Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[peanutman]

Nice to meet you all in Plainview this morning!

@Mordy, I'm relatively new to the site but, although RVS is not ideal, it's really the best system that I've seen thus far.

Therefore,

Vote : Gammagooey

, the name doesn't seem to flow.

[peanutman]

Sorry about my lack of posting. I am unexpectedly V/LA (rather, quite limited access) until Monday evening, though I will have a first read through of the last few pages and comments tomorrow morning.

[peanutman]

I know a few people have already raised it but this is a fast moving game and not everyone can be online every day. That being said, I am usually much more present, and plan to contribute more as of Monday. However, this is what I've picked up so far. I'll start by doing this,

unvote

, given my first post out of RVS.

Spyrex accusing AGM of a scum-slip about the word "killing" is really a weak argument to contribute to the building AGM wagon. His quote seems much more like a visceral reaction to Archaebob's comment that says much more of his annoyance to the latter's RVS joking-style than to the game itself.

As for Gammagooey, there is one thing he stated that really doesn't sit well with me.

Mordy-I have trouble seeing the motivations for a mafia to stick his neck out and say that something is absolutely not scummy and draw attention to himself.

Why feel the need to prevent thoughts of buddying between you and Mordy. I had given that prospect much wait until you went out of your way to mention it. Even if this isn't the case, I am rather opposed to identifying people as town, in the early days for a few reasons. For one, the scum can single-out people who seem most pro-town based on those statement. Also, it can cause the town to ignore them in their scumhunting, based on the fact that some people feel they are town.

@ Foilist, regarding your voting behaviour. If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. 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?

***---___---***---___

Now, for my preliminary case on Archaebob.

Vote : Archaebob

. Here's why:
1)

@ Chinaman - why aren't you voting for Muffin or AGM?

@ China - I just asked a question. You and foil are the one's drawing conclusions about what I "want" you to do.

Now, your question does ask

why

he isn't voting. However, taken in context, you aren't so much asking him way he isn't voting but more insinuating that he must vote on one of those he has suspected. And as for "drawing concusions" on statements, isn't that the whole basis of MafiaScum? In the end, I draw the conclusion that you were pressuring Chinaman to vote which is scummy in my book when the game is already flowing at a nice pace.
2) Your play style, a plethora of short posts, many lacking serious and valuable content, gives the allure of activity and any kind of questions may seem like scum-hunting, but it doesn't hold as much weight when really looked into. I encourage you to make longer, more coherent posts, with more content.
3) Regarding your exchanges with Foilist, you repeat at many times that he is ignoring your important questions and arguments, but I had trouble myself finding them. If you do have questions that are repeatedly unanswered, either repeat them, quote them or link to them. It would make your arguments much more convincing to me, and to the rest of the town I believe.
3)Also, you vote without any explanation.

unvote

vote foilist

Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:

@Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.

So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.

I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.

[peanutman]

@Archaebob

, could your scumlist also be titled : "People who have questionned or accused me of being scummy"?

Foilist never made this argument, so why are you making it for him?

I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games. Given that the majority of the players are town, chances are when I pick up on something and I question them, they are probably town. Nonetheless, I do question them to get a read, but I don't feel the need to always be aggressive. 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.

Re : Mordy

Another post that really doesn't sit well with me. This is totally unnecessary.

I hope to God SpyreX is Town, because if he isn't, I'm scared to death.

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

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.

Finally, regarding the Foilist BW, I don't get a strong scum feeling from him. To be honest, I don't think a scum would act in this way on the first day. This could of course be taken into WIFOM so I'm not claiming him town but I wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch on Foilist just yet. Others have acted scummy as well.

[peanutman]

You are saying you don't think scum would make a mistake and then be obstinate about it.

Is this the stance you are taking.

You say "others have acted scummy" without saying who/what/when/where/why.

I'm not saying scum wouldn't make a mistake. I'm simply saying I don't think that's the type of mistake that scum would make. As for others having acted scummy, I've already had a previous post on it, and I'm sure there is plenty of other examples you can find in the 8 pages of posts. I didn't think I needed to justify my comment with a whole recap of the 8 pages.

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?

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that there are a few people who have voted without any explanations (and none to the extent you mentionned - i.e. "how long you leave it on"). One example of this is AB's post 68.

@ Peanutman - why do you give the benefit of the doubt only to foilist? you had no problem voting for me on your second post.

I'm not just giving Foilist the 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 benefit of the doubt. I just won't get tunnelling someone because of one seemingly scummy action and blow it out of proportion.

@Spyrex, what do you make of Mordy's comment (post 166) about being scared to death if you weren't town? I'm relatively new to the site so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that as you being a strong player here in MafiaScum, but I for one will not be intimidated.
@Mordy, are you intimidated by Spyrex? If not, why else would you make that comment?

[peanutman]

Wow, there are a few things to address and I don't have much time to post, but I will raise a few now and the others either later this evening or tomorrow.

First off, regarding Gammagooey's defense of Archaebob.

Oh and defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty. It is not the defense itself, but the quality of defense. You have to distinguish between legitimate town defense and scum defense.

While I agree with the general notion that to defend someone isn't, by itself, scummy, Gammagooey went above and beyond. For one, there is really no way for a townie to be sure of someone's else alignement. Therefore, he can't really be sure of AB as town. This early on, I would not post a massive defense of another player, even if they were town-leaning to me. You can address some of the arguments but to go argument-by-argument, in depth, that strikes me as scummy. Worst of all, it means that AB doesn't even have to respond, or can simply echo what GG said. That defense does not sit well with me.

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. Then I read some more and noticed Spyrex quoting this from him.

Peanut wrote:

I'm not just giving Foilist the 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.

You're not claiming he's scum, and yet you're voting to lynch him.
I WONDER WHAT TYPE OF PERSON WOULD WANT TO LYNCH A NON-SCUM.

No, I cannot claim anyone to be scum. I have suspicions and hunches, and voting is the townie's tool to be used in the search for scum, but at the end of the day, my vote is but an educated guess on D1. I use my vote as an indication to the rest of the town as to where my suspicions are currently leading me and to pressure those I suspect.
@everyone, I use the term "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 will not confirming anyone town either. However, of the 11 of you, the townies outnumber the scum, so if I get into a tunneling or grudge match with another townie (which would be highly likely in D1) it is but to the scum-team's advantage.

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?

[peanutman]

@peanut- You gave a response to you not claiming that the person you were voting for was scum that I find still a little weird, but plausible.
Given recent events, is archaebob still 1)your vote to lynch, and 2)who do you think is the most likely scum?

1) Yes, it is still on Bob. Just his last few posts give me reason to keep it there. For one, he once again votes without explaining, which to me seems quite scummy, given that he can justify his vote later. If Lexprod hadn't questionned him right away, he might have gotten reactions from other people before even explaining his own vote, thereby molding his answer to what the town would want to hear. In addition, I don't like the way he tries to dictate the whole pace of the game and direct us where to focus our attention, who should be the main lynch-candidates, etc. 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.

2) In that sense, he does strike me as the scummiest in my opinion. However, he might not be the one who has played the worst game up to now. The prime example that has been frequently addressed is F13's play. While I agree it is bad, the whole not-changing-his-vote-after-realizing-his-mistake, I have trouble seeing a scum commit that kind of mistake so early on. If anything, I would assume that a scum would be very cautious as to where his vote stands and want to quickly back down from any confrontation early on. That is my interpretation of it. F13's play has been anti-town but, at this point, seems more like bad play than scummy play.

