Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[archaebob]

Interesting.

I'm pretty impressed with Muffin right now. He somehow managed to totally destroy your case without even posting a defence! I mean jeez, his replacement isn't even in your top four!

What part of peanutman's case did you find convincing? As far as I can remember, almost ALL of it hinged on you being scum.

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

foilist13
peanutman
cruelty
Spyrex

I do need to hear from the replacements soon though.

[foilist13]

Most of my case on muffin was based on him lurking, and the fact that he got replaced significantly deflates it.

Much of your case against Peanut could just as easily be him trying to buddy up to other players, but further than that I found his defense poor and am inclined to think he is scummier than any of the players higher on my list (Keep in mind that really isn't all that scummy at all)

[foilist13]

Why SpyreX?

[archaebob]

Mk.

I'm going to sleep to now.

Peanutman, unless you rebut me again, I'm going to assume that you concede all the points in the last response I posted to you.

Cruelty, you have continuously popped in with a promise for more content later, and then disappeared. I'd like to know what it was that had you "more concerned" with foilist.

Mordy, I'm excited to hear from you again tomorrow.

Sanjay, I need to hear more from you before I can start to feel comfortable about you in this game. You are as difficult to read as foilist, for the exact opposite reason.

Replacements, get your act together. I won't be happy ending today until y'all have staked out your positions.

And with that...good night.

[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.

[cruelty]

Yeah my bad, I was trying to stay active with limited computer time.


I'm not going to flood the thread with quotes/words, I'll try to concisely summarise why overall I am not hugely thrilled with foilist because most of it has been said before. All references are in foilist's iso posts. Also, this will be chronologically chaotic.

- Firstly (and most obviously) the voting fiasco. This has been done to death, don't need to argue that case.

- His reaction to bob's peanut case. I've read over his posts several times (notably post 40) and I think it's fairly clear that he's defending peanut, by trying to push the attention onto either himself or AGM. He addresses this in post 41 (noting that he's trying not to be associated with peanut). This is followed in post 54 by a formal declaration of suspicion against peanut. Overall I find this unsatisfactorily contradictory.

- 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 got the feeling early on when there was a lot of heat directed his way that he was very flustered. This hasn't really been that obvious lately, but I think reached its zenith in his big Muffin-case- post (11). That post (I didn't say anything at the time, but re-reading now) really reads to me like he was in crisis mode, saw an opportunity to jump on someone else and did his level best to shift attention. This point is highly subjective and may just be the way I'm looking at him though, someone with a more neutral feeling towards foilist might completely disagree here.

- His post 15. Related to the previous point. Strange thing to say.

- Interest in scumlists. Particularly today. I

hate

when people ask for them, I think that it's hugely scummy, I think that regardless of what's actually being asked - who you think is scummy/townie - that top 4 scum = 8 probable town = dangerous. I'll always have instant doubts about people asking for them (eg: archaebob).







I'm interested in how you've (foilist) arrived at the conclusion I'm not cooperating with town. My playstyle is different to most of you I guess; I don't really like to throw around suspicions/votes/FoS's unless I feel I have a genuine point to make (as I've constantly and consistently stated) but that aside, what exactly is making me un-cooperative?

[Gammagooey]

cruelty, i can see why you'd think a list of people who someone thinks is town is a problem, but just the top 4 scum? Giving the mafia have a vague unordered top 8 townies from someone is nowhere nearly as useful to them as a top 4 scum is to the town for knowing where people stand, finding inconsistencies in scum stances, and most importantly having a confirmed townies outlook on the scum should they die.

Given your opinions on this, how would you suggest that the replacements/lurkers make their opinions known?

[archaebob]

@ Cruelty -

Some questions:

- You've said in the past that you don't like letting wagons gain steam until you're sure about your scum read of them. Does this mean that you are ready to lynch foilist now?

-If you knew that both AGM and foilist were town, which one of them would you consider to be the least costly mislynch?

