Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[MordyS]

Like I said. Had a feeling it might turn something up. Also, (though I could just be reading into my actions in hindsight) I mistrusted my town read on you. I was hoping that pushing on you could make me feel more secure about it. After all, there have been a lot of cases against you this game and I've pretty much dismissed them all because I had a town-read on you. It was about time to get up-close-and-personal.

[archaebob]

And this is all totally inconsistent with the whole "you deserve a second look for having protested a wagon on scum" bull-shit you were trying to pull before. You seemed pretty convinced here that I was town, so why drop your own opinion for someone else's, like you did?

[MordyS]

Well, for one, my opinion was that Peanutman was certain scum. So I distrust my opinions often. When it turned out my almost-certain feeling was wrong, I was willing to take another look at some other cases. After all, if I could be wrong about Peanutman, I could be wrong about you.

[archaebob]

You guys, for reals. What more do I need to prove to you?

Sanjay, it's bus time, and you know it. Hop on board.

Everybody, really read the last few pages of the thread carefully, checking facts, and paying attention to who is making which statements when. I think Mordy is just about obvscum now, and I'd like to see a wagon form.

[archaebob]

good night.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
cruelty (2) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM,
archaebob (3) peanutman, PharieM, MordyS
MordyS (2) archaebob, foilist13
foilist13 (1) Sanjay

Not voting: (3) MordyS, Gammagooey, cruelty

(I think this is correct)

[MordyS]

I think this is what is happening: Archaebob needs me to be scum in his eyes for whatever reason. (Maybe he's town who is unwilling to admit he's wrong again. Maybe he's scum who needs to discredit my attack on him.) Every time he asks a question, I answer it. And he's frustrated. Look at how he totally ignores my responses to throw out new info that I answer. And now that he's exhausted all his "ammo," he wants his case to speak for itself. Except he doesn't have a case, so it can't speak.

Look, Archaebob, if you're town, unvote, admit you're wrong, and do some real scumhunting.

[Sanjay]

@ Sanjay -

You've said my logic today was ridiculous. The only example you've cited was my interpretation of the Chinaman/Muffin dialouge. I agree, that was a little ridiculous. But you'll notice that i've since retracted that argument, at the expense of a significant amount of face, and "political capital", which I supposedly covet so much. Is this the extent of things you find illogical about me?

You can appeal to my emotions as much as you want, Sanjay, but you haven't demonstrated in any capacity why my attacks on MordyS are at all invalid. If you think I'm ridiculous, prove it. I'm inviting you to defend Mordy, since you've decided that he's town. Until you have explained why you aren't at all irked by the contradictions I have brought up in Mordy's play, i consider every assertion you have made regarding my being "ridiculous", "illogical", or even "wrong" to be a scum-tell.

And i really don't buy your foilist vote. Again.

Okay, gotcha. I'll review your attacks on MordyS tomorrow and see if you've come up with something new that really catches my eye. I'm done with this game for today.

But as for your logic being ridiculous, my point was that your logic pre-MordyS's vote for you had been ridiculous and could be seen as scummy, so I see why you attracted MordyS's attention. The main thing that comes to mind is your Muffin-Chinaman case.

You got a problem with today's foilist vote? Or yesterdays?

MordyS, what do you see as implausible about the archaebob being misguided town theory?

[MordyS]

I think it's plausible. I'm not sure if it's true. I think at this moment he's the best lynch for today, though.

[Sanjay]

Better than foilist13?

[MordyS]

I really believe that at least one of the scum members wasn't on the wagon. And I really don't know what to do about foilist13. He's either poor town or poor scum. How exactly does one distinguish between the two? (Tho I don't like that he posted without answering any of the questions posed to him, and then disappeared for the rest of the evening.)

[foilist13]

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'll answer all the questions directed at me when I get a chance. Now is not that chance though, but it will come tomorrow afternoon. I'm reading this whole MordyS vs. Archaebob scene right now, trying to get a better idea of what I make of it.

[Gammagooey]

Warning:This is probably the longest post I've ever made. Be prepared.

So I'm gonna go back to the beginning of this whole mess to show my perspective. My summaries/interpretations of posts are next to dashes - my opinions in parenthesis below them.

---Page 44-The beginning---

-Mordy votes for Archae primarily for him defending Socio before his lynch.
-Archae says there's something very scummy about Mordy's post.
-Archae responds with mostly questions, but defends his defense of Socio, saying it's consistent with his play.
(It is consistent, but you ignored Phaerie's read on Muffin and Papa's read on Socio when you opposed his lynch, as well as SpyreX's statements that his lurking was isolated to this game, not the entire site.)