[peanutman]

I also don't buy your vote on me, not because I think there is no reason to suspect me, but because you have decided to totally ignore the other players in this game who have

objectively

been much scummier

Do you understand the concept of objectivity? Because none of us are in a position to state objectively on who's been scummier. I believe the all 13 pages can attest to that. Please don't make statements that are inherently untrue to support your claims.

On this note, I also detect a sense of confidence on your part. You encourage us all to use our votes to pressure other players. Yet, with 4 votes on you, you don't feel the need to defend yourself that much, satisfied with relying on other players to defend you (I know you stated you didn't like it but you haven't really said anything about it either). Which leads into my next point.

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.

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.

@all, quote tags would be helpful, especially during latter days when reviewing things.

[peanutman]

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.

Has this discovery changed your read on him at all? Although he can say that he focuses on lurkers and that he wishes to hide his cards, it's still an excuse (valid or not) for not answering to the town. So, does it affect your read on him?

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.

If you still disagree with my usage of the word "objective", don't bother rebutting again, as I've already made my meaning very clear, and I have no interest in debating semantics.

I'm not looking to discuss semantics. I just believe it's misleading to justify your choices and scum-suspect by saying they are objectively scummy. But we can agree to disagree.

I'm confident enough not to defend myself right now because I'm convinced that at least two of the scum are already on the wagon. Not enough to quick hammer, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, then I doubt I'm in much danger anyways, as the player to hammer me would pretty much become obvscum.

So yeah, I'm not really scared of your wagon peanut. I'm going to take my time, and do the best I can to guarantee that the town gets all the information it can get from today. You can stand in my way as much as you want, but good luck justifying your actions as pro-town.

Few things.
1) For you to be convinced that two of the scum are on your wagon seems OMGUS-y. I would rather you try to convince us by your actions that you aren't rather than just play it off as scum targeting you.
2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.
3) I don't think I'm standing in your way. Rather, I am trying to do like you, make sure that no one goes by unnoticed. The best way to hide is to be out in the open, questionning everyone else. Your posts are all over the place so people don't forget you but they might not realize that no one is really looking at you. I'm doing my part as a townie to make sure that that doesn't happen. If people feel it's not pro-town of me, than take me to task.
4) I'm trying to understand your views on pressure voting. You are encouraging other players to vote on certain people so they feel pressured and provide more content. However, pressure on you doesn't justify more content from yourself? Is this a double standard or am I missing something?

[peanutman]

Also, mod, vote count please.

[peanutman]

And I may have to re-change my mind on Peanut.

Peanutman wrote:
2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.

This is the second time I've called you out on something like this, so I'll say it again. Why do you keep feeling the need to distance yourself from your vote? You already said that you think that he's in your opinion the scummiest person around.

Maybe I haven't made it clear enough. In D1, I'm never sure of someone's alignment. Having been burned for believing I'd found an obvscum early on, I'd rather improve my play to prevent that. Lynching D1 is almost always the optimal play (as opposed to no-lynch) and, therefore, I place my vote on someone suspicious even though I can't be sure. But I still stand by my votes as a record of my suspicions. I would never even try to distance myself from my vote because, in all honesty, when does that ever work outside of RVS?

However, the key part of my statement that you quoted is the fact that it's not

my

wagon. There are certainly others who also have their suspicions on Bob.

[peanutman]

*All quotes from Bob 370 unless stated otherwise

Peanut creates a totally original defense for foilist out of thin air, and hands it to him. I can tell he thought really hard about it. Worried by the hole that foilist seems determined to dig himself, peanutman jumps in with some leading questions in an attempt to show his partner the light. I want everybody to pay careful attention to this, as this might be the biggest solid slip of the game so far. In the face of a very scummy looking foilist, peanutman's response is not to question him with guarded suspicion, but to proactively make up a defense that had not at all been hinted at by foilist or anyone else in the thread. I consider this the scummiest move by anyone in the game right now.

I think it's an exaggeration to say I crafted an original defense out of thin air.

If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. 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?

To me, his behaviour regarding his reaction to the vote, if you think about it, is something no normal scum-player would do. It's so ridiculous for a scum to put himself in that situation. With my question to him, I am simply stating that if he knows he wrongfully voted for Mordy and his vote is still there, does he find Mordy scummy? To say it's crafted out of thin air, you're really embellishing this one. His vote is on Mordy, I'm assuming he finds Mordy scum : out of thin air. Let's be honest, if we were both scum, it would be advantageous for me to bus or distance myself from this, not get closer. In fact, these examples of irrational behaviour are things that scum love to jump all over because it's easy to accuse.

The major thing I want to draw attention to in this case is the thought process he is using to form his ideas against me. The key word here is "assumption". Every point he makes in this case is something that he assumes to be true about me, as a result of some element of my posts.

Aren't your cases assuming that your arguments prove that your suspect is scum? This doesn't make any sense. Also, your defense on Foilist' case, as stated by a few people, revolves entirely around him being scum. More like an ad hominem defense.

What strikes me as very off is the extent to which he is willing to assume the worst about me from a very limited amount of evidence. And this is scummy to me because it contrasts extremely sharply with his attitude towards foilist.

The very limited amount of evidence is clearly subjective on your part. Just because you throw out many arguments doesn't mean they don't hold true to others. And, as I said, foilist action's seem more VI than scum. I'm not saying he's therefore obv-town but I wouldn't lynch him just on that. Scum are inherently sneaky, messing up who you're voting for and no addressing immediately is not sneaky at all. In my previous game, there was someone who played ultra-scummy the whole game and turned out to be town. The whole town was sure of him because of his reactions to the accusations on him, etc. For that reason, extremely bad play doesn't cry Scum to me. In fact, extremely bad play entices scum to call those people out on it and lynch them instead.

(Note: if anybody still needs me to defend against the points in this case, let me know. At the moment, I feel like I've adequately addressed them already in my response to AGM.)

One thing I would still like you to address is your pattern of voting or FOSing someone without any explanation at all (i.e. your post is simply the vote).

@Mordy

, you especially should be all over this, per your post 161:

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.

Yeah ok. Fine. My playstyle at the point was to ask a lot of questions without revealing too much. And you consider this a scum-tell? As in...scummier than AGM or foilist? Seriously? I mean, hey, where's my benefit of the doubt?! Why aren't you giving me some secret code to help me defend myself, like you did for foilist?

I give the 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.

Oh that's right. I'm not aligned with you. My bad.

I might have to agree with you on that slip.

Now, I vote for someone who has done all the things that foilist has done. Granted, I keep my reasons for this vote a little ambiguous at first, but they became pretty clear not too much later. My vote is completely justified, whether or not I took the time to explain it completely, and I keep a steady dialogue with my target, asking pointed questions, and showing the town what my issue is.

But that's just it. You keep your reasons to yourself at first, waiting for some reactions from others before explaining your vote. You are "craftily" playing this game. How is ambiguity in voting ever a good thing? At best, it's anti-town because a quick-read through these pages days later makes identifying your reasons for voting much harder.

You further "draw the conclusion" that I'm a likely candidate for scum as a result of this vote.

Correction, I draw the conclusion you are a likely candidate for scum not as a result of this vote but as a result of all the oddities and actions you have made this day. Don't pin my vote on just one of your actions.