- What do you think of Spyrex? (<- answer this one for sure)

[PhaerieM]

I'm pretty sure MordyS is town, due to these two posts:

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

This post, and post #455 (I'm not going to quote that one too because a) it was so recent, you can see it on this page i believe, and b) it's loooong!) both strike me as very townish. Mordy is going out of his way to scumhunt, and truly analyzing player's actions. I don't believe scum would go back to another player's games (multiple!) and analyze the use of particular words, and although I don't know if I completely follow or see the importance of the argument on the use of "benefit" & "benefit of the doubt", I appreciate the attempt at analysis & I just don't think he'd go into such depth as scum. If he

is

scum, I'd venture to say he's pretty good at it.

Also, the last paragraph quoted above was basically the same argument I made for foily being scum, only perhaps better-articulated than mine was This, in particular, was very well-put and partly what I was trying to get at in my post: "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."

[Papa Zito]

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

foilist13
peanutman
cruelty
Spyrex

I do need to hear from the replacements soon though.

Sup. Looks like we're reading the game the exact same way.

I just finished an iso read of cruelty and I saw a lot of evasion and not much substance. The whole "I'm not posting scumlists they're evil" and "votes are tender kittens and I'll not abuse them kthx" just reeks. Great way to avoid bandwagon/post analysis later. The only real scumhunting he's done is on Foilist13, who just happens to be today's taste du Jour, and the climax of all that tunneling (iso 20) is really weak.

---

There's been like a hundred cases posted ITT, I'll have to go back and read those in context. But honestly guys the walls need to stop, they're smothering the game. Every time I try to make some progress there's another damn wall posted and I want to beat my head on the desk.

Also: Thread title says Open, where are the roles?

[cruelty]

@ Cruelty -

Some questions:

- You've said in the past that you don't like letting wagons gain steam until you're sure about your scum read of them. Does this mean that you are ready to lynch foilist now?

-If you knew that both AGM and foilist were town, which one of them would you consider to be the least costly mislynch?

I'll answer the Spyrex one when I get home from work, don't have time to re-read and give you a definitive opinion.

Yes, ready to lynch foilist. In the event that I'm wrong about him (don't think I am), it'll give us a tonne of information, most notably about you and peanut.

If I knew they were both town, I'd consider AGM the least costly mislynch. I'll outline why when I get home. Basically to do with activity and attitude though.

[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.

[SpyreX]

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.

Now, again, lets really look at this.

First off, nothing in this besides the sheer :headdesk: of the statement itself would make one believe that this is a joke. Nor, of course, is there a punchline or even any real game-related humor in it.

So, the statement itself seems off. However, it sure DOES do something:

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.

Almaster, if my vote wasn't already on you I'd vote you again. That last comment was ridiculous. Go get a replacement if you don't want to play.

Haha. Massive FOS @ AGM.

I don't understand why you'd say that, it's almost like you want to be lynched.

Yea. Like I said then. There is some major bussing going on.

That throwaway statement was an over-the-top excuse for some power voting (and suspicion) up ins.

IF GM is scum at LEAST one of those three is scum.

[PhaerieM]

Long post, incoming :

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.

I said only "I'm inclined to agree" because I don't think Alamaster's behaviour has been ultra super omg scummy. I think his argument is ridiculous, but having a ridiculous argument does not a scum make.

And secondly... do you honestly think in a 12-player game, that a silly bandwagon from page 2 is going to stay nice and strong through to the end? I highly doubt it. If this game-day ends in fewer than 15 pages I will be greatly surprised.

Then again maybe you'd like this bandwagon to push through to a lynch real quick? Eager to test out your night kill?

What you got to say about that Pastry-boy? If you're inclined to agree, where's your bolded statement of where you stand?

FoS: Muffin

(<----There's mine )

My bolded statement aka my vote is currently on archaebob for a random vote. I will

unvote

since we're past that now.