-Mordy responds to the questions on the case, and adds in comments about defending foilist, and asks about statements between archae and Muffin.
(I don't agree with the foilist portion)


---Page 45-Shit gets scummy---

Archae attacks Mordy for relying on PZ, states that PZ was lucky, not good, attacks the opinion of SpyreX, makes a not-so-subtle suggestion that Mordy could be mafia-

That is, assuming you are town. I'm becoming increasingly more convinced that there is someone on that wagon who KNEW it would work, and was onboard for that very reason.

calls Socio's lynch lucky some more, says that Mordy's at least one scum off the wagon theory is terrible for being conjecture and states that it's criminal to use it against him, responds to question about the Muffin conversation.

(This is where archae starts to look panic-y. His post curses several times and it seems generally angry at Mordy's accusations, although I'm not at all suprised at the foilist "This is a fucking joke" the rest seem like an overreaction to me. The "down-right criminal" comment also seems just bad to me, I would expect that if someone thinks I'm scum with enough conviction to push for my lynch to say all their theories about me, and although some would be dumb they can and should be disproven by reasoning, not attacking the theory for being a theory itself.)

-Mordy responds to archae's previous post, goes on about defending foilist, states that archae's post was OMGUS, and states that archae has been more scummy than cruelty today.
(The stuff about foilist is generally wrong, but I can see why he would think that. Archae's post doesn't actually explicitly state that Mordy is maf as would be expected in an OMGUS post, but it's implied pretty clearly IMO. Today (game-day), archae has been scummier than cruelty. Yesterday (day 1 in-game) it was the other way around.)

-Archae addresses my question about the cop, but doesn't actually answer it. He states that he's a lot more suspicious of Mordy than he was before, but needs to reread.
(Question dodging, but honestly with all the other stuff the answer probably wouldn't have mattered compared to all his other posts so far, so meh.)

-More foilist is possible maf partner with archae accusations and rebuttals.
(meh.)

---Page 46&47-Mordy slips up, Sanjay enters the picture---


-Mordy says archae is reacting badly to being attacked
(agree)
-Archae asks about Mordy not commenting on his cases, Mordy responds and states that archae is trying to discredit him and he should attack people archae legitimately thinks are scummy.
(If archae is town, I'm pretty sure he legitimately thinks Mordy is scum, in which case there would be no reason to stop trying to discredit Mordy, dumb statement but not really that scummy.)

-Posts that I think I should quote instead of summarize.

I tried to read archaebob's cases on Sanjay, but totally didn't get them. Can you explain the thing about Sanjay knowing foilist13 was scum because he knew Sanjay was town and therefore because he didn't vote foilist13 that means he's also scum? Cause that case made my brain explode.

In fact, you haven't made any complaint about it either. If my case made your head explode, why didn't you mention it when you first read it?

Because I didn't pay much attention to it the first time you posted it. I glanced over it, it wasn't compelling, and since my attention was elsewhere I didn't follow up on it. I'll spell out why it's dumbassery tho. The crux of the case is that Sanjay easily should've realized foilist13 was scum because foilist13 "knew" Sanjay was town and only scum could know that. Of course you ignored the possibilities that, a) foilist didn't "know" Sanjay was town, but had a town read on him, b) he did "know" Sanjay was town, but Sanjay didn't realize he "knew" it and assumed he had a town read on him. That's why it made my head explode.

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?

(Everything below here is my opinion)

This is pretty bad, and currently the #1 reason why I should doubt my town-read of Mordy. The case should have been scummy to Mordy regardless of who posted it given Mordy's opinion on it, and attacking archae for a case that wasn't his and stating that Sanjay's iso made perfect sense why he switched to foilist given that Mordy was attacking Sanjay's case doesn't make sense to me.

However. (This incorporates my thoughts on past page 47, as I think I've gotten the main points for my reads on both players)

Archae was attacking Mordy before this post was made and I don't think it was based on good reasoning.

I understand why Mordy wouldn't find it as scummy that Sanjay did it given that it seemed more like a tiebreaker thought between AGM and foilist than the entire reason why foilist is mafia, although I would think it would still be at least marginally scummy to Mordy.