The special treatment he is giving to foilist is pretty blatant. His vote is still on me, even though foilist hasn't responded with an explanation of his vote on Mordy. In fact, his vote STILL on me. Foilist NEVER answers peanutman with a response that would corroborate his theory. Naturally, this doesn't bother peanutman at all, and he never proactively mentions foilist again.

Listen, many people were targeting Foilist. So, I could either take part in the accusation-hurling, thereby blending in with the others (easy for scum to hide) or I could take these exchanges as fodder for my reads and pursue others who haven't been properly examined. You tell me which is more beneficial to town, adding myself to the heap or bringing new things to light.

And he wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist just yet. Mhmm. Interesting how he doesn't seem to mind keeping his vote on me later on in the game, when I'm put up to L-3. Interesting how deliberately, and how desperately peanutman tries to shift attention to someone other than foilist.

I don't want to advocate a D1 lynch of foilist. But of you, at this point, I would support it (hence my vote). My vote is still on you, even at L-3, because I feel you deserve it. And I'm desperately trying to avoid the town just looking at a select few. For one, with all your cries of watching out for lurkers, Spyrex has certainly slipped through the cracks. He is totally slipping by right now, posting accusations here and there but generally following along with you, Mordy and GG without having to do much of the leg work.

And he wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist just yet. Mhmm. Interesting how he doesn't seem to mind keeping his vote on me later on in the game, when I'm put up to L-3. Interesting how deliberately, and how desperately peanutman tries to shift attention to someone other than foilist.

Off the top of my head, I know I've raised suspicions on Mordy and Spyrex a few times (including this very post). If you read me in iso, you'll see I haven't exclusively targeted you and, to a lesser extent, Gooey.

The town should be figuring out who the scum is, focusing attention on the scum, lynching them, and defending the townspeople who are being attacked by the mafia.
Those last two statements do none of those things. They are completely unneccesary, and I'm still waiting on an explanation of how they help his argument or the town as a whole.

Gooey, I hope you aren't just directing this at me. Sure, I've made some statements that don't follow your ideal of what should be said. But many others have done much more (such as Pokemon discussions, Mordy being scared of Spyrex because he's such an awesome player). I am definitely not the main person you should addressing this to.
[/b]

[peanutman]

This game is too complicated. I might go back and re-read, but this thread is more muddled than the original text of Beowulf, so I'm just going to wait for a wagon to formulate and then decide whether I like it or not.

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?

[peanutman]

Bob, I would actually prefer to see your case on Spyrex first. You stated, in 450, he was in your top 4 scum. I would like to see you explain why before anyone else. Change it up a bit, get you to talk first.

[peanutman]

Guys, I'm not very active lately given my that I have a few essays to write and some board meetings. I hope to read through and post something substantive tomorrow evening.

[peanutman]

Having read through quickly, and with the PR claim, I will

unvote

for now, and think this through more thoroughly to get back to you all this evening. However, off the top of my head, I tend to agree with PZ that we could still catch him later if he isn't a doc, and he might just get NKed in the end regardless.

[peanutman]

If GM gets votes I will hammer the space hell zombies out of him.

I want blood. Real bad

And this is part of why I unvoted. For people who seem to clutter the thread with noise more than anything else. Spyrex, I feel you have contributed very little to the town, mostly agreeing with the MordyS/Gammagooey/Bob team. However, of them all, you haven't really brought many new things to this game. And know you just want to hammer for the sake of hammering. You thought he was scum, you didn't blink an eye with his claim (valid or not is irrelevant at this point), you won't blink before hammering. For someone Mordy said we should be afraid of, you haven't put up much of note. I say less blood, more brains from you.

SpyreX: I was just planning on judging him and MordyS as one composite unit if that's okay. Hopefully town.

No no. You shouldn't do that. For one, pairing people up, especially D1, makes things unnecessarily convoluted. On top of that, I fail to see how Spyrex and MordyS's play have been alike. Care to show me or, better yet, change your read on Spyrex?

Believe me, I've noticed Spyrex, he's not slipping anywhere.

Oh, and just so that I didn't lie to you:

foilist13
peanutman
cruelty
Spyrex

So, Archaebob, is your scummy read of Spyrex just an act so that it seems that you're looking into everyone or do you actually have suspcious things to raise about him? Because, having scanned you in iso, I haven't seen any accusations thrown his way (even though you have thrown alot this game). All your questions directed at him are politely asking what you think of one situation or another. You stated previously that even though you didn't explicitly tell us who you suspected, we could tell from your questionning tactics. However, forgive me at being surprised to see Spyrex in your top 4 when you never have yet to point a suspicious glance his way.

Questions/Comments directed at me

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

I'm surprised that you're shocked that I unvoted following a PR claim. The town was burned last game I was in for not doing that, and I don't feel, even at worst-case scenario (i.e. GM is lying scum), that unvoting is a horrible idea. He will most likely not last until end game but there is no need to use our lynch on him today because we already have something strong to go on and can decide to lynch him another day.

peanutman, what do you think is scummy about AlmasterGM?

As I explained with my vote, GM's statement that he wouldn't scumhunt and just wait to be swayed by everyone else was poor play regardless of alignment and so I called him on it and, with my vote, wanted to pressure him to react and get involved again. To some extent, the plan worked because we got a claim out of him. I do not wish to rehash the different cases set against him that do, though I agree that some elements are quite scummy.

peanutman, early in the game you said this:

peanutman wrote:
I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games. Given that the majority of the players are town, chances are when I pick up on something and I question them, they are probably town. Nonetheless, I do question them to get a read, but I don't feel the need to always be aggressive.

Why did you abandon this strategy? This hasn't described your scumhunting at all since you said it.

For one, I said that was how I acted "in the early stages of mafia games". With about 15 different cases and 25 pages of posts, I would say we are past the early stages. That being said, I don't feel I have acted completely contrary to my earlier post. I give the benefit of the doubt to players in the first few posts because there is so little to go on from and I do not wish to catch myself tunnelling a single player on a most likely insignificant phrase he/she stated on page 2, for example. So I give the benefit of the doubt to the first plays, though I do make note of them. And I don't feel I am particular aggressive with any one player (i.e. I have not asked for anyone's blood) and have tried to highlight those players who are leading the town discussions and riding what seems to some to be an obv-town or most-likely-town reading.

You both have expressed a strong dislike for players posting information about who seems townish in the game, for the reason that it makes it easier for scum to pick out their NK. Yet neither one of you commented at all when Spyrex declared that he thought I was confirmed town.
Why is the above declaration okay, when other attempts to indicate who seems townish have been met with heated resistance from you?

I did note his comment, as well as the others (i.e. Sanjay declaring Gammagooey pro-town, post 576). But, as I alluded to earlier in this post, the main tone I get from all his posts is noise, with parroting added to the mix.

[peanutman]

FoS: Sanjay

Why did you FoS Sanjay?

I don't buy his AGM vote.

At all.

Is it so hard for you to explain your votes and FOSs in the same post? Stop making us ask you why, it's just scummy!