I don't FoS because fossing is arbitrary and has no meaning. If you want to know what my opinions are though, I think that you're trying to be real cautious, saying things like "this game is moving nicely" and how you don't think a pressure vote is needed. You lambast me for not taking a stance yet all you can put up is a measly fos that has zero impact on the game? We call that hypocrisy where I come from and in my experience the only players who need to create or rely on double standards are scum.

I'm the kind of player who always likes everyone to be voting for someone, because it provides a clear and readable trail of whom each player's prime suspicions (real or fabricated) rest on. No going through and trying to decide which carries more weight: the toenail of suscpicion or the hair follicle of suspicion?

Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

I find this more compelling than Alamaster's misguided thoughts as to the behaviour of "all townies" and the responses thereto.

vote: chinaman

This post starts off ok, with at least somewhat logical arguments in the first two paragraphs, but this:

Then again maybe you'd like this bandwagon to push through to a lynch real quick? Eager to test out your night kill?

just strikes me as unnecessarily aggressive, like maybe he didn't think he was convincing enough, and so decided to push back a little harder.

Also:

Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

I find this more compelling than Alamaster's misguided thoughts as to the behaviour of "all townies" and the responses thereto.

I haven't read everything yet, so I don't know, but did Muffin also express concern/vote over Foilist's

much

more obvious example of this scumtell he speaks of (not reading the thread carefully)? Because he certainly jumped on Chinaman for it. If he did not come down equally on foilist for the same thing (only even worse!), I'm inclined to think that he only jumped on Chinaman for it because Chinaman was questioning him, not because he really thought he was scum for it.



And actually, reading back, Muffin's "I'm inclined to agree with MordyS & spyreX, actually" was a comment in direct response to these two quotes:

You missed something important. It wasn't die. It was killed.

Now, semantics blah blah but - why would one assume killed over lynched?

There's one reason that sure springs to mind. Guess what it is?

Unvote, Vote: AlmasterGM

and

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

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?

How does that then equate to:

I said only "I'm inclined to agree" because I don't think Alamaster's behaviour has been ultra super omg scummy. I think his argument is ridiculous, but having a ridiculous argument does not a scum make.

???

This sounds to me like he was trying to quietly agree with spyrex and mordyS without actually

voting

for or putting any extra pressure on Almaster (who could very well be his scumbuddy) and when he was called on it by Chinaman, jumped all over him for "not reading the thread carefully (scumtell)", while completely ignoring the ongoing debate over whether foilist is scum for the very same thing. He also tries to defend his "inclined to agree" statement by saying he doesn't think Almaster is scum at all, even though in order to be inclined to agree with the above quoted posts, you would pretty much

need

to think that Almaster is scum.

I also think Chinaman is town, mostly due to him calling out Muffin & this:

Ok, so AGM is the one who started it all and now has a wagon on him correct?

damn, a vote count would be nice right about now...but its friday....why am i on the computer?....anyway....

Ok, so we have AGM making a big deal out of what I personally feel is a null tell yes? Then we have a LOT of people hammering him for it. If you read what I wrote about how I feel about RVS and what it takes to get out of it, you'll note that I feel it takes someone doing something slightly scummy, no? I will now add that most the time in my opinion (which is Gold btw) that the person doing something slightly scummy is usually town, and the person jumping on it is usually scum. SO, the next question is who did the slightly scummy thing first? Was it Gooey for looking up games before hand and AGM catching that as slightly scummy or was it AGM blowing something out of proportion and Mordy or S...something that caught AGM's slightly scummy thing and blowing THAT out of proportion.

I will say that I don't know which it is right now, but I will say that Gooey is more townie in my book atm for his p47. Grats Goo...you're not my target today.

This post rings true to me (and I totally agree with the "the first person to do something scummy to take us out of the random phase generally isn't scum"), and speaks of true (albeit a bit drunken ) confusion at the events coming out of the random stage, and of genuinely trying to figure things out. Just my opinion.

