Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[cruelty]

Very briefly before work (Zito you're gonna have to wait).

@ AGM: From a information-for-town standpoint, you're probably not a great lynch. From a 'who-do-I-think-is-scummy' standpoint, then you're in a league of your own. Who do I

want

lynched? You. Who do I think is the

best

lynch? I'll answer that later today.

@ Sanjay: Two points I was trying to make.
1: That I wasn't neglecting the game (I said previously that I'd be back prior to deadline).
2: I think (and still do) that AGM is at the very least deliberately anti-town. If you look at his posts prior to the hammer he's switched his voting around 3 times without explanation, ultimately culminating in the hammer. I can't help but wonder if that hammer was an opportunistic bus.

I wasn't enthusiastic about the lynch, no. It didn't thrill me with joy because honestly I didn't think Muffin was scummier than foilist/AGM on day 1. I could see the logic behind the case, but it seemed less than ironclad.

[AlmasterGM]

@AGM: From a information-for-town standpoint, you're probably not a great lynch. From a 'who-do-I-think-is-scummy' standpoint, then you're in a league of your own. Who do I

want

lynched? You. Who do I think is the

best

lynch? I'll answer that later today.

So I'm "deliberately anti-town" because I move my vote around when it really doesn't matter anyway, but your use of semantic games that makes your intentions, actions, and position obscure and hard to evaluate isn't?

[cruelty]

So I'm "deliberately anti-town" because I move my vote around when it really doesn't matter anyway

No.

[Sanjay]

Yo cruelty, I'm still tripping up on the wording of that quote I brought up.

Was there someone else you wanted to see hammer Sociopath? I still don't see why your issue was that AlmasterGM got to hammer as if the hammer is first prize for most pro-town dude.

That's certainly what it seems like reading that quote; am I right?

[cruelty]

Oh, yeah it was basically a shake of the head that one of the players I dislike most in the game got to pull the trigger.

[AlmasterGM]

So I'm "deliberately anti-town" because I move my vote around when it really doesn't matter anyway

No.

Then explain.

[foilist13]

Wow, this is a complete turn around from yesterday. What happened to all the activity?

Righto, I'm going to go ahead and

vote:almaster

cuz I still think he's scum, and I feel it is totally plausible that he simply bussed out his scum buddy.

So lets get some conversation going!

[PhaerieM]

Yo cruelty, I'm still tripping up on the wording of that quote I brought up.

Was there someone else you wanted to see hammer Sociopath? I still don't see why your issue was that AlmasterGM got to hammer as if the hammer is first prize for most pro-town dude.

That's certainly what it seems like reading that quote; am I right?

Oh, yeah it was basically a shake of the head that one of the players I dislike most in the game got to pull the trigger.

If you didn't know that Muffin was scum (in fact, weren't filled with joy over his lynch, because it wasn't an 'ironclad' case <when is there ever on Day 1?? I thought it was pretty damned good>), then why would you care about AGM hammering? You stated you weren't sure at all that the Muffin bandwagon was right, so why would you care if AGM hammered?

If I'm not mistaken, your post came *before* Night 1, *before* Muffin flipped scum. Why would you say that then? If anything, I'd think you'd be *happy* that AGM hammered, if in your mind Muffin could easily turn up town, because that would put even more pressure on AGM, who you found scummiest.

I'm not as positive as I was about Muffin, but I'm getting more and more sure about cruelty being scum.

@ archaebob: lucky? You think yesterday's lynch was lucky? Maybe it was for some, who were just voting based on the fact that Socio was lurking hard & they didn't like the other 2 viable lynch candidates, but I was close to 100% sure to positive that Muffin was scum. Most of you agreed with my case on him, just didn't place a vote because there was so much other stuff going on. I find it crappy that you are belittling what a great outcome it was by saying how lucky we got that Muffin was scum. Just because it wasn't your own wagon, and there wasn't 30 pages of discussion about it doesn't mean it wasn't a valid case. Obviously it was a valid case, Muffin turned up scum.