And the big one: Based on Mordy and archae's actions before this whole thing got established, I have a much stronger town read on Mordy. Although I don't think that given random people making Mordy's mistake it would be considered one more likely to be made by town than scum, Mordy making the mistake as a townie is still plausible to me, and between you two I would vote for archae to be lynched, based on his sudden suspicion of Mordy for suspecting him rather than because of his previous actions, giving up his newly-found Sanjay town-read based on Mordy's case confusion rather than Sanjay's actions (I don't see why even if Mordy is scum that he can't be using a townie's case mistakenly instead of his scumbuddies), and with archae's reaction to Mordy's accusations and previous defense of the mafia godfather I think archae is more likely to be scum.

[cruelty]

I'm actually finding this whole thing very hard to follow. I don't really know what to think. The thing I'm most concerned about right now is PZ's lack of content today (if he's scum he's flying under the radar right now, if he's town he's an asset we're not getting full use out of), followed closely by foilist's recent post(s). Not really impressed with AGM's contribution today either, he's been tunneled on me and contributed no scumhunting of any value whatsoever.

I suppose I should address the Mordy/bob battle, but I don't really have much to say. I'm reading every post but I'm not getting a huge scum vibe from either (in terms of this confrontation). I was already a little wary of bob and that hasn't changed, I'm still sort of null on Mordy. I don't think either has really made that critical post that would make me sit up and take notice. I guess I'm fencesitting but I just feel like this battle is actually more of a massive distraction than something that will ultimately lead to a scum lynch.

More importantly, why did you ignore any pressure on Cruelty and falsely claim the choice was between only Mordy and Bob?

This.
Foilist you have a whole heap of posts directed at you that you absolutely have to answer. This isn't something I'm going to let you get away with. Answers. ASAP.

I'll take this opportunity to address peanut's cop claim - I'm going to assume he's telling the truth (for now). An AGM flip will condemn or clear him (and vice versa) and I'm not currently too concerned about AGM's ability to win the game from this point so it doesn't really matter. The lack of a counter claim is a problem for me I guess, it tends to exonerate AGM a little (and obviously peanut as well).

@Gamma (and others), I don't like the claimed cop being directed.

@PZ, you didn't actually give us any idea of where you're leaning right now. Who do you find suspicious - still me? bob? Mordy? foilist?


I'm going to do this,

vote: foilist

.

The reasons are twofold, one is my continued (and unchanging) suspicion of him since early on day 1, two is his iso-post 115 (and to a lesser extent 116).

[Gammagooey]

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

@Archaebob - There is a lot of content here. Post what he left out, and some of this MOAR. If you are holding on to it to make sure that MordyS digs himself into a hole, then fine.

@MordyS - How was that a manifesto against Archaebob? You didn't post any points against him, you just defended yourself against specific points of his. I don't even think you called him scummy, there was just a bunch of OMGUS, and insults. It's hard to be convincing when you sound like an asshole.

This is why I'm not voting for archae right now. Voting because of cases based on other player's assumptions without checking those assumptions is TERRIBLE, and Mordy's accusations of archae were before archae's of Mordy, meaning that Mordy is not OMGUS'ing, and he has made some pretty clear points against archae. For the record, I still think foilist is town and

THE

village idiot but I absolutely do not want him in LYLO.

[MordyS]

I actually agree with cruelty again that this whole debate between archaebob and me could easily be a distraction from scum-hunting. So I'm going to pull a more minor element of the debate out that I think will actually help town find scum. I asked archaebob why he believed there was scum on the Muffin wagon. He responded:

1) I never decided this. I said I was becoming increasingly more suspicious that this might be the case. This is because I didn't feel like I could reconcile the speed and randomness of the Socio wagon with only town players having been involved. However, I've never pursued this seriously as an argument, so I'm rather surprised that you need to me answer it so badly.

This is actually a very important discussion imo. Like I've written before, I strongly believe at least one scum wasn't on the Muffin wagon. Archaebob has called that conjecture badlogic, and when coupled with his argument that scum were actually driving the wagon, it's understandable why he'd differ. (A side psychological point: I was on the wagon, and so it's no surprise I would like to see and portray it as mostly clean and townie. Archaebob was off the wagon, and so it only helps him to see and portray it as scum-driven.) The reason I'm bracketing this discussion out of this larger argument is because I think determining the likeliness of locating scum on/off the wagon will be really useful in lynching today. So here are a few reasons I think it's likely at least one scum player wasn't on the wagon:

1) Like SpyreX mentioned, it moved very quickly. This is a point I personally agree with. It was so close to deadline that people (IIRC, I even said something to this affect) were worried that a third wagon would just totally screw any intelligent lynching for the day. It was surprisingly how quickly the wagon was formed. One could read that quickness as town looking for a strong lynch -- even if there wasn't an explicit scum-read on Muffin/Sociopath, lynching lurkers can always galvanize the town.