So! In sum (and again, I haven't finished reading yet, there's just so much to go back & reread already!), my top scum reads are:

Foilist
Muffin/new guy
Almaster

I'd be happiest lynching Foilist or Muffin today at this point, but I wouldn't be against an Almaster lynch, especially because I agree with cruelty that he'd be the least costly mislynch. But I'm definitely more sure about Foilist and Muffin. I'm not going to place a vote right now since I haven't finished reading, but that's where I stand for now.

[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.

[archaebob]

You guys, this sounds good. Foil, peanut, and Almaster are a very probable scum-team, given everything that has happened.

It seems a little too easy though. I'm inclined to assume from my own paranoia that we probably are wrong about at least one of our top three suspects going out of Day 1. So let's not get flat-footed here.

I'm not sure that AGM flipping town would really tell us anything about foil or peanut. Their recent votes, however awkward, are just as likely to be a poor attempt at gracefully getting on the mislynch wagon as they are a bus. I've spent some time thinking about it, and I don't really see what we stand to learn by seeing AGM's flip. 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.

Foilist's flip, on the other hand, would tell us quite a bit. Because both foil and peanut voted for AGM

after

strong suspicions had already been raised on all three of them, there is no controlled way to extract any information from the results of that wagon. However, knowing if

foilist

was scum or not would reflect very strongly on the case against peanut, who has been seen to have given special treatment to foilist since his first serious post in this game.

The mediating factor in all of this is that foilist is substantially more costly a mis-lynch than AGM. Foilist, though not terribly helpful, at least makes an effort to draw attention to things that other players might not have noticed. I credit foilist entirely with having made me aware of the inadequacies of Muffin's contribution. His case, however poorly crafted, had what I consider to be a pro-town result. If he is town, I think he is enormously more useful than AGM would be as town (because AGM really is

completely

useless).

I'd like some thoughts on this. When it comes down to it, who do you guys think is a better lynch today?

In any case, try super hard not to lynch yet, as I want to post a few things about Spyrex and Cruelty. I don't think I'll have time until tomorrow evening to do it properly, and I think it's somewhat important, so hold your horses plz.

[PhaerieM]

You guys, this sounds good. Foil, peanut, and Almaster are a very probable scum-team, given everything that has happened.

You forgot the pastry.

[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.

[PhaerieM]

Sorry to be quoting all of these old been there, done that posts, but I wasn't here for the been there done that

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.

What i dislike the most thus far....
Bob's bandwagon vote on to AGM. It was with terrible reasoning (A 1 liner, imagine that), and just looked scummy to me. He claims that AGM just can't believe that is a good case, thus votes him. Generally, this can be a good reason for a vote. The only problem is, he is voting for someone not pushing a good case on post 40!

Unvote, Vote archaebob

If it was just the first post of AGM that we were discussing, I would probably agree with you, as despite him being wrong, he might have thought he had something at the time.

The problem is that in the post after it, despite a short explanation by myself and having several people tell him that his logic is flawed, he not only continues to push on the case, but goes after Mordy for disagreeing with him based Mordy's explanation for why he doesn't think it would be scummy, which honestly seems like more of a mafia theory argument on what is a good/bad play than a defense or an accusation.

It seems to me that Almaster was trying to get people to follow him with no actual case behind his words, and I'm leaving my vote on him until I get an explanation.

Good logic, totally agree (Almaster even had a post that went along the lines of "Your argument is all well and good, but I still think you're scum... however, there are bigger fish to fry..." If that's not a scumtastic post, I don't know what is. Saying you understand the person's argument, but it doesn't matter, you're sticking with your case. Then, "Oh but there are bigger fish to fry now, and so I's gonna back away slowly then slink off to fight another day.").

Gamma = town for me.

So, that's Mordy, Gamma, and to a *slightly* lesser extent, Chinaman, in my town bucket.

[PhaerieM]

Post # 125, where foilist attacks and votes for Muffin, is giving me pause... I still have a healthy suspicion of foilist, but I think Muffin should be the lynch for the day. For now.