[peanutman]

In regards to my apparent buddying to scummy players, I will try to explain my strategy. Day 1 is definitely to the scum's advantage. All townies are somewhat suspicious of everyone, looking everywhere for clues. So, they will generally jump on other players. However, the scum-team obviously know all the alignments so they aren't playing this game blindfolded. They can pursue certain players, pick-up on certain elements and blow them out of proportion. For that reason, I would guess that the town is mislead the vast majority of the time in D1. Hence, I try to not just go after the obvious suspect of the day but to look around at those who are suspecting him. This ties into my "benefit of the doubt", that someone's first mistake will most likely be blown out of proportion but I can give them a chance for a mistake early on. Everyone is saying that AGM and Foilist are both likely scum but I would in no way be surprised if they were both innocent townies. I clearly can't be sure but, as I said, the town is usually mislead by the scum-team (sneakily) D1.

Also, Bob, I feel you have yet to provide a proper explanation for my repeated questions/comments regarding your voting without reason in a post. And yet, you state

This is to make it impossible for them to change their opinions at the last second to match what everybody else happens to be saying

This is in reference to lurkers but I believe still applies. You don't want others to get by without explaining themselves so they can't redefine their position later, but you keep opening that door for yourself (even if it's for an hour) where you can match the people's immediate reactions to your "vague" votes. Is that not inherently scummy as per your previous post?

[peanutman]

Wow, what a turnaround Bob (to post 669).

However, I do have another question for you (reading what I missed as I posted):

From what I can tell, he has addressed all the major contentions to the best of his ability. I don't see what else he could say in his defense that would make any difference, really, and I think he feels the same way. But if you genuinely believe that we're letting him get away with something, I do want to see it.

Aren't you guiding AGM as well with this statement? You are giving him an unprompted defense that I see is similar to my question to Foilist earlier (what is, in effect, the pillar of your Foilist/Peanut pairing). I'm not saying it's necessarily scummy, but it's hypocritical to accuse me of doing what you do yourself.

[peanutman]

In light of PhaerieM's 698 (which, thanks btw for raising this)
Can you please answer to my questions at posts 11 and 16 (peanut in iso) regarding you and Spyrex? You claim I have totally ignored Foilist all game but given all your accusation flinging this day, you have been remarkably cordial to a few people (notably Gammagooey MordyS and Spyrex). Not wanting to address everything at once to be able to focus, I would like you to respond to my questions regarding Spyrex and for you to post your suspicions which you claimed you had earlier on but have yet to provide us.

[peanutman]

My apologies, Post 701 was directed at you Bob.

[peanutman]

That's nice, Archaebob, but I don't buy it. For him to be in your top 4 scumlist with those reasons seems quite odd, especially since you've been much more aggressive with at least 4 other people. It really seems like your reasoning is, exactly as you warned us before from others, statements made after the fact. It's quite vague in fact.

@Sociopath, could you give us some idea as to when you plan on posting your thoughts? I know some players are just itching to hammer and end the day, and would hate for it to end without your thoughts.

[peanutman]

Unvote. Vote: cruelty.

AGM, like I've stated many time with Bob, explain your votes when you do them, or else it's just scummy. I want to know why people are voting when they do vote, and not an explanation after the fact. If you don't have a reason to vote, don't. If you do, tell us.

[peanutman]

@Sanjay, I feel that the benefits to the scum outweigh the town benefits to not explaining a vote. I'm not expected a full case on someone, but a simple "because his previous post is ridiculous", or "she's been dodging this question for too long". Basically, anything to get an understanding of the mood/direction/intensity of the vote/suspicion. There are certainly some things that need to be concealed, but when Bob does it and many of his votes, it gets to be too much for me.

@MordyS, I feel to see how the fact that I'm not voting makes me scum. If you ask me to vote for either Foilist or AGM now, then I am not voting for who I think is scummy, but voting to please others. That being said, I don't think a mislynch is at all advantageous to us so, if by deadline there is a tie, I will place my vote so that we may gain something from the day in terms of flips. But for my to place my vote now on one of those two would be unfaithful to where I stand at this point with my suspicions and could be misused later on to say I was part of a wagon.

However, from a technical standpoint, I would lean towards voting Foilist simply because I think that if AGM is lying about being a doctor, as has been stated by others already, we can take care of him later and, worse off, scum use their lynch on AGM, protecting all other townies for another day.

On that note, if you really want my vote, I will place it back on someone with whom I still don't feel is genuine (i.e. has his own agenda) and his play thus far, which seems the scummiest to me. Therefore,

Vote : Archaebob

@MordyS731, I know you aren't the only one to posts these kinds of things but it is way too premature to point out full scum-teams. If anything, it is anti-town because it biases everyone else's looks and enables the scum to lurk in between if your supposed "bull's eye" prediction are wrong (which they are, of course). Also, it permits the scum to know who's suspected and therefore who to keep (similar to declaring someone obv-town).

[peanutman]

@Bob, if you had read my post instead of skimming, you might have noticed this (all from my post 734):

If you ask me to vote for either Foilist or AGM now, then I am not voting for who I think is scummy, but voting to please others.

But for my to place my vote now on one of those two would be unfaithful to where I stand at this point with my suspicions and could be misused later on to say I was part of a wagon.

On that note, if you really want my vote, I will place it back on someone with whom I still don't feel is genuine (i.e. has his own agenda) and his play thus far, which seems the scummiest to me. Therefore, Vote : Archaebob

Your overconfidence is definitely noted though. "How could I possibly be the scummiest when there are two main candidates to be lynched right now?" Bandwagons and number of votes doesn't necessarily mean scummiest. MordyS said/implied that those who weren't voting were most likely scum. I would think that it makes more sense to say that the scum are on the wagons, blending in with the rest of the town.

Finally, as I stated earlier, I will not cause the town to mislynch but I will not sell my vote short just so that someone else can hammer (as Spyrex would so love to do) with my name on a bandwagon I never fully supported. And, as I said, I would not be surprised in the least if AGM Foilist were both townies who made ealier mistakes that the scum jumped all over.

[peanutman]

I don't want to do this now but I'd rather not hear the same thing from everyone of you so,

unvote, vote : foilist13

Once again, it's because I know we can always catch AGM later if he's lying.

[peanutman]

@Foilist-749, I explained the reason right after my vote, but here it is again

I don't want to do this now but I'd rather not hear the same thing from everyone of you so,
unvote, vote : foilist13
Once again, it's because I know we can always catch AGM later if he's lying.

If it was simply up to me, I would vote for neither of you.

[peanutman]

Sanjay, why did you unvote? I might have missed something, but could you explain it for me.

[peanutman]

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.

[peanutman]

@Benmage, prod to PhaerieM

@PhaerieM, will re-read your case on Muffin this evening. However, do you plan on voting before the deadline? There might be support for your suspicion of Muffin given Sociopath's week-long lurking/reading, and your vote would no longer necessarily be for a "third party candidate".

[peanutman]

@Benmage

, I unvoted at post 764. Please update 778 vote count.
Still want to read Muffin closely but will only be able to do so later tonight.

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.

fixed thanks

[peanutman]

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.

[peanutman]

@Sanjay, can you explain your vote on me?

@Bob, why were you silent for the last for last 20 hours, given your uber-activity before then?

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.

Given the way you had been playing the game until this point, I'm suspicious of you not continuing your m.o. and relentlessly questioning the BW-hoppers? It's odd that your suspicions followed by your silence ever since happened when the BW successfully turned on to the Godfather.

[peanutman]

Yes, thanks for asking.

You have any guesses?

How about you just tell the town why I am worthy of an unjustified vote immediately when D2 starts. The longer you stall, the more likely it is that you don't have much of a reason and that you are just trying to provoke reactions.

