Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

- MordyS's points against me are sloppy and weak at best. A few, I'm find borderline dishonest. If you disagree, choose one that you think holds up.

- I don't really buy that MordyS thinks I've been scummier today than Cruelty.

- Mordy seemed very intelligent and pro-town yesterday. I don't believe that this is him legitimately trying to continue his scum-hunting.

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

- I'm noticing a connection between him and you. More on that later as well.

Fucking a, it's 2 am. I really need to go to bed.

[MordyS]

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

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

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

That will have to wait for tomorrow. I'm really going to bed this time.

I have a suggestion for you, regarding the case that made your head explode: go back,

actually

read the thread, and pay especially close attention to who is saying what.

When you've realized who it was that

actually

made the argument that apparently made your head explode, then I think you will understand my reasons for doing this:

vote: MordyS

HoS: Sanjay

Good night.

[cruelty]

Hmm interesting day.

This jumps out at me:

Papa Zito was right about Muffin. Effective scum-hunting goes a long way in my book.

If you actually read PZ in iso (which I did when I read the above), he's done basically no scumhunting at all. His contribution in general has actually been minimal to the point whereby if he wasn't the guy who'd started the Muffin wagon, I think he'd be getting seriously looked at for active lurking.

Papa I am pretty much certain of, since he's the one who began the actual wagon

Dislike. I might be paranoid but I've recently found myself slightly concerned that we're dealing with Palpatine here. I'm more concerned that I made a star wars analogy, though.

P.S. - Voting wise, I still like cruelty.

Yo, can we do another last minute wagon, except this time onto archaebob?

You didn't mention archaebob at all (except to take a short recess) in posts 61, 62, 63 or 64.. what's changed and why? This is another example of you jumping from target to target... explain. (I get that a lot has been said but I'd like you to articulate your reasons for wanting an archaebob lynch, I'm not going to let you blindly jump onto the popular wagon again).

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

Why? If peanut is the cop then half the case against me (that peanut and I didn't address each other day 1) goes away. And you're left with your bunch of dubious points and OMGUS.

[MordyS]

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

[archaebob]

confirm vote: MordyS

[foilist13]

Anyway, how close are we to lynching archaebob-scum?

Not close at all. Right now a lot of the arguments back and forth are "your shit is bad, so you must be scum." Setting all that aside however, MordyS comes out far scummier than Archaebob.

@MordyS - You are attacking Archaebob for being hysterically defending himself, i.e. nervous scum I assume. However in reading, you come off far more anxious than he does, and the quality of your posts has diminished over time. Actually you sound a lot like Almaster did yesterday.

Many Archaebob's cases rest on assumptions, which he states in them. That means that there is no contradiction, and they are meant to be conjecture, not damning evidence. So far his cases have been better than yours.

I don't have time right now to go back and check the validity of Archaebob's statement about you never seriously mentioning Sanjay, but until I do I will take it to be true. That in and of it self is an extremely strong connection between you and he. The only reason not to take a position on another player is if you are trying not to attract attention to them. That's it.

My Cruelty suspicions were never as strong as I would have liked, but they were the strongest. That is no longer the case.

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

unvote, Vote:MordyS

[Sanjay]

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

How is this justification for a vote in this town?

[MordyS]

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

confirm vote: MordyS

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

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

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

[MordyS]

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

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

[Sanjay]

The main thing that is giving me pause about archaebob is that if he is scum it really surprises me to find him in such a compromising situation. I'm pretty much calling up "too scummy to be scum" here. scum-archaebob shouldn't need the pep talk MordyS just gave.

That's kind of WIFOMy and a little bit meta influenced, I know. But still.

[Sanjay]

MordyS, does knowing archaebob is actually a pretty capable scumster change your read on the situation?

I have to reread that game to see if he was ever really attacked seriously (he kind of skated through to LYLO without people even being worried about him if I remember correctly, but I wasn't in the game so I might not), but archaebob's attack on you just seems so ill-advised I'm really surprised he's making it as scum.

[MordyS]

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

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

Not Voting (3) SocioPath, peanutman, Gammagooey

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

[MordyS]

EBWOP: at the most*

[cruelty]

What the hell is going on here?

I should say before I actually start writing out this post that I have only skimmed through the archaebob/Mordy battle, I haven't fact-checked so I don't know how valid their arguments are. I'll do this tomorrow, but for now I'm looking at foilist.

Many Archaebob's cases rest on assumptions, which he states in them. That means that there is no contradiction, and they are meant to be conjecture, not damning evidence. So far his cases have been better than yours.

It's hard for me to take this seriously. You think his cases, being based on assumptions, are solid?