I'm really not liking the way archaebob is trying to downplay the awesomeness that was yesterday: "What would we have learned if Muffin flipped town? Absolutely nothing." Are you kidding me? There's a *ton* of information to be gained from a quick lynch. It catches scum off guard.
I think that no matter *which* way Muffin flipped, the first few people on the Muffin wagon come out looking decidedly town. Think about it. If he was scum (which he was), there'd be no reason for them to start a wagon out of thin air on their *godfather* scumbuddy Day 1. If Muffin was town, then what would they have to gain from , again, starting a wagon out of thin air, on someone they *know* is going to be a mislynch, and they *know* there's going to be suspicion on the them the following day if he comes up town.

And why did you say "all of a sudden Phaerie votes Muffin/Socio, and all hell breaks loose" (paraphrasing)? I wasn't the first to vote Muffin, it was Papa Zito. A couple of other people had expressed interest in him as well after Papa Zito voted and before I did, so I'm just wondering why you chose my vote as the jumping off point to all hell breaking loose. Yes, I was the one first to be bring a viable case on Muffin, and made no secret that I wanted him to be the day 1 lynch , but unfortuanately nothing ever came of that. I wouldn't have minded being the first to vote, I wanted to vote for him, I just didn't think there'd be any support for it. But the fact is, Papa Zito did, and you pretty much ignored that in your post, instead saying it was my vote that started the ball rolling. Are you trying to focus it on me (who I'm guessing most everyone believes is town) so that people don't see Papa Zito as pretty much confirmed town too? I'm just not understanding the motivation.

I don't like the painting himself as a victim either, as Sanjay pointed out. Nor the sudden backing away from this game. I do *not* think it's a coincidence that he all of a sudden can't post like he did anymore. Especially when he gave the excuse of having to post give priority to another game he's in, so that we can't jump on him for posting in other parts of the site and not here. He was writing himself a free pass to lurk here but post freely in his other games.

So, yeah. Nothing's really changed for me since Day 2 started. My top two suspects are archaebob and cruelty. I'm not totally positive about either, but I'm getting there. I'll probably need to go back and reread them (as well as peanut!), but I'm just not looking forward to that daunting task Give me a little while to rise to the challenge!

I'm also curious about your theories a couple of you mentioned on Spyrex's kill (although I think fear of doc protection on me or Zito & the fact that spyrex has a good townie reputation are pretty good ideas to me), but I understand if you'd rather not say.

[Gammagooey]

I'm going to bed now, I'll have more tomorrow I think. Specifically, I'll address foilist and peanut.

What happened to this exactly?

Still want cross-opinions from cruelty and peanut, preferably before you have an excuse with thanksgiving weekend.

Cruelty's reasoning for that post seems off to me as well, I can understand being a little irritated at hammering before Socio had claimed or because it didn't come with a reasoning to give info to go on. But to pull the trigger? I don't see why that matters when there are other people saying that they would hammer after a claim.http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/posting.php

[Gammagooey]

Huh, part of the URL got copied to the end. Disregard it if you please.

[cruelty]

Zito prepare to be unimpressed.

If you didn't know that Muffin was scum (in fact, weren't filled with joy over his lynch, because it wasn't an 'ironclad' case <when is there ever on Day 1?? I thought it was pretty damned good>), then why would you care about AGM hammering? You stated you weren't sure at all that the Muffin bandwagon was right, so why would you care if AGM hammered?

If I'm not mistaken, your post came *before* Night 1, *before* Muffin flipped scum. Why would you say that then? If anything, I'd think you'd be *happy* that AGM hammered, if in your mind Muffin could easily turn up town, because that would put even more pressure on AGM, who you found scummiest.

I'm not as positive as I was about Muffin, but I'm getting more and more sure about cruelty being scum.

Sigh, where's your vote then?

You're reading far too much into what I said. I mean, I get that you guys love to read into the tiny little details and try to create glorious cases from them, but I feel like in this instance (seems to happen a lot on this site, I guess it's a flaw I should correct) you're making mountains out of molehills.