@all, is it clear to you why I should be immediately voted at the beginning of the day, no discussion, no case, as if it's painfully obvious that I am scum following our D1 lynch and the N1 kill?

[peanutman]

MordyS, if you are pushing my lynch or feel that I need to answer to my actions, could you please at the very least build a case on me or explain your suspicions. You and Sanjay's blind hostility will not bring the town forward at all, and is just unnecessarily stalling the game.

[peanutman]

MordyS, other than posting (and repeating) that you've already found the whole scum team, reading you in iso, you have mentioned me very little since that big case. Also, I find it disturbing that you are complacent in not doing any scumhunting at the moment, resting on your D1 actions/case, even though a lot of things happened at the end of the day, we lynched the Mafia Godfather and Spyrex got NKed. There is nothing out of this that encourages you to pursue scum-hunting, feeling that you've said enough mid-way through D1 regarding me and that should be enough. I expect more from you, whether it's questioning/accusing me or looking at others who quickly jumped on the Muffin Bandwagon. Anything more than a "Yes" would be so helpful right now.

[peanutman]

Getting back to PharieM's 852, when I prodded her, it was because I was not happy with our two options of the day and, seeing with PZ's vote that another option was possible, I wanted to explore that, and get away from the Bob-lead tunneling of just two players. Although my re-read made me comfortable with a Muffin/Socio lynch, I still wanted to hear from him and so wasn't willing to hammer just yet. I think it's somewhat lucky we hit the Godfather, and I don't claim to have orchestrated the godfather lynch, however I do believe I was key in widening the town's scope.

Sanjay & MordyS, can you please post a case against me, in light of the recent developments, if I am still scummy so I can address it? Especially if you want me lynched, it might be best to let the town know clearly why.

@Gammagooey, my opinion of foilist hasn't really changed. I still don't feel he is one of the scummiest though he clearly has made mistakes. Will be interesting to see how he plays now that there isn't as much pressure on him at the moment though.

peanutman just reacted kind of scummishly to the pressure that was just put on him, so it kind of pains me to do this, but Unvote

I don't understand how you can qualify your recent moves as pressure as you simply voted for me with no stated reasons (assuming it was obvious to everyone why I was scummiest). Are you implying that asking for explanations on votes/suspicions is scummy, yet repeatedly refusing to provide them is pro-town play?

[peanutman]

Cruelty

I'm actually not necessarily deliberately playing my cards close to the chest, I'm having a hard time figuring out who I actually think is scum. If you looked at my meta you'll see I tend to flounder around day one and zero in day two. That said, I resent being asked for constant opinions because they will come.

He has, as he said, been more active day 2 but I am uneasy with the way he adamantly defended his tight-lip-ness during D1 (several posts devoted to it). I realize many players called him on it but to just keep repeating the same thing isn't productive, especially when it's already been addressed.

- His post 20. The way he words his town read on peanut. He doesn't agree with the general feeling and is therefore town? This is actually WIFOM. Applies to me as well (I'm scummy because I generally agree with what most people say?)

I would say it is scummy to generally agree with what most people say, essentially parroting others. Granted, some people are more active and so they might beat you to a comment/accusation/idea more often than not, but re-reading you, I didn't find that much original content. You have been better as well compared to D1, where your earlier posts were essentially writing in your own words what was already said.

"cruelty wrote:
Huh, guess I wasn't around for the end of the day "

More along the lines of not wanting to go dark at the crucial end of the day.

Is what you wrote better than just going dark at end-day? It's like the difference between lurking and active lurking, they both serve the same purpose of not saying anything at all, though one's in the shadows, the other is in daylight.

Who do I want lynched? You. Who do I think is the best lynch? I'll answer that later today.

As for who the best lynch for today is... I don't know yet. I think that I could fairly happily lynch either AGM or foilist still, but I think that bob has some questions to answer. I'll place my vote once he does so.

Way to tell us you'll answer later, and then tell us "I don't know yet". Couldn't he have just said he didn't know earlier? Or just not say anything at all?

These are the highlights from my iso-read of cruelty. He has improved his play style from D1. Although it was scummy IMO, I can't fault him for changing because the town had asked him to do so (would be hypocritical to lynch him for doing something we asked of him). That being said, he does seem to promise things and only deliver much later (i.e. "Who I think is the best lynch" and case on Spyrex -iso21-). In the end, I think he has good explanations for most of the inconsistencies/behaviour he has had, but he could just be quick on his feet. It will be telling to see how he reacts today to the seemingly increasing pressure on him, though I, for one, am more interested in another player at this moment.

Archaebob

I can't believe I'm saying this but it's been 2 and a half days since his last post. He's approaching prod-territory. I hope you aren't flaking Bob. Can you explain your 180 in your play-style this game? I can't help but notice that the change occured right when the Muffin BW was gaining full steam. And now you claim there are more important games than this one (though your last post site-wide was Monday night). If you feel this game isn't important enough, then I will gladly try to relieve you of it. It must be quite a shock to lose your godfather so quickly, especially when he seemed like such a "random" lynch-candidate, and the cases on Foilist and AGM were clearly much stronger right? You might want to re-read D1 and see the accusations against muffin before saying it's random (maybe start with PhaerieM's case).

Vote : Archaebob

[peanutman]

MordyS, if you read my further posts, it would shed light on some things you assume are part of a gambit.

A) I was never confident that Muffin was scum, just scummier than AGM and Foilist.
B) My so-called coaching of Sociopath could also be my desire to not lynch someone until we hear from them (statement supported by my post 817). I usually prefer to give the person a chance to express themselves, to claim or whatever. Hence, I said I was willing to hammer but wanted to hear from Sociopath first.
C) If I hadn't made that post, PZ's vote wouldn't have changed Muffin/Socio's status as a "third party candidate", and no BW would've formed on him. I fail to see why, if scum, I would purposely draw attention to the Godfather when there is very little suspicion on him. I felt the town needed to stop tunneling two players and wait for the deadline, but rather be actively scumhunting. If I wanted to lynch Foilist, I wouldn't have brought up a possibility of a Muffin-lynch.

In the end, I was far from sure of Muffin's alignment, but I preferred seeing the spotlight on other players than 30 pages on mainly just 2 people. If wanting the town to look at more players is anti-town, then lay out a proper case against me. But don't conceive a silly gambit where I want one of the two main guys lynched by drawing attention to a third guy who turns out to be the godfather. I can't think of any scenario where me bringing attention to Muffin directly causes a Foilist or AGM lynch. Granted my "plan" suggested that if PZ, Sanjay and I voted, the three wagons would be tied, but I also encouraged PharieM to reconsider and I knew that an ensuing discussion would probably come and the town would not limit itself to just two players.

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.

---

As for you MordyS, your statements regarding Archaebob are always assuming that he is town. 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.

Addition after Preview

To address your other points Mordy, I wanted the town to take a look at other players, not blindly jump onto another wagon. When I had made my first post, I had taken the time to consider an alternate lynch and still wanted more time to re-read, and so I would hope that other responsible townies would take their time before changing their votes. As for my mention of you that seems ambiguous, 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).

[peanutman]

MordyS, could you first not spam the thread with like 4 posts in a row. Take time to think before you post, to make sure you don't forget anything.

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.

Bob could just as easily be playing this up so that see him as town. I know it's WIFOM but I think that both scenarios are equally likely.