2) This was the Godfather that was lynched. I have no idea whether scum have other PR's, but a Godfather is an incredibly powerful role. The decision to bus him seems very gutsy. Even if one scum member decided to go for it, I'm skeptical that both would find the cost-analysis favorable.

3) It didn't actually feel like anyone was bussing him. The kinds of remarks that tend to accompany bus-votes (accusations of being scum, other sorts of distancing) were more or less totally absent. I'd have to reread the relevant sections to be totally sure, but it seems like most people were okay with the lynch, but didn't feel particularly strongly about it. Why would scum, looking to profit from bussing capital, not make a strong scum case on Muffin/Sociopath at all?

4) This is contestable, but even after I had voted (putting him at L-2), I still didn't feel like the wagon was necessarily going to hold. I mean, there was some excitement and it felt like momentum was building, but after seeing a few wagons assemble and disassemble it didn't feel like an inevitable lynch. Yes, it was very close to deadline, but we still finished before deadline. If scum wanted to make a last minute defense and try to push the lynch elsewhere, I feel like there could have been success there. (Only one person -- the person on whom I am currently voting -- tried to push the wagon in a different direction. Obviously archaebob felt that he might have some success pushing the wagon off Muffin/Sociopath, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered arguing. So even he should agree, putting aside what his motivations for trying to shift that wagon were, that it wasn't fait accompli that Muffin would be lynched.) If scum could have pushed a lynch on someone else, why wouldn't they?

5) From my personal experience, both scum are never on a scum wagon. I've never seen it happen. It might have happened, I'm sure, but I've never seen it. Not once. And it makes sense why I've never seen it. If there are 3 scum, why would 2 bus the third when all 3 could wagon someone else? PhaerieM is correct that there are mitigating circumstances here -- Sociopath seemed MIA -- but even with that, I have a hard time believing there were two scum on the wagon.

Here's why I believe this conjecture is important. There were seven players on the wagon (Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, SpyreX, MordyS, foilist13, AlmasterGM) and five players off the wagon (cruelty, archaebob, SocioPath, peanutman, Gammagooey). If you agree with my points above, and indeed think it's very likely that at least one scum wasn't on the wagon, then that means there's a 1/4 chance of hitting scum if we lynch someone who was off the wagon. By contrast, if we try to lynch someone on the wagon, it becomes a 1/7 chance. That's part of what I meant by it being a good probability play. I'm convinced at least one scum wasn't on the wagon, so I'd rather take a shot at the people off the wagon. Especially since I'm coupling the people off the wagon with my belief that Peanutman's claim is true (which is why I wanted archaebob to weigh in on whether he believed Peanutman's claim, I'm not totally satisfied with the answer). If you believe Peanutman's claim is true, that actually means we'd have a 1/3 chance of hitting scum if we lynch someone who wasn't on the wagon. IMHO, these are amazing odds. I think Gammagooey is town and between archaebob + cruelty I think archaebob is the better lynch. That's where my vote is staying for now.

The essential question that needs to be asked is: Which is more likely, that both scum bussed Muffin/Sociopath or that at least one scum was off the wagon? For me, the answer is obviously the second.

(There is more to write about this. I really believe that everyone who voted before me was town. Anyone who voted that early was on the wagon before it had really picked up steam. I don't see a good reason for Sanjay, PhaerieM, or Peanutman to bus Sociopath that early. It's possible - theoretically - that one of the scum partners got on the wagon in the beginning, and the second scum partner got on when the wagon was already inevitable. But that seems like a very longshot to me.)

[MordyS]

One more big post for the night:

If I'm forced between AGM And Foilist I'm going Foilist, but damn what a crappy choice to make. If we had more than a couple days I'd push for a Sociopath wagon because there's no way in hell he's just having that hard a time just catching up.

