Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[foilist13]

Since I seem to be the second suspect after Almaster, since his wagon is still larger, are there any questions people would like to direct at me? I saw one, but it isn't a very insightful question.

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?

Your general attitude has been to delay content indefinitely and when directly questioned say you want to play your cards close to the chest. This does not sit well at all with me, and yes, is uncooperative with the town.

This is something else that jumped out at me. In these quotes, Archaebob makes statements not about the town's attitude, but about the players' actual beliefs. This is

very

scummy to me as I find little explanation for it other than to manipulate the town, or at least the player he was talking to at the time into not investigating him seriously. Granted it could be something else, but I still want to draw attention to it.

It is a very small minority of the players in this game that think my FoS of you was without reason.

No one ever actually said this, or even indicated it so far as I can tell.

and use my current town creds to totally de-legitimize your scumhunting.

Again, I didn't see anyone actually declare him town, except for maybe SpyreX, but I think that was later (correct me if I'm wrong).

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

Obviously he intended this to be obvious, but it falls in with the pattern none the less.

A second reason is, if I can be totally truthful, I'm not exactly confident about my prospects of surviving the night.

This is a

huge

soft claim. Right here he is making himself out to be the best scum target, we can assume, because he is the most effective and pro-town player. Does anyone else take issue with this?

Therefore, as I consider my actions to be beneficial to my win condition at this moment, I have little reason to not continue as I have been.

Here's another town soft claim.

yet you are willing to put me up to L-3 because of something which I think should be easy to reconcile with an aggrresive town personality.

This one is not anything like concrete either, but again it looks like Archaebob is trying to strongly associate himself with town. Maybe that is forgivable, but it seems a bit more than necessary to me.

Don't let your personal issues with me prevent you from making a good town move.

Here he does acknowledge that at least one player has taken issue with him, but in context I think that that was rather unavoidable. The good town move part is a little unsettling to me. Yes i suppose it would be a good town move to pressure lurkers, but again I can't help thinking that he is trying to associate himself with the "good town" part of it.

A few players on here DO think I'm pretty well-confirmed town

And this is the biggest one right here. No one said this. Ever.

I noticed the last one and it didn't sit well with me, so I went back to see if there were more. I was more than a little surprised at how many I found, and even more than that, that Archaebob is the only one doing it. Others may say something like that once of twice, but

8

times? That seems a little much.


On an unrelated note,

@Everyone - The idea that me Almaster and Peanut are a scum team doesn't hold up. You'll notice that at one point we were all on the Archaebob wagon, even though my part in it was an OMGUS vote. Despite the fact that its WIFOM, I think it would be a blatantly stupid move for a scum team to all be on a wagon for a player at the same time, especially when we've all been met with some suspicion so far.

Also at no point in this game, except for my very first post of the game, did I in any way indicate that I was not suspicious of Peanut or Almaster, and my first post was just an agreement with Almaster's argument, not a praise or recognition of Almaster himself.

You'll notice that they both are high on my scum list, and have been for some time. This is also WIFOM, but why would I cast suspicion at both of my partners on D-1, especially if it is clear that one of them won't be lynched? I fail to see the benefit to a scum player in doing that.

Since the original case against me, has anyone seen anything they consider to be a scum tell from me? I haven't seen anything like that mentioned in the last few pages except for declarations of continued suspicions.

So again, does any one have any more questions they'd like me to answer? I'm seeing repeated expressions of suspicion, and at the moment I'm unsure as to what to respond to in order to alleviate that.

[Sanjay]

@Sanjay - No. I said I'd go more into depth, but when I went to make the post I realized that I really didn't have much of anything to post other than that I really wasn't thinking about it and the reasons I already posted still held true as weak as they are.

How does this explain why you posted your obviously made up reasons?

You typed that you would go into more depth, but then you realized you didn't really have any more depth to go into, so instead of just backspacing out of that problem, you decided to misrepresent your thought processes and go into more depth anyway.

foilist13, here is my main question:

WHAT THE HECK?