[PhaerieM]

On to others:

peanutman's first post of note is #139, in which he votes archaebob. This post did not jump out as scummy to me at all... reading on..

[AlmasterGM]

I strongly recommend that you make yourself useful doing some sort of scum-hunting. Post your opinions on people. Ask questions. Whether or not you are scum, you are the least costly mislynch right now by like a million miles. You will be lynched today no matter what if that's still true at deadline, and I think you could do wonders for your case by taking steps to change that.

I don’t understand how I am supposed to meet this demand in a pro-town manner. You presume that I was kidding about all my previous arguments or something. Just because they were rebutted doesn’t mean they are deleted. It’s clear base on this statement that what you want me to do is simply post a case against one of the easy targets – Folist or cruelty, for example, already have suspicion on them. Do I agree with those suspicions? Sure, but what does that thought do for this game or me? Mindlessly joining the masses is hardly beneficial for the town…if anything, I’d say it’s more scummy than anything I’ve actually done today.

@Archaebob - If Almaster pulls his act together and we don't decide to lynch him, who would be your next suspect?

I don’t like this post at all. It does two things – first, it implies that I am being policy-lynched and not scum-lynched, and second, it gives folist a backdoor for unvoting / backpeddeling. This doesn’t flow well with his previously definitive statements that I am scum.

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).

Anyone incapable of detecting the obvious falsity of that statement is either a) tunneling really hard b) scum or c) really, really, really bad at detecting sarcasm. I don’t care how hard you think it is to read the Internet – that statement was obvious. I also disagree with your analysis that my “joke” was anti-town – to the contrary, it has told us that:

-Peanutman, Foliist, and cruelty are willing to cling to any shred of evidence to get me lynched.
-SpyreX sees it as bussing.
-Bob and Sanjay ignore did.

First option seems most suspicious to me.

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!

@Almaster - I think it would be a good time to point out that you claiming some sort of power role won't influence my opinion at all unless it is accompanied by some sort of scum hunting as Archaebob has suggested.

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.
Obviously, you can choose not to believe me if you don’t want to. I don’t see how that would be pro-town, though – it’s Day 1, so taking a gamble is hardly the strategic play.

Anyway, I really want to hear what SocioPath is to say. I think he has good opinions.

[cruelty]

Anyone incapable of detecting the obvious falsity of that statement is either a) tunneling really hard b) scum or c) really, really, really bad at detecting sarcasm. I don’t care how hard you think it is to read the Internet – that statement was obvious. I also disagree with your analysis that my “joke” was anti-town – to the contrary, it has told us that:

-Peanutman, Foliist, and cruelty are willing to cling to any shred of evidence to get me lynched

Ha.

I don't want you lynched, my vote is on foilist - I haven't even tried to push a case your way. This is fairly blatant opportunism given the recent shifty glances I have been receiving.

I find it interesting that a large part of your defence is basically subjective -'I was joking, and the people who commented on it are obvscum'. It's just poor logic and relies on popular agreement that you were in fact bringing the chuckles and not just being a dumbass. Flaky.

I will also note that I disagree with you Mordy - a foilist lynch will be much more illuminating.

(this is from my iPod at work, spyrex read will follow when I get home).

[AlmasterGM]

I don't want you lynched

Oh really?

I'd consider AGM the least costly mislynch.

Haha. Massive FOS @ AGM.

Not really liking AGM,

I find it interesting that a large part of your defence is basically subjective -'I was joking, and the people who commented on it are obvscum'. It's just poor logic and relies on popular agreement that you were in fact bringing the chuckles and not just being a dumbass. Flaky.

Once again, oh really? Using logic and not just assertions, explain to me how my logic is poor. The point of my statement was not to "bring in the chuckles," it was to see who jumped on it. Also, explain to me how popular agreement is irrelevant given that popular agreement is what was used to disprove my Gammagooey argument in the first couple of pages. Finally, what does subjectiveness have to do with anything?