There's defending Bob, and then there's playing for him. And you are slowly creeping into the later. Bob has barely posted since the Muffin BW and you are his #1 hero. He might be town, but let's let the town judge that based on at least some of his words. I've also noted that you have consciously avoided talking about his lack of activity D2. For all your defending of him, you haven't really said a word about that.

Also, why are we debating if Spyrex included me in some town list at the end of the day or not? He clearly didn't know anyone's alignment being a vanilla townie, so I hope no one is talking stock of his positive reads as obv-town. Granted, his reads aren't biased as scum, but that doesn't make them right.

Your final post is a misunderstanding I believe. It should be read that I wouldn't want some people lynched because their case is based on faulty logic. Not that some who have faulty cases should be lynched, and others shouldn't.

[peanutman]

@MordyS

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

You don't have to believe what I said but I think my previous posts, side by side, will explain why I didn't vote for Muffin.

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).

@PhaerieM, will re-read your case on Muffin this evening. However, do you plan on voting before the deadline? There might be support for your suspicion of Muffin given Sociopath's week-long lurking/reading, and your vote would no longer necessarily be for a "third party candidate".

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.

And then AGM hammered, before getting any kind of response from Sociopath. To break it down, I wanted to read Muffin in iso, because I felt there was a possibility to stray away from the AGM/Foilist tunnel-lynch, and I therefore unvoted. When I did get my read, Socio was at L-1 and I wanted to give him a chance to speak/claim before hammering. AGM hammered. Hence, my vote was not on the BW.

@PhaerieM

MordyS's posts just got a lot scummier

Could you explain why?

@Sanjay, regarding my role on the Muffin lynch, I never claimed to have orchestrated it at all but I don't think you can fairly say I had nothing to do with it. PhaerieM was the first to post a credible case, PZ was the first to vote, but I supported his vote on someone other than AGM/Foilist and thereby encouraged the town to look elsewhere (i.e. Muffin/Socio at the time).

@Gammagooey, regarding your list of who I talked about, am I to assume that all other players who haven't questionned/mentionned another player significantly is also a scum-pair? I haven't done it yet, but I'm sure there would be other absences in people's reads and posts. I think it's more interesting to completely ignore someone/something that is on the radar, than to not address something not on it (i.e. Cruelty wasn't really on it Day 1).

[peanutman]

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?

I felt you were completely ignoring Archae's complete inactivity since the BW-switch and called you up on it, wanting some reaction. However, instead of addressing why you felt it wasn't important, you went on to build a scenario as to why he hadn't posted, effectively giving him a way out if his absence was directed related to in-game events that unfolded. Big difference in my eyes.
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, wa

AlmasterGM wrote:
AB wrote:
Heads I win tail you lose. This is unfalsifiable, and ignores, as cruelty rightly pointed out, that he has not talked about many players in this thread. It also ignores the fact that peanutman has said just as little about AGM and foilist, except when directly pressured.


Bolded part is scummy on cruelty's part.


It's also scummy on your part, peanutman's part, and foilist's part. Why the special treatment?

I don't think it's particularly scummy to not have made any direct comments towards another player in a 12-player game D1. You can get reads on different players through their interactions with others. I would venture that Scum are more interested in covering everyone to avoiding claims of distancing. Whereas a townie should not be concerned of apparent distancing with other players because he is not in that mindset. He's not trying to appear town, he's just a townie looking for scum. So the fact that I had not addressed in thread certain players does not bother me because I'm not concerned about apparent distancing. If things are said about someone, I will not, in thread, repeat those things in different words or ask similar questions to others already posted just to appear like I've noticed that person as well.

Archaebob

@ Papa Zito -

I just want to make sure I fully understand your position. I'm not trying to be lazy, or strawman you, so please correct me if I am wrong.

These are the reasons that I can see for your cruelty suspicions:

- you agree with Muffin's case on cruelty
- Cruelty's general unwillingness to divulge information
- Cruelty's voting position on primarily the main bandwagons all game
- his bandwagon vote onto me
- Cruelty wasn't on the socio-path wagon.

Is that everything?

Wow, you don't even acknowledge the fact that you said that PZ had made no case against Cruelty other than his list of cases. In fact, let's look at that quote :

Papa Zito wrote:
Suggest you go back and read then, since several people have posted why they want cruelty dead.


I did read, Pops. Please, show me where you posted why you want cruelty dead.

The only explanation I see anywhere in your iso is this:
(list of PZ's cases)

Were you hoping no one would notice that lie? Because you made it quite clear that you read "Pops" in iso, but you omitted his actual case, a fairly long post with cruelty's name all over it.

Regarding your Muffin v. China analysis, I get the feeling, reading it, that you had already made up your mind as to how you wanted to perceive before you wrote it. That is, you made the comparison of scum-town and scum-scum with the end goal in mind of the scum-scum scenario being the better one. It doesn't really seem objective at all, some elements of which Sanjay has already raised.

I don't think this game is as simple as some people are trying to make it seem.

In this respect, you are quite right. In respect to your defense of Cruelty, I highly doubt with only two mafia left D2 that they would both be actively involved in defending each other. So I'm quite certain that Cruelty and Archaebob aren't both scum. However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.

Finally, I've brought this up numerous times, Archae, but stop voting without explanation. I assume your decision to vote on me is partly based on my recent absence (though I concede that you do have other suspicions as well), but at least post a thought with your vote. Because, at this point, you could come up with a whole slew of reasons after the fact for your vote, depending on the town's reactions.

I am therefore still content with my vote on you.

[peanutman]

@Archae, am I understanding you correctly? You seem to be saying in your last post that after re-reading the whole thread and looking at the cases on Muffin, PhaerieM's isn't as strong because there was more important things going on at the time? Because from what I'm reading you are saying that Foilist's case on Muffin, although not "well written", is stronger than PhaerieM's because of when hers was posted (i.e. "others were acting summier so the Muffin case isn't strong"). Please clarify, or confirm that is in fact what you're saying.

[peanutman]

I guess I should be claiming now that I'm at L-1.

I am the cop. I investigated AGM night 1, the rationale being that I wanted to get a read on my sanity and thought the AGM might die N1, giving me a better idea of my sanity. AGM is with the town according to my investigation.

Assuming that AGM is telling the truth about being the doc, I should have one more night of investigation at least, hopefully clearing one townie or identifying a scum. That being said, I still think that Archaebob is scum due to the way he has oddly been defending Cruelty and what I perceived as a kind of meltdown during Muffin's lynch. I accept that he's posted reasons for his convening absence but I don't buy it at all. With 6 days left, we can, as we learned yesterday, lynch someone other than myself or cruelty even though they are the two main wagons. Don't let someone tell you that the 6 days means we are stuck with only two options.

[peanutman]

EBWOP : For his CONVENIENT absence

[peanutman]

I don't have time right now to go back and check the validity of Archaebob's statement about you never seriously mentioning Sanjay, but until I do I will take it to be true.

Foilist, as you are debating whether Mordy or Archae is the better lynch, you use this type of argument? Really? I know it's only one of your points but you're blindly (without checking) using one of the candidate's argument, admittedly, as evidence against the other. Really didn't give Mordy much of a chance on that point.

Also, another thing that just came back to mind was when Bob said that his lynch wouldn't be informative at all. Although I hate reasoning based on that (it should only be a "tie-breaker", not a factor in determining scumminess), I have to entirely disagree with him.