Actually, you know what, let's do this. Cruelty can wait. Hop aboard.

unvote: cruelty
vote: SocioPath

Sorry you guys, I got a bit frustrated as you can tell from my last post, and kind of checked out for a few days. I shouldn't have done that, and especially so close to the deadline. I'm very happy to see that there is at least a tiny bit of momentum on my Muffin case, and therefore will vote him. As I stated before, I was/am in the same boat as Papa, I don't feel AGM or Foilist are the right lynch today, but would vote for Foilist if it comes down to those two. Now that it looks as if some of you are taking my muffin case seriously, I will happily vote for the person I truly want to be lynched.

Give me a bit to catch up on the last few days, and I'll see if I have anything more to add.

vote: Sociopath

Vote: Sociopath

I don't have a stunning alternative lynch recommendation (I could see Cruelty's posts coming from town, though if he is I hope he takes my calling him useless to heart).

Sociopath's lurking could be genuine and it could be not, but it's going to suck if Sociopath survives to endgame with thirty pages less of data than anyone else. Vote Sociopath to keep that from happening.

Plus it'll be exciting to see what PhaerieM does once we take away her favorite candidate.

Not only do all these votes feel townie to me, but here was the vote count after SpyreX + I switched over:

Unofficial:
AlmasterGM (1)foilist13,
foilist13 (4) cruelty, archaebob, AlmasterGM, Gammagooey
SocioPath (5) Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, SpyreX, MordyS

(Note: Peanutman had been included in this unofficial vote tally by accident. I'm removing him from the quote for ease of calculation.)

Which means that there were 4 votes for foilist13 at this point and 5 for Sociopath. PhaerieM noted that Gammagooey and cruelty had said they would hammer. But I just reread the thread. When the vote count was at this point, Gammagooey and Cruelty hadn't agreed to hammer yet. They only did that a couple pages later. What does this mean? That at this point, Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay, and myself, each, individually, not even as a scum-pairing, could have voted for foilist13 instead and he would have been at 5 and Sociopath would have been at 4 instead. And like I've mentioned, I don't think the Sociopath lynch was inevitable in the least.

Therefore, as far I'm concerned, Papa Zito, PhaerieM, Sanjay and myself are as confirmed town as I can see it. Any one of us could have kept our vote on foilist13 / put our vote on foilist13 and pushed that lynch instead. With ease. None of us had a good scum-reason to bus Sociopath. I'm sure archaebob will contest this, but this feels ironclad to me. (At the very least, this is iron-clad evidence that Sanjay and myself can't be scum together. If we were, we could have both kept on voting foilist13 - which would have kept him at 6 (!!) votes and left Sociopath at only 3 (!!). I think everyone would agree that had that happened, Sociopath would most definitely not have been lynched yesterday.)

[cruelty]

That does of course leave out the possibility that scum decided Sociopath was a liability (given his inactivity) and that bussing him would give instant and lasting town cred.

I mean, I see and understand what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree that at that point (Papa's votecount), there was probably at most 1 scum on the wagon. That said, citing it as ironclad evidence of anything doesn't ring true with me. The game isn't about absolutes, and I don't like that you're trying to use a very WIFOMish argument to clear yourself (amongst others) - everyone else please take this with a grain of salt.


Also I should probably note the possibility of two anti-town factions still existing; it's not entirely inconceivable that there's an SK or something out there. They would have no reason to not be present on the wagon. I don't really want to indulge in set-up speculation but I think it's worth holding in the back of your mind.

[MordyS]

True, I wasn't thinking about an SK. And yes, anything is possible. But I can only deal with what seem like really good percentage plays. So people can take what I said with a grain of salt. This was simply my feelings on things. (It's not actually WIFOM -- it is more likely that it played out the way I'm describing it. WIFOM is when there's an equal chance of either thing happening. But you're right in keeping an open mind.) So if we vote off the wagon (my preference), I think the vote is between archaebob, cruelty + gammagooey. If we vote on the wagon, I wouldn't be willing to vote anyone but foilist13 (he's the only unclaimed person on the wagon who came in after the Papa votecount, and like Gammagooey pointed out, he'd be awful to keep around for lylo). But like I've said, I'd rather not today.

[archaebob]

@ PharieM and Papa Zito -

Where are you guys at?

@ Mordy

You are ignoring that both Gammagooey and peanutman said they would hammer after the claim. This means that had you and Sanjay not been on the wagon, they surely would have, putting foilist up to six, and socio up to five.

Your right, Sanjay's socio vote does look relatively townish, but that's a null tell. Sanjay is good at that.

Your vote, however, does not look townish at all.