[archaebob]

Does anybody actually need me to respond to foilist's case? I'm happy to fully rebut it in the same way I did AGM's, but it's going to require some time to do properly, and from where I'm standing, it looks to me like it should be obv-bullshit (<- new word, amirite?).

I'm going to keep working on my cases for now. Let me know if this latest wall from foilist is something you need me to address.

[archaebob]

fuck it, this thing is so bad i'm DYING to destroy it.

I'll post my "defense" tomorrow.

[cruelty]

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?

First quote is a response to a

hypothetical scenario

. Irrelevant, and lol @ using it as ammo. Scrambling much?

Second quote, eh, guess you could argue that my radar blipped. FoS is not a vote.

Third quote is from a post where I voted for foilist. That is, there's no way you can claim that specific post as an example of me trying to lynch you.



The reason I call your logic poor (your logic being the people who commented on your wagon post = obvscum) is because it's entirely invalid as a point unless other people are willing to accept that your post was a) not serious and b) deliberate baiting. I could probably concede point A, but I highly doubt that you entertained any thoughts of baiting when you posted it, and I absolutely think that you're trying to paint it as scumhunting (via baiting) in

retrospect

. Despite this, I still think that foilist is the best lynch candidate for today.



I also said I'd outline why I consider you the least costly mislynch (predicated on the hypothetical assumption that it's between both you and foilist, and I have inside information that both are town). The reason is quite simple - I think your activity and contribution in terms of both relevant opinions and actual content is questionable at best. I think that you tend to go missing when the hard questions are being asked and I don't think that you're as likely to actively pressure people as foilist is.

Basically, I think that townfoilist is more likely to contribute in a positive, consistent manner. This, however, is a moot point, because I believe foilist is scum. Double moot, because I'm leaning more and more towards both being scum.

[Benmage]

err busy weekend and monday, not on computer with notes...i'll give a vote count tomorrow

[cruelty]

And what do I think of Spyrex?

I re-read his iso, and initially thought town - I got the impression that he was a fairly experienced player with some early reads that seem to be echoing through the majority now - specifically this:

Its Foilist - Ala - Peanut at the mo.

That's fine, basically along the lines of what most people are thinking. But,

I don't even know what to think about this. Every bit of it reeks scummy.

This was in response to peanutman's 4 (in iso). Spyrex finds him scummy.

Then:

Oddly enough peanuts last few posts make me feel LESS worried about him.

This was 4 days later, okay, no issue. Opinions change.

Then (following a massive wall post by Spyrex establishing a case vs Gamma):

but the earlier posts by peanut didn't have that itchy feeling I get from both GM and foil.

The thing is, if you actually read the posts I've snipped from, there's a fairly big inconsistency. He obviously DID find peanut VERY scummy at one point.

This basically sums up my feelings; I'm not confident enough in that single issue to even try to build a case, but I feel like there is a distinct possibility of something being rotten in the state of Spyrex. The read I get from him is a very experienced and capable player, but his contribution isn't what I'd expect. It's hard to articulate, I'll think about it and try to come back to this.

[Gammagooey]

Hay cruelty, asked you a question back on page 18 and never got an answer. One would be appreciated.

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

On foilist- About zis:

A few players on here DO think I'm pretty well-confirmed town

He isn't confirmed, but I do think he's town, have stated this in previous posts, and Mordy and Spyrex have voiced similar opinions of him. I'm kind of wondering how you missed this.

Also, i'll probably post an unofficial votecount in a few minutes since Benmage isn't.

[SpyreX]

@Cruelty:

Yes, my game is off this game. However, my issues with peanut and scummy/not scummy are a function of his interactions with Foil / GM who I find both to be individually scummy and collectively sense making as partners.

#7 was my reference to a peanut post in reference to foil. That was super scummy.