All I meant (and by all, I mean all) was that it aggravated me a little that one of the scummiest players in the game got to pull the trigger. That's it. I won't address this issue anymore.

Think about it. If he was scum (which he was), there'd be no reason for them to start a wagon out of thin air on their *godfather* scumbuddy Day 1. If Muffin was town, then what would they have to gain from , again, starting a wagon out of thin air, on someone they *know* is going to be a mislynch, and they *know* there's going to be suspicion on the them the following day if he comes up town./quote]

On the surface of this I agree. Will note the WIFOM, though.

I don't like the painting himself as a victim either, as Sanjay pointed out.

I said that. Didn't quote it, but to respond to the lurking issue, not convinced but I'll let him defend himself. More interesting to me is his constant push for political capital (I think he even specifically mentioned in his last (at least, his last big) post) and the associations I make with a mindset perpetually concerned with that.

Anyway, peanut and foilist.

My read on peanut at the end of Day 1 was essentially null. I didn't find him particularly scummy but I thought that his associations with other players could prove his alignment one way or another. As I said, a foilist lynch would have been enlightening, especially regarding peanut.

So, in light of the Muffin lynch.

I note that he never actually mentioned Muffin at all until his 29th post (3 weeks into the game). That said, I find it hard to believe that scum would lynch their godfather day 1 - he's correct when he says he assisted in widening the town's scope. I also find it interesting that although he can legitimately claim credit for assisting the lynch (or at least helping to get the ball rolling), he never actually voted.

Most interesting for me though, is this:

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

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it could be scum realising that a lynch is imminent and subtly trying to push people off the wagon, or it could be a legitimate town concern at a potential speed-mislynch. For me, I tend to think that it's the latter, I think that peanut's play leading into night 1 were more pro-town than anything else (in the light of Muffin's lynch). That said, I'm not willing to discount the possibility of bussing - one would gain a lot of town cred for being involved in the lynch of a godfather and the lack of a vote does bother me a little.

So slight town lean on peanut.

Foilist.

His first post.

Hello Archaebob and Muffin

Hmm.

Seriously though, I didn't like foilist throughout day 1. I thought he was pretty scummy (this is documented and I won't flood the thread with repetition) and I thought that his flip would give us a lot of information, especially re: peanut and archaebob.

Today he's been interesting.

This first quote was actually yesterday, but relates to what comes later.

I find Cruelty extremely scummy, and to a lesser extent Peanutman, but obviously neither of them is going to be lynched,

Then

I'm much more comfortable with lynching Peanutman right nowbut I'm going to with hold my vote until I get my thoughts in order.

@Phaerie - I can see what you're saying about Peanutman, and I'm still not particularly inclined to vote him

I note the continued suspicion of peanut (it goes further back than any of those quotes) which ends in a weird contradiction in the last quote. I'm not sure what foilist is saying here - is he agreeing with Phaerie (who makes a reasonable case for townpeanut between the last two quotes) or is he just acknowledging her case? That is, has he changed his mind?

@ foilist, can you clarify where you currently stand on peanutman? Why did you want to lynch him at the start of day 2, and do you still think he's a viable candidate?

His second-to-last post is fairly blatant WIFOM speculation about the NK:

In the beginning of the game MordyS said something about him being a very strong player by reputation, so maybe that had something to do with it. Also I think we can take from that that he was probably right about his town list. If I were scum I would not be quick to kill someone likely to defend me.

Don't really think I need to talk about this. Just a lot of unnecessary (and really unfounded) speculation about Spyrex. I will say that town and correct don't necessarily go hand in hand. It's illogical to conclude that because Spyrex was town he was therefore right about alignments.

I still think foilist is slightly scummy, but I'm not as convinced as I was yesterday.


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.

[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

[Papa Zito]

Zito prepare to be unimpressed.

:/

I still think foilist is slightly scummy, but I'm not as convinced as I was yesterday.

Why did he help steer a wagon to his Godfather then?

