudden wagon hops.

Suddenly, Pharie votes for Sociopath, and suddenly a large chunk of the town does. What the hell am I supposed to make of this exactly? The lurking is smelly sure, but neither Muffin nor Sociopath ever really did anything concretely scummy. I certainly didn't think randomly quicklynching Sociopath would be good for the town, as there was no reason to expect that he wouldn't just turn up as a lurker townie. And tell me, what would we have learned if Sociopath had flipped town? Nothing.

Guys. My heart is weeping with joy at the moment.

[MordyS]

Though I have no doubt now he's scum, I really want him to give a response before he's lynched. After digging that up I wanna see what contortions he'll go through to try and justify it. Anyway, since I think we're about to wrap this day up, here are my more general feelings: I reread Gammagooey and AlmasterGM. I actually have town reads on them both now. Subject to change, but yeah. I find a lot of Sanjay's posts today troublesome, and, though it would mean they were super distancing all Day One, I could see an archaebob/foilist13 scum partnering.

Also, I finally read archaebob's meta. In particular, I read Newbie 842, where he won as scum. Starting from this post (Here) and down, his methodology and technique reads a lot like it does here. He accuses a town player of contradicting himself and dodging questions over and over again. He doesn't really engage in a dialogue, more of just pounding away on these talking points. So to answer Sanjay's question earlier about reconciling archaebob's meta with this game -- I actually see a lot of similarities between that game and this one. Here is one example post so you guys can judge for yourselves (tho obviously a lot of the case comes from the series of posts read in continuum).

I didn't start by relentlessly assaulting him...please play close attention. I started by asking him to define "good pro-town play". My attacks on him are not based on his playstyle, but on the way he dodged my questions.

I asked him about "theory" because I wanted him to justify his playstyle. By dodging my questions, and then giving contradictory answers, he earned my suspicions.

Do a PBPA of me. I think you'll find that everything I've said has been in direct response to something HE has said (or refused to say). Whether or not you agree with my case, I don't think I've done anything to warrant your vote.