Then there was a break in his posts, then activity that made a lot more sense and gave me good vibes.

Then there was MEGABUS the vote after GM's :explode:

(And I made a case on GM, not Gamma)

[Gammagooey]

COMPLETELY UNOFFICIAL

Votecount!

AlmasterGM (5 votes, L-2) MordyS, Gammagooey, SpyreX, foilist13, peanutman
foilist13 (2 votes, L-5) lexprod/Papa Zito, cruelty
Archaebob (1 vote, L-6) AlmasterGM

Not Voting (4) Sanjay, Muffin/Sociopath, phaerieM, archaebob

Pretty sure this is right, phaerie and archae unvoted on page 16 and i haven't seen a vote from them since.

[Gammagooey]

Last thing before i pass out for the night-(quotes shortened slightly for readability)

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

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 is a seriously good question, and although Muffin got replaced Socio needs to give us an idea of what he believes Muffin was thinking when he made this.

[cruelty]

@Cruelty:

Yes, my game is off this game. However, my issues with peanut and scummy/not scummy are a function of his interactions with Foil / GM who I find both to be individually scummy and collectively sense making as partners.

#7 was my reference to a peanut post in reference to foil. That was super scummy.

Then there was a break in his posts, then activity that made a lot more sense and gave me good vibes.

Then there was MEGABUS the vote after GM's :explode:

(And I made a case on GM, not Gamma)

Just so we're clear, you're not really on my radar at this point. Not town, not scum, I think you're sort of weaving drunkenly between the two. Although I'll concede context is important, I'm not entirely sure that you've satisfactorily resolved the contradiction. There are, however, more important matters at hand (foilist/AGM).

Gamma, sorry, didn't see it.

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?

First, let me respond to the first paragraph. To do so, consider this hypothetical (and admittedly highly unlikely) scenario: everyone in the game lists their top 4 suspects. Whilst it's fairly likely that the same names will keep popping up, there'll be two or three who are equally conspicuous by their absence - it's less about what is said, and more about what can be inferred from the names that aren't there. If you're never mentioned, then scum can reasonably assume that by eliminating you, they're ensuring that chaos runs that little bit more rampant.


Now the second - If I was to replace into a game, with my approach (that is, someone who is highly dubious of lists), then I'd discuss my top one or two suspects, why I find them suspicious etc, and then try to assimilate myself into the general back and forth that everyone else is already involved in. Never, ever an outright list.

I mean, I understand that it's simple enough for people go go through in iso and compare who everone thinks is scummy, but why make it easy?

[PhaerieM]

Okay, I give up. What does "ISO" mean?

Also, I think Papa mentioned this earlier, but doesn't "open" mean that the list of roles in the game is given to us? I don't see that anywhere for this game.

[MordyS]

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

[Papa Zito]

I've PMed the mod regarding if this is an Open setup or not.

So I went through the cases ITT, and it turns out there's 9 (!!) of them that I found, and I may have missed some in all the walls. If I were to post all that stuff in here, I'd just be contributing to the problem, so I'm just gonna make a summary and I'll post the big thing only at request.

Like I said, 9 cases. BTW, I'm willing to bet that, since this is Day 1 and the town's been so chaotic, that none of these cases are buses:

Case 1: foilist13 vs. Muffin (125)

- bad case

Case 2: peanutman vs. archaebob (139)

- Would only agree on a couple points if we were later in the game

Case 3: AlmasterGM vs. archaebob (221)

- Agree on a few points but they're aren't damning. Some weird repeats of Peanut's case.

Case 4: AlmasterGM vs. MordyS (also 221)

- Horrible. All theory and wrong at that. lulz

Case 5: Muffin vs. cruelty (289)

- PbPA, I agree with all points here.

Case 6: cruelty vs. archaebob (290)

- Playstyle nonsense.
Sanjay's 327 isn't a case but it was lulz so I thought I'd say so here.