Regarding my investigation. I don't mind if you guys discuss optimal choices and all, but I will decide on my own when the night comes. Wouldn't want to be misled by the scum-themselves.

Also, Gamma, I didn't leave any breadcrumbs. This is my first PR-role in a game and I didn't quite know how to go about doing it. Though of playing it more straightforward for my first game.

@mod, vote count please.

[peanutman]

Archaebob, you are digging your grave with those kinds of responses.
A) You say this without any supporting evidence, examples (which you coincidentally accuse others of doing)
B) You don't address Mordy's comments.

I get the feeling you are hoping that people will grab onto your quick disregarding comments and avoid re-reading longer cases to just take what you say at face value, such as Foilist has admittedly done already. This is doing nothing but confirming that I want you lynched today.

[peanutman]

@Foilist, why did you say :

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

Before your vote, Bob was at 3, Cruelty was at 3, Mordy was at 1. After your statement, Mordy's wagon was tied with cruelty's (because of your flip) behind Archae's 3-vote wagon. What bothers me about it all is that you have presented a false situation. You spoke as if the choice was either Mordy or Bob. However, there was but one vote on Mordy (Bob's OMGUS). Are you supporting whatever Bob says because he doesn't think you're scum anymore? In that same idea, why do you seem to be Bob's sidekick as of late?

More importantly, why did you ignore any pressure on Cruelty and falsely claim the choice was between only Mordy and Bob? You are unnecessarily narrowing the town's focus? Worst of all, your underlying reason to look into and vote Mordy was because you were comparing only those two. I would ask you if you think Mordy is the scummiest right now, but I feel I already know that answer. However, was Mordy the scummiest in your eyes when you wrote post 1156?

[peanutman]

@Bob,

There's something that still irks me whenever I read your posts. It has nothing to do with the arguments back and forth or anything else. I've been keeping up with them and can see how you both have done things that can appear scummy. However, and you can call me out on this all you want, and I realize there isn't much you can defend about this, but it hits me that you are trying to rationalize every little action that went on in that quick wagon. IMO, scum are more concerned about acting rationally, having a motive for everything they do, etc. So, for example, when Mordy says he was taken aback thinking I was scum and now believes my claim, I can see how it would make him rethink his town-read on you. Sometimes, in mafia, it's just that, a gut read, an inclination towards looking deeper at someone. A townie will more often listen to his feelings and follow up on things that don't seem quite right, even if they can't be explained. A scum would be very self-conscious of not doing these things.

This post might be all over the place and you can throw WIFOM, AtE and everything else at it, but this is ultimately why I am comfortable with my vote on you and why I hope for your lynch today. You refuse to accept that sometimes townies don't act rationally, follow their instincts.

[peanutman]

Foilist, I take total offense with your statement that I have disappeared. I have posted a few times in the past few days. Just because I don't stay online and "chat" through an argument with MordyS and Archae, doesn't mean I'm not participating. Don't look at how many posts on the last page, look at the posting in the past few days.

Also, you seem to have some kind of bias when you say that Mordy responds with one liners and expressions of frustration. Have you realized that Archae has also acted that way? Also, for you to say in the same sentence that the vote against you is stupid yet that you agree and would hammer yourself doesn't make any sense. Your stated reasons in your last post for finding Mordy "far scummier" hold no weight at all.

And to top it all of, to give props to Gamma if he happens to be scum? Wouldn't you rather look into it rather than say : "Gamma, you're a tough read so I'll let you win if your scum because you're too good for me."

Way to go, Foilist. Maybe you should hammer yourself if the time comes. As for me, right now, I am perfectly content with my vote still on Archaebob and am eagerly awaiting the hammer so that this game can move forward.

Side note : 1340 posts on day 2 in a mini normal? Really?? I know I've heard enough for the day.

[peanutman]

you bastards you.

I don't care that i'm lynched, I hereby put a curse on any member of this town that doesn't immediately vote MordyS and Sanjay tomorrow. Look over my posts again, everything you need is right there. And this just now...so beyond stupid.

you can consider this my bah post.

bullshit, Sanjay. Bull shit. And that was pretty low.

So much for this then.

2) I'm not emotionally invested in this game, and I don't actually have an uber-ego.

Let it be known that I am the farthest person in the universe from being personally offended by anything in a game like this. My not posting in a game will never be related to me being pissed off, or something idiotic like that.

Also, I'm not really a big ego. Really. I'm not. Or at least, my ego is not related to social factors. I might be arrogant enough to think that I'm right about who the mafia are, and that you all would do well to listen to me, but I'm not arrogant enough to "not be having fun anymore" if you guys decide to tell me I should get real. Seriously, this paragraph that I quoted made me laugh, it's such an unflattering depiction of me.

Also, if Bob flips town, this seems like hard buddying.

I don't think it was particularly intelligent but I'm willing to let Mordy play himself into a hole (or to make himself a hero). I would have liked to have seen your big post (which is why I didn't vote this morning) but I had literally no power here - I'm not on the wagon so I couldn't unvote to stop his hammer.

[peanutman]

Vote : Gammagooey.

There's my result. I can confirm my sanity because my N1 investigation was on AGM who came up clean, and he's now dead. My investigation N2 was on Gammagooey and he came up guilty. Therefore, that's one more scum down, 1 to go. Seeing as I will die tonight, I suggest we use the day to hunt for the final scum-buddy and not quick-lynch Gooey.

All this means that come D4, Gooey and I should be dead, and there will be 1 scum, 5 townies left. We can do this town!

Will re-read Gooey in iso tonight and look for connections between Gooey, Muffin and the final scum.

[peanutman]

PhaerieM, I investigated Gammagooey because I found it harder to get a read on him and I suspect a few people took him for granted as town and therefore wouldn't be too interested in lynching him. If he was scum, I thought that an investigation was the only way to catch him. We do have a lot of information on pretty much all the other players to go from, but Gammagooey has evaded suspicion all game long. My gut told me to look into him and so I did. I ignored everyone's advice because I don't know who's genuine and who's scum trying to manipulate the investigation.

Gammagooey, I suspect you think I'm lying and I am therefore scum. If I wasn't the real cop, I am sure that yesterday the real one would've counterclaimed. But I think the fact that the 2nd day after I claim, there's been no counter-claim should convince many of you. As well, a set-up with 1 doc, 1 cop and a Godfather with 12 people seems reasonable. If there was no cop in this game, what would the use of a Godfather be? Think about it, Gamma had to pull something out because he turned up guilty in the investigation. Claiming vanilla won't help him, so he throws out a PR to make the town doubt; it's his only play. Sorry Gamma, but I think you're cooked. However, I must say you did play an excellent game as scum. That's why I had to investigate you. Well played!

[peanutman]

Also, (sorry about the double post), FOS : Sanjay, for suggesting no-lynch. I don't like this idea because it gives an extra night for Gamma and his buddy to discuss strategy, now that they now he's been outed. If we lynch Gamma today, they we enter tomorrow 5 town, 1 scum, with 2 shots at hitting scum (with an early no-lynch if we want).

I know you don't have the same info as me Sanjay, but do you really buy Gamma's claim? Doesn't the presence of a Godfather, barring a bastard mod (which I really don't think we have) indicate that there must be a cop. And, with no counter-claim, shouldn't that confirm me?