Assumptions are weak. WEAK. A case based on an assumption can be backed away from in a hurry. A case based on an assumption can be a huge misrepresentation that can be explained away as "Oh, I misunderstood X, which made me assume Y". I'd be more inclined to find someone making assumption-based cases scummy than I would be to agree with them (again, I haven't seriously examined the cases on either side). That's just me, though.

I don't have time right now to go back and check the validity of Archaebob's statement about you never seriously mentioning Sanjay, but

until I do I will take it to be true.

Ah, blind trust.

Look, this sort of attitude would be ok (I guess..) if you hadn't followed it up with a vote. Why would you do that? I don't see the rational for town to just blindly trust in someone, no matter how much they agree with their assumption-based cases.

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

My Cruelty suspicions were never as strong as I would have liked, but they were the strongest. That is no longer the case.

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

Seriously?

Look at your voting history, you're constantly just voting for the target of the (week?). This is either scummy, or very, very easily lead town. Either way, it's not good.

[PhaerieM]

Here was the vote at the end of yesterday:

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

Not Voting (3) SocioPath, peanutman, Gammagooey

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

This post is ignoring the fact that *both* peanutman and gammagooey had stated their intentions to hammer Socio before the deadline. So yes, as it actually stood at the end of the day, if two people on Socio's wagon (and one not voting) had jumped over/stayed on Foilist's wagon, Foilist would have been the lynch. However, that's not even a valid point because had you and Sanjay not been voting Socio, 2 others would be voting Socio by deadline.

Also, Socio was nowhere to be found & you couldn't count on him showing up to vote how you wanted him to.

[PhaerieM]

Oh and it wouldn't be 5-4 anyway, even if you guys did move over to Foilist/Socio voted for foilist. It would be 5-5. Remember, Socio wasn't on the socio wagon

[peanutman]

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

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

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

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

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

@mod, vote count please.

[MordyS]

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

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

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
cruelty (2) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM,
archaebob (3) peanutman, PharieM, MordyS
MordyS (2) archaebob, foilist13

Not voting: (3) Sanjay, Gammagooey, cruelty

[Papa Zito]

Argh. What the hell is with this game.

1st, cop. If we have a counter, now's the time to do it.
2nd, investigation. I'd suggest Foilist, hard.
3rd, WTF is with the explosion of attacks on people? We have likely townies given the Godfather wagon but people are tearing down prob town instead of lynching scummy players?

I'm sure I missed a ton of stuff in this mess but goddamn.

I don't get the MordyS votes at all. Archaebob's worse and I'll vote him if I have to but this is starting to look like yesterday a bit and I suspect scum have a hand in it. Assuming our cop is real then we know at least one of yesterday's wagons was on town which half-validates the false dichotomy feel I had to the proceedings. This sudden weird shift is feeling similar.

I really don't want to wade through a bunch of arguments... can one of the MordyS voters present a case?

[Benmage]

@PHARIEM pick up your prods please.

[Gammagooey]

I think this is what archae is talking about, actually finding this was a huge pain in the ass, so I'm just gonna quote it for everyone else while I read over stuff.

A lot of people have posted since I started typing this. I'm just going to pretend that they didn't if that's okay.

@Sanjay - I've got a vague town read on you right now. I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a scum slip so far, but that doesn't mean I'm not looking.

@Archaebob - I'm not saying that there are questions that have gone unanswered other than the ones you just posted, but his choice has been to simply disappear and hope that I get myself lynched, where as I am actively trying to defend myself.

And if you are not tunneling, then what other players have you seriously considered besides me and Almaster?

@Almaster - Why shouldn't we lynch you? Is it just because you've said you were the Doc, or is there something else you have to offer?

Ha ha, foilist13. I can't believe you are accusing someone of tunneling in the same post as you continue your ridiculous policy of only having eyes for AlmasterGM.

Here's a question: Why did you consider it important that

I

considered your timeline plausible? I didn't notice it at first, but I think this is a scumslip on your part. Here's why?

Why is me finding something you said is plausible a point in your favor? For all you know I'm scummy scum trying to get the town to do my dirty work by having them lynch the power role so I don't have to. From what you know of my scum meta, I know you can trust me to

never

do that as scum, but you never know if I have changed my scum meta. I think you listed me finding your defense plausible as a point in your favor because you know my alignment.

This probably would have been a better zinger if you had said you have a neutral or scummy read on me, thus making you valuing my opinion totally bananas. But oh well. I think it is a good point anyway.

Anyway, AlmasterGM's recent defense is a little head-scratching, but it actually makes me feel better about lynching foilist13 than AlmasterGM. If nothing else, it takes away the only reason foilist13 had for us not lynching him.

Vote: foilist13

I want to see one of these two flip and I'm just fine with it being foilist13.