Case 7: SpyreX vs. AlmasterGM (351)

- I agree with a couple of points here. Good case.

Case 8: archaebob vs. Peanutman (370)

- This case is pretty much predicated on Foilist13 being scum.

Case 9: PhaerieM vs. Muffin (464)

- Some good points here.

One thing I'm concerned about is that I'm seeing a lot of people try to form scumteams... it's too early. We need some flips before we can do that.

Anyway, going to make this official now, prolly should have done it earlier.

unvote: Foilist13
vote: cruelty

AlmasterGM is also a good lynch, both from an informational as well as a scumminess standpoint. I won't mind switching there at all.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
AlmasterGM (5) MordyS, Gammagooey, SpyreX, foilist13, peanutman
foilist13 (1) cruelty
Archaebob (1) AlmasterGM
Cruelty (1) Papa Zito

Note Voting (4) Sanjay, Muffin, archaebob, PhaerieM

Sorry for the delay guys. No this is not an open setup that was merely stating the game is now on.

The deadline is in roughly 10 days fyi.

[foilist13]

@Archaebob - There is nothing there to destroy. I didn't present that post as a case, nor was it meant to be. I had one point to make, and I made it. You'll notice I didn't vote you, FoS you, or even accuse you of scum. That was something I noticed and pointed out.

[MordyS]

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

[Papa Zito]

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

Crap. I knew I had.

Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.

[AlmasterGM]

First quote is a response to a hypothetical scenario. Irrelevant, and lol @ using it as ammo. Scrambling much?

I'm using it to disprove a previous statement you made, "I don't want you lynched" - not as ammo. What does it being a hypothetical have to do with anything? Obviously it's going to be a hypothetical - we aren't lynching anyone just yet.

Second quote, eh, guess you could argue that my radar blipped. FoS is not a vote.

So you're willing to FoS me but you don't actually want me lynched. Right...

Third quote is from a post where I voted for foilist. That is, there's no way you can claim that specific post as an example of me trying to lynch you.

Just because you voted foilist doesn't mean you wouldn't also lynch me. Your attitude seems to suggest you are willing to do so.

The reason I call your logic poor (your logic being the people who commented on your wagon post = obvscum) is because it's entirely invalid as a point unless other people are willing to accept that your post was a) not serious and b) deliberate baiting. I could probably concede point A, but I highly doubt that you entertained any thoughts of baiting when you posted it, and I absolutely think that you're trying to paint it as scumhunting (via baiting) in retrospect. Despite this, I still think that foilist is the best lynch candidate for today.

First, why do my intentions at the time of the post matter? Even if the logic is applied retroactively, it still works. Second, what is so dangerous about accepting my statement as-is? Obviously I could be lying scum, but if that's the case, everything I say is going to be false, which would contradict your whole demand that I "be pro-town and contribute something." You're giving me no way to win here.

Also at no point in this game, except for my very first post of the game, did I in any way indicate that I was not suspicious of Peanut or Almaster, and my first post was just an agreement with Almaster's argument, not a praise or recognition of Almaster himself.

This move confuses me. If you're scum, you know I'm town, so I don't see why you would want to distance yourself from me. I suppose you could be more concerned with getting me lynched and making yourself look good now.

[archaebob]

@ everyone -

Something has come up IRL that requires my attention tonight. I hope to be back here tomorrow, but I don't know for sure how much time I'll have to make any lengthy posts until the weekend.

Peace.

[cruelty]

First quote is a response to a hypothetical scenario. Irrelevant, and lol @ using it as ammo. Scrambling much?

I'm using it to disprove a previous statement you made, "I don't want you lynched" - not as ammo. What does it being a hypothetical have to do with anything? Obviously it's going to be a hypothetical - we aren't lynching anyone just yet.

Second quote, eh, guess you could argue that my radar blipped. FoS is not a vote.