Here's Mordy's initial reaction to the sociopath wagon:

Sociopath has posted more recently (Nov 17, 2009 6:05 pm) than AlmasterGM (Nov 16, 2009 5:37 pm), if we're talking about lurking close to the deadline.

Someone or another posts about how socio has posted no content of any kind. Not sure how you missed that, or could have thought otherwise. The above is entirely irrelevant to whether or not Socio is "lurking".

You sheepishly follow up with this:

Well, Muffin is my third choice for scum, so it won't pain me too much if we lynch him.

Muffin was your third choice?

Wait a sec, Mordy. Weren't just saying that the lynch wasn't inevitable, and that you could have easily stayed on any other wagon you wanted? If Muffin was only your third choice, and there wasn't actually any strong pressure to switch onto the socio wagon...then why did you?

It seems like you didn't really have a good reason yourself:

Oh, what the hell.

Unvote, Vote: Sociopath

This came immediately after Sanjay's vote. I don't find it at all implausible that you took his lead in carrying out a joint bus on your useless Godfather, who you had just made a poor attempt at defending, and who you knew (or thought, rather) would give you permanent town cred for lynching.

Read MordyS's Day 2 in iso, guys. His flip-flopping position on me without any explanation is crazy, and the three posts I quoted above just absolutely reek of scum.

[archaebob]

e="MordyS"]

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.[/quote]

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.

The italicized was inaccurate at the time it was posted. Just pointing that out.

The bolded is hugely, and I mean

hugely

inconsistent with what Mordy has been saying as of late.

If Mordy believed that my abstaining from the wagon was justifiable as strongly as he seems to have here, then why would I be his second pick after peanutman?

It seems that he just forgot he was supposed to have all this suspicion of cruelty, and decided for completely arbitrary reasons to vote me. Pure scumminess. Were he town, I'd expect a progression in his thought. Not only was there not one of any kind, but when i questioned him, trying to make him examine his points against me, he confirmed that it was really just because. Recently, he has blatantly stated that choosing me was completely randomly:

My peanutman case disappeared?

You're asking why I didn't default to cruelty? I basically flipped a coin after peanutman claimed cop to determine my next target. You came up

. So I pushed a little and you went nuts.

Well, no. I was using that as a turn of phrase.

I did pick archaebob freely. I couldn't say exactly why, but my gut said attacking him might turn something up. But very a miniscule feeling. It was practically 50/50 in my head.

I cannot fathom how town Mordy would have not defaulted to questioning cruelty, given some reason for having not done so, or at least remembered that he had at one point suspected cruelty, and felt like he needed to explain himself better. i don't believe he every actually suspected cruelty, I believe his play was opportunistic, and he spent so much time questioning peanutman that he forgot he had pretended to have a strong town read on me earlier.

Please respond to this, everyone. This is the most directly scummy contradiction I have seen from anyone all game.

[archaebob]

EBWOP:

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.

[peanutman]

@Bob,

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

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

[MordyS]

You are ignoring that both Gammagooey and peanutman said they would hammer after the claim. This means that had you and Sanjay not been on the wagon, they surely would have, putting foilist up to six, and socio up to five.

Actually that's not true. Read the post where I explain the chronology. Sanjay and I both switched two pages before Gammagooey said he would hammer. Not sure where peanutman said he would hammer, but we switched before that as well.

Archaebob, I'd drop this recent line of attack. I switched to Muffin because people were into the lynch, and as it was my third choice (as I stated) I wasn't too disappointed to switch to him. As far as you go: My big contradiction is that I thought you were a dumbass newbie and then I decided you might be scum? Seriously? Tell me how this isn't OMGUS.

A question for you: I wrote last night that Gammagooey promised to hammer two pages after I switched wagons. Why did you write the post that I just quoted in light of that? Did you not believe me (and were too lazy to check yourself)? Did you not read what I wrote? Did you read it but forgot it? Are you scum?

Answer this please, ASAP ^^^

[Sanjay]

I cannot fathom how town Mordy would have not defaulted to questioning cruelty, given some reason for having not done so, or at least remembered that he had at one point suspected cruelty, and felt like he needed to explain himself better. i don't believe he every actually suspected cruelty, I believe his play was opportunistic, and he spent so much time questioning peanutman that he forgot he had pretended to have a strong town read on me earlier.

Please respond to this, everyone. This is the most directly scummy contradiction I have seen from anyone all game.

Could you respond to this, MordyS?

It is at least a reason to think archaebob's attack on you was justified, and at most a reason for me to doubt my town read on you.