[archaebob]

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

Anyway, taking those two off the table, the two other super possible lynches for today are archaebob + Cruelty. I trust Papa Zito's opinion after the Muffin lynch, which could be a good heuristic for a Cruelty lynch, but the presence of AlmasterGM + foilist13 (scum/mistake makers) dissuades me.

I could be down with an archaebob lynch, tho. His recent material has me a little flummoxed, and his protest against the Muffin lynch actually isn't a bad recent to lynch him. He's at least bad at reading players (thus he protested so vigorously) if not scum himself.

Also, I'm guessing at least one scum player WASN'T on the lynch. That leaves Gammagooey, Peanutman, Archaebob, and cruelty. I'm not lynching Peanutman today for above stated reasons -- so it's between Gammagooey, Archaebob + cruelty in my eyes. Archaebob has risen the most red flags for me (tho before the day ends I'm gonna read Gammagooey in iso again).

Thus:

Vote: Archaebob

It all began with this. I wasn't really sure why at the time, but this post pinged on my scumdar pretty significantly. It just seems so weak and flimsy, especially the part that I have bolded, and this contrasts with his earlier play. It sounds like he already decided that I was the one he wanted lynched, and constructed a seemingly logical thought process around that assumption. He gives us this whole progression of what appears to be logic, narrowing down his range of possible candidates to Gamma, cruelty and me (surprise surprise), and then arbitrarily decides that I've risen the most red flags. Why is that, Mordy? Why am I scummier than cruelty? If you had some reason for thinking me scummier, it isn't even remotely clear from the thread. I also don't understand why you left foilist out of your list of possible scum candidates.

I start to question him on his reasons for voting me, and these are the responses I get:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it was consistent. But he also protested a wagon on scum that lynched scum. It's unfortunate if he turns out to be town that was just trying to do the best thing, but he still protested a scum wagon. SpyreX (our martyred townie) said as much: If Muffin flips scum, it's time to look at archaebob again. I was hesitant to do so before because I thought I had stronger scum reads on Peanutman. In the absence of that read, though, it's time for me to acknowledge that he was absolutely correct.

Whether it's internally justifiable or not, you still protested a scum lynch. That's something to take a second look at.

What are you basing this guess off of?

The speed of which the wagon formed plus the predominance of other wagons during the day. If I were scum, I'd hold off the wagon in the hope that I could get one of the other candidates lynched instead. I think it's reasonable to think that if there are two scum (presumably aligned, but I really don't know), even if one got on the wagon in time, it's unlikely that two of them lynched their partner.

Especially since two people staying off the wagon and on a different wagon could've theoretically forced a different lynch. It's a probability play, but I think it's cool.

Oh, and why is this exactly?

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

Mordy basically has 4 main points:

1) Cruelty is suspicious because Papa Zito found him suspicious, and MordyS trusts Papa Zito's opinion as a result of him having lead the wagon on Muffin.

This is completely and utterly bogus, especially since Papa Zito has said himself several times that he didn't actually have a strong scum read on Muffin. That Papa Zito happened to hit scum is no indication whatsoever of how good his read is on the game, since he never claimed to have thought Muffin was scum, meaning that Muffin's flip doesn't make PZ "right". And even if it did, this is an extremely lazy reason to find someone suspicious.

2) I'm suspicious because I wasn't on the socio wagon.

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

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

Especially keep in mind that this isn't even Mordy's argument, this is Spyrex's. And it seems like he thought that should mean something, given that little insert about Spyrex being our martyred townie. It's the same thing twice in a row now, first with PZ, and now with Spyrex: Mordy doesn't actually have any good arguments for suspecting cruelty or myself, but he thinks he can get away with just head-nodding to the arguments made by townish players.

The second to last sentence however, pretty much trumps it for me. Basically, it doesn't matter at all if my protest of the wagon can be justified from a pro-town mindset, the fact that it hit scum means I must be scum as well. I mean, you're kidding right? What about people who lead wagons onto mislynches? Will that logic apply to you after I flip?

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

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

4) My post raised all sorts of red-flags (he still hasn't talked at all about why). Oh...and a random, idle thought...what if foilist and AB are scum buddies?

I'm especially interested in this notion that foilist and I might be scum-buddies. First of all, I've already shown why this is idea is retarded, which I'll link to here. Secondly, if Mordy actually was still entertaining the idea of foilist being scum (even

despite

the fact that foilist was on the socio wagon), it makes no sense at all that he would leave foilist out of his list of possible scum candidates in that first post I quoted just now. This is a major inconsistency.

I'm going to leave you with that for now, as I have hw, but there is more. And by more...i mean

MOAR

(and this time, baby, it's for reals).

Any thoughts on this so far?

[archaebob]

EBWOP:

2)...

I haven't heard any

good

arguments for this being the case...