Also, if you had to vote right now or explode, who would you vote for?

I'm also curious about your theories a couple of you mentioned on Spyrex's kill (although I think fear of doc protection on me or Zito & the fact that spyrex has a good townie reputation are pretty good ideas to me), but I understand if you'd rather not say.

It'd involve PR speculation. Remind me in a day or two if we're still around.

---

Archaebob does seem to be lurking. Not wise, given what happened yesterday.

BTW, if we lynch archaebob and he flips scum:

Case 3: peanutman vs. archaebob (139)

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

Case 4: AlmasterGM vs. archaebob (221)

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

These two look much better.

Told you that thing would come in handy.

[cruelty]

If I had to vote now or explode, I'd vote bob.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
cruelty (2) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM
AlmasterGM (1) foilist13
archaebob (1) peanutman

Chickens:
archaebob, cruelty, PharieM, Sanjay, MordyS, Gammagoey

[MordyS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MordyS]

Here's the significant vote count, btw:

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

Note Voting (2) SocioPath,peanutman

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

[MordyS]

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

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

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

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

[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).

[PhaerieM]

Zito prepare to be unimpressed.

If you didn't know that Muffin was scum (in fact, weren't filled with joy over his lynch, because it wasn't an 'ironclad' case <when is there ever on Day 1?? I thought it was pretty damned good>), then why would you care about AGM hammering? You stated you weren't sure at all that the Muffin bandwagon was right, so why would you care if AGM hammered?

If I'm not mistaken, your post came *before* Night 1, *before* Muffin flipped scum. Why would you say that then? If anything, I'd think you'd be *happy* that AGM hammered, if in your mind Muffin could easily turn up town, because that would put even more pressure on AGM, who you found scummiest.

I'm not as positive as I was about Muffin, but I'm getting more and more sure about cruelty being scum.

Sigh, where's your vote then?

As I stated there and later in the post, I'm not sure about you being scum, and I'm actually more sure of Archaebob being scum than I am you. I like to be careful with my vote, and generally will only vote (outside of RVS) when I'm reasonably sure of one's scummitude.

You're reading far too much into what I said. I mean, I get that you guys love to read into the tiny little details and try to create glorious cases from them, but I feel like in this instance (seems to happen a lot on this site, I guess it's a flaw I should correct) you're making mountains out of molehills.

All I meant (and by all, I mean all) was that it aggravated me a little that one of the scummiest players in the game got to pull the trigger. That's it. I won't address this issue anymore.

Fair enough. This response doesn't strike me as particularly scummy.

Think about it. If he was scum (which he was), there'd be no reason for them to start a wagon out of thin air on their *godfather* scumbuddy Day 1. If Muffin was town, then what would they have to gain from , again, starting a wagon out of thin air, on someone they *know* is going to be a mislynch, and they *know* there's going to be suspicion on the them the following day if he comes up town.

On the surface of this I agree. Will note the WIFOM, though.

Yes it's WIFOM, but honestly everything in Mafia is WIFOM. Everything that you can say "scum wouldn't do that" about, you can also say "But aha, what if they did it for precisely the reason that they knew we'd think that?". The goal of Mafia (as town) is to take all of the data and make a decision about what scum would or wouldn't do in each particular situation based on what makes the most sense. Sure, we may be wrong, and the scum may be using our common sense to get one over on us, but we have to go with not only our instincts, but what is most likely. If we dismissed every argument as WIFOM, there would *be* no Mafia.

I don't like the painting himself as a victim either, as Sanjay pointed out.

I said that. Didn't quote it, but to respond to the lurking issue, not convinced but I'll let him defend himself. More interesting to me is his constant push for political capital (I think he even specifically mentioned in his last (at least, his last big) post) and the associations I make with a mindset perpetually concerned with that.