So you're willing to FoS me but you don't actually want me lynched. Right...

Third quote is from a post where I voted for foilist. That is, there's no way you can claim that specific post as an example of me trying to lynch you.

Just because you voted foilist doesn't mean you wouldn't also lynch me. Your attitude seems to suggest you are willing to do so.

Ok.

1: You're using my reply to a hypothetical scenario whereby you're NOT scum to disprove a statement I made (in a reality where I suspect you probably ARE scum). This isn't rocket science - in the event that you and foilist were BOTH town and I somehow knew this, I would prefer to lynch you. This has nothing to do with me wanting to lynch you in REALITY.

2: I think you're suspicious. I don't want you lynched today.

3: You used a post where I

voted for somebody else

as evidence of me wanting you lynched. Can you not see the contradiction here?

re: 1, 2 and 3. I think you are suspicious.

I do not want you lynched today

. I have said why, and I'll say it again. I think we will gain more information from foilist's lynch (with regards to his interactions with peanut, archaebob and yourself) than we will from lynching you. This is why I'm opposed to your lynch today.

YES I find you suspicious.
NO I do not want you lynched today. Seriously.


And now your last paragraph.

snipped for space

First, why do my intentions at the time of the post matter? Even if the logic is applied retroactively, it still works. Second, what is so dangerous about accepting my statement as-is? Obviously I could be lying scum, but if that's the case, everything I say is going to be false, which would contradict your whole demand that I "be pro-town and contribute something." You're giving me no way to win here.

1: Intentions matter because if you were not trying to bait at the time you posted (which you are implying here) then your argument is highly opportunistic and you've contradicted yourself. Let me explain.

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.

This post is the one where you tell us exactly what your 'joke' post did (most importantly) exposed 3 players as scum which is fine. However, you note that it's sarcastic (ie: not serious) and you NEVER say that it's deliberate bait. This would have been a fine opportunity to, but highly significant is the absence of that claim. Should also note that there are 3 posts between the original post and this one, again, deliberate baiting is never mentioned (despite having received the supposed desired response).

The point of my statement was not to "bring in the chuckles," it was to see who jumped on it.

This was your next post, and was a response to me saying that I didn't think much of your defence for making a ridiculous post. This is the first time that you imply deliberate baiting, despite having a golden opportunity to do so earlier.

Then this (I already quoted in full above, will do so again for cohesion).

why do my intentions at the time of the post matter? Even if the logic is applied retroactively, it still works

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

[Benmage]

@ everyone -

Something has come up IRL that requires my attention tonight. I hope to be back here tomorrow, but I don't know for sure how much time I'll have to make any lengthy posts until the weekend.

Peace.

Reading the beginning of this post scared the crap out of me! No replacing out!

[Sanjay]

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

Crap. I knew I had.

Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.

I've only made like one substantive post all game so far so I would feel awful if it was left out.

[AlmasterGM]

This post is the one where you tell us exactly what your 'joke' post did (most importantly) exposed 3 players as scum which is fine. However, you note that it's sarcastic (ie: not serious) and you NEVER say that it's deliberate bait. This would have been a fine opportunity to, but highly significant is the absence of that claim. Should also note that there are 3 posts between the original post and this one, again, deliberate baiting is never mentioned (despite having received the supposed desired response).

Why is it significant? Why does me missing what you consider a "golden opportunity" mean anything? You're missing soo many internal links here, the most important one being this:

This I read as basically saying that yes, you're applying the logic retroactively. Which is a direct contradiction to your previous post.

It's called a hypothetical - you should be familiar with the concept seeing as you were just talking about it. In any case, you've ignored the actual point -

Why does it matter if the logic is applied retroactively?

It doesn't make it any less true. All you seem to be doing here is trying to make legitimate scumhunting go away based on some technicality. This isn't a criminal trial where the evidence needs to pass a bunch of rules and guilt needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - it's a game of mafia.