[peanutman]

Sanjay, I'm saying that we lynch Gamma today, and there's just his scum-buddy left to figure things out on his own.

However, what do you make if my set-up analysis? With a Godfather in play, shouldn't there also be a cop? I have not been counter-claimed so I think it should be clear that I am either telling the truth (i.e. I am the cop), or there is no cop. What I'm saying is that the presence of the godfather guarantees, IMO, that there's also a cop. Therefore, I must be a cop, and the fact that I had an innocent on AGM (NK'd) and a guilty on Gooey confirms my sanity (i.e. I'm a sane cop). I'm trying to see this from a vanilla townie's perspective with no other info and I think this logical, step-by-step explanation is solid.

@ everyone, does this make sense? Does anyone doubt my claim? Does anyone believe Gooey's claim?

[peanutman]

Sanjan, you didn't answer my question though. Do you doubt my claim, given the logic I presented?

[peanutman]

He's a poor player, and

he could use to learn a little humility in his play

. Maybe he'll take the chance to cool off and think about it.

And btw: I was right

. At least one scum player wasn't on the wagon.

I really should just take a bow.

lol... Off-topic but I like how these two statements follow each other.

---

MordyS, seriously? No mention of your archaebob debacle?

What did you mean by this?

---

Foilist, tone down the blind rhetoric and I suggest you, as I am doing right now, re-read the thread with Gammy and Muffin as scum in mind to find their partner. I'm not saying that Mordy can't possibly be scum, but let's not throw out accusations but build cases around the scum-Gamma revelation.

[peanutman]

Here are some of the highlights of my partial re-read :

MordyS

MordyS's comment about being scared of Spyrex if he's scum, followed by his N1 lynch. Was Mordy scared and wanted to get rid of him early, or were the scum-team trying to frame him? I had noticed it before but made nothing of it at the time but my read-through encouraged me to post it up now.

As far as the Archae vs. Mordy debacle, Gamma's analysis of it gives me the feeling he's trying to fuel a town vs. town showdown. I don't think he would go so much in depth if one of them (i.e. MordyS) was his buddy. He would rather not encourage more attention on his partner.

Papa Zito & PhaerieM

They were both key in getting the godfather lynched and so they are obvtown in my book.

Foillist

I'm leaning towards town-Foilist while analysing his relationship with Gooey, because Gamma was pushing for votes, D1, on either AGM or Foilist. He did favour an AGM-lynch and was reluctant to switch, but I feel he was looking to buddy to Foilist more than them being scum-buddies. Also, his push of lynching Foilist yesterday also strengthens my town read on Foilist. Why would he distract us from Archae vs. Mordy to attract attention to his buddy? It seems more likely that he's throwing suspicion around to many players, further confusing the town and making us focus less on Gamma himself.

Sanjay

I am troubled by Sanjay's reaction today to my post, wanting to no-lynch, giving weight to Gamma's roleblocker claim. However, I haven't yet noticed any hints of a Gamma-Sanjay pairing.

Cruelty

I do suspect that Cruelty might be the last scum though. He was easier on Cruelty with his questions that others, at least that's the impression I got. He then pushed a Cruelty-peanut pairing D2 because of our lack of targetting each other. Also, if cruelty flipped scum, then so did I, but if I flipped scum, it didn't really mean anything about Cruelty's alignment. Either way, I should be lynched but not Cruelty. He said something similar (iso 55) with AGM, saying that if Cruelty flips scum, then AGM must be as well. It is suspicious that he links Cruelty with a few players so in the event that Cruelty does flip scum, he can try to push the "connected mislynch" by saying he suspected it all along.

As for his scumbuddy, cruelty would still make a lot of sense to me but given peanut's sheer balls to fake a guilty right now he has a LOT of confidence in his scumbuddy to win the game for him. It seems a bit of a stretch to think that cruelty would get an easy win from this with my comments on him and peanut yesterday.

This final quote does have me thinking. I'll talk it out, hopefully it'll make sense.
First off, would Gooey really call out his last partner by claiming Cruelty is my scum-buddy? However, he's probably thinking : "When the town figures out I'm lying, they know I lied about Peanut, and therefore they will assume I lied about Cruelty as well." It's not necessarily the best thought out plan, but, let's be honest, Gooey has been totally blind-sided by this. He surely didn't expect to be investigated and is scrambling for a defense.
Also, Cruelty hasn't said anything yet. He has posted twice this evening (about half an hour ago) on another game. I suspect that he's panicking, not knowing what to say just yet and trying to think up a contingency plan.

Finally, my gut is leaning towards a scum-Cruelty, and my gut was right regarding Gooey already, so I'm willing to listen to it. My second guess would be Sanjay. All others I am strongly believing are town, though don't want to blindly ignore them all.

For the rest of you, could you re-read Gooey with this new info and see what you read of it?

----

EBWOPreview

Foilist, why couldn't the Mordy-Archae issue be town vs. town? Yes, Mordy was quite wrong about Archae, but does this fact automatically make him scum?

[peanutman]

Gonna go read GG in iso and see what's what, I'm more inclined to believe peanut at this point but I'm not going to commit to a side before I've done the research.

Quite weak of you Cruelty. Please explain to me why you can't commit to one-side at this point. If you're Gooey's scum-buddy, this kind of reaction is definitely not helping you.

[peanutman]

But there isn't much research to do. I've claimed to be cop, I am sure of my sanity (given AGM's flip, my N1 investigation), and Gooey came up guilty. You either believe my claim, and find him guilty. Or you believe this set-up has a Godfather with no cop, you believe Gamma's roleblocker claim, and you vote me. It's not a question of re-reading the entire thread. At least, I don't think it is. I ask anyone to correct my logic if I'm wrong here.

[peanutman]

EBWOP : It's not that you can't re-read GG, but I encouraged the town to re-read the thread with him in mind as scum, not to see if he himself is scum. That's the difference I speak of. I also find it odd that you're the only one up to now (other than GG) to not catch on. The jig is up.
If I could, "D4 Vote : Cruelty".

[peanutman]

I'm ready for a Gamma lynch. I think I've laid out some of my thoughts, stuff you could all work with tomorrow. Only one guy left. We should do it town.

[peanutman]

First off, well played scum team.

I wanted to talk a bit about my perspective as cop.

It was my first time with a PR and from what I had read, cops usually try to play low-key so as to not be forced to claim. However, that is also the type of person scum are looking to NK (as evidenced from the scum QT as well). Therefore, I decided to play in a way that would allow some suspicion on me, all the while still trying to effectively scum-hunt to benefit the town. My N1 investigation was on AGM simply because I wanted to confirm my sanity and I thought that with the doc claim, whether true or not, AGM would die soon and give me insight on my alignment.

With our D1 lynch, getting the godfather, the town had the big upper hand. I felt that there was most likely one scum flying under the radar but that odds were the other scum was among the main candidates. My goal was therefore to identify the ones who hadn't really been looked at and investigate them. As soon as I was to find a guilty, I would claim, present my results and leave the town with finding the last scum, hopefully more obvious. Unfortunately, I had to claim early but thankfully had a doc to back-up me up and my intuition on Gooey was right.

In the end though, PZ, you played this very well. Mordy, in your position at end-game, with Foilist's behaviour this last day, I would have done the same thing. Oh well, we learn what we can from this one and play better next time.

Final note, Mordy, I agree with you that policy lynches should be taken more seriously after the way this game unfolded.