Duh, you're right obviously, sorry about that. I had it stuck in my head that Sanjay said that. The political capital thing is interesting to me as well, it seems that archaebob thrives on being in the middle of all that is going on in a game, on being the leader who sways and guides the town, discusses only the things that he tells us to discuss, etc. It's interesting that as soon as he *lost* that political capital, i.e. the power shift at the end of Day 1, he has just vanished from the game, as if all of the joy in the game went out of it for him now that he was no longer calling the shots. I think it's extremely important to him or his ego that he be the leader, and I think he felt like after the events of the end of day 1, he couldn't just simply reassume his place at the top of the town, the leader of discussion, and go on like normal, so I wonder if that has something to do with why he has stopped posting. That's certainly what it feels like, but I don't know what (if anything) that indicates about his alignment. It could just be an ego thing, and it's not fun for him anymore, or it could be that he doesn't know how to play it after his scumbuddy was outed and so quickly lynched, giving him no chance to game-plan and twist it around to his advantage, and making him look bad for not being ok with the Muffin lynch. His last several posts have seemed very flustered, so I'm I guess more inclined to go with this option. The third option is that he is town, & is simply telling the truth about being busy & unable to post. I find this one the hardest to swallow. I have never seen *anyone* post as much as he did on Day 1. I just find it hard to believe that his circumstances changed so drastically, so quickly, and at just the perfect moment of the Muffin bandwagon beginning.

I note that he never actually mentioned Muffin at all until his 29th post (3 weeks into the game). That said, I find it hard to believe that scum would lynch their godfather day 1 - he's correct when he says he assisted in widening the town's scope. I also find it interesting that although he can legitimately claim credit for assisting the lynch (or at least helping to get the ball rolling), he never actually voted.

This bothers me a tad, too. He said he would, but didn't end up having to due to AGM's hammer. He said it was due to him wanting to reread that he didn't vote at first, but I don't know. If he hadn't asked for a prod on me & implored me to come back & read the thread so that I could vote for Muffin if I still wanted to, then I would see his semi-jumping aboard the Muffin wagon as a bit scummy. But the fact that he did do that certainly gives me pause.

I find Cruelty extremely scummy, and to a lesser extent Peanutman, but obviously neither of them is going to be lynched,

Then

I'm much more comfortable with lynching Peanutman right nowbut I'm going to with hold my vote until I get my thoughts in order.

@Phaerie - I can see what you're saying about Peanutman, and I'm still not particularly inclined to vote him

Good catch.

His second-to-last post is fairly blatant WIFOM speculation about the NK:

In the beginning of the game MordyS said something about him being a very strong player by reputation, so maybe that had something to do with it. Also I think we can take from that that he was probably right about his town list. If I were scum I would not be quick to kill someone likely to defend me.

Don't really think I need to talk about this. Just a lot of unnecessary (and really unfounded) speculation about Spyrex. I will say that town and correct don't necessarily go hand in hand. It's illogical to conclude that because Spyrex was town he was therefore right about alignments.

I don't think he was trying to say that Sprex was correct in his opinions on other players' alignments just because spyrex was

town

. Rather, I think he meant that because spyrex was *NK'ed*, that makes it more likely that he was correct in his opinions. He's right in this sense: let's say Papa Zito, I, Sanjay or Peanutman is scum: at the end of Day 1, town spyrex posts several times that all of those people above are most likely town (I *believe* he included peanutman & sanjay in this) due to their votes on/agreeing with the bandwagon on Muffin. If one or more of us *is* scum, then it would be a little bit silly for us to want to NK the person who has just basically cleared us as town. I don't know if I fully agree with this, but I can certainly see where the argument comes from.

I still think foilist is slightly scummy, but I'm not as convinced as I was yesterday.

I'm not understanding your position on Foilist. Everything you've said in this post about Foilist leading up to the above comment was pointing out his scumminess. You said you thought he was pretty scummy on Day 1, but today he has been "interesting"... and you went on to point out the scummy things he's done today, so I'm not sure what has made you "not as convinced" as you were yesterday. You then go on to say that you'd be comfortable with his lynch even though you're not as convinced about him.

[MordyS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MordyS]

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

[MordyS]

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

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

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

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

[MordyS]

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

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

[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.