Open 204: Friend and Enemies Over

[DiscoRoboto]

As for DiscoRoboto himself... the claim now is that he was fishing for reactions. What have we learned? Summarise that for me please.

Wrong.

[Excedrin]

Did you not even read what I wrote? You quoted it. I said going from cool to I wanted to replace based on one person is scummy.
Are you saying DJ's reaction looks normal?

I read what you wrote, so far it seems like you're unable to explain why don_johnson's reaction makes him certain scum (it seems like that's your belief).

What is normal? His reaction seems reasonable and genuine. Given that, the only reason for him to post it as scum is to introduce WIFOM. As town, he'd post it without considering the effect it would have simply to express his frustration. It doesn't read like panicked caught scum to me.

[farside22]

calling excedrin scum with dj now. ^
I explained it just fine. I even showed Dj's post and what Disco said. That doesn't not equal fustrated town at all.
DJ's is saying I almost wanted replacement for what exactly? A play that confused? A player he is calling idiotic?
Someone who said DJ is not mason and all that buddying is not mason with Disco.
There was no reason to go to the extreme that DJ stated on 3 post. To say that everyone has there limit and that limit looks valid really just looks like a defense of scum on scum action for me.

[PaltryExcuse]

I'd still rather lynch Light over either of these two. His resignation once I applied the smallest amounts of pressure, how he doesn't add ANYTHING unless talked to directly, and I finally got an 'analysis' out of him it is wishy-washy at best and a lynch of the player who pays absolutely no attention to the game (pwnman).

Bah humbug, my case is sound.

---

@Farside: Why would Disco have to claim in your logic? That is the major gap I'm looking at for the defense on Disco.

[don_johnson]

farside: i am pretty much done with our conversation. we disagree on your interpretation of my actions. not sure what "omgus vote" you are referring to. DR never voted me. that's partly why his statement was so frustrating. it read as though he was claiming mason and outing me as a vanilla for no good reason. to wit, my iso of DR...

Just dropping in here to say that Don isn't a mason

, interpret it any way you want, I rather not elaborate on it.

there is no use of the phrase "imo" or "i think". this statement is made with certainty. the only player in this game who could be "certain" that another is not a mason, is in fact, a mason. therefore this post clearly reads as a mason claim/breadcrumb. so let's look at our options:

disco is either a mason, vanilla town, or scum.

as a mason: the only thing his statement does is out a mason. it narrows down the scum nk. if disco thought i was scum, that's fine, but there is no indication that he thinks that. also, if i am hypothetically scum in this exchange, disco has ONLY outed himself as a mason. the only thing he can prove is that dj is either scum or vanilla. again, this only helps the scum team. knowing one mason makes it easier to find the others, so even if hyposcumdj gets lynched, scum easily has the upperhand. problem here is that disco makes nbo attempt to cast dj as scum. he posts no evidence that shows he believes dj to be scum. all he does is claim mason and inform the rest of the players that dj is not part of the mason team. basically narrowing down scum's nk choice and jeapordizing the identities of the entire mason squad.

as a vanilla: disco should not be able to make such a statement as he woiuld not be certain that dj is not a mason. by lighting the path for this conversation, the most likely outcome is to out one or more masons. if dj is a mason, he may respond with "yes, i am", or someone else might come to dj's aid and when dj is nk'd and flips mason, his defenders are easily identified. as a vanilla, he also is basically LIEING with the statement and its certiainty.

as scum: is much the same as the outcome of "if he is vanilla". the only purpose his statement serves is possibly outing a mason or two which is not good for town.

tl;dr: the only potential this statement carries is to expose the mason group. it has zero scumhunting value. the only way the statement makes any sense at all(given its certainty) is if disco is a mason. hence the *facepalm*.

but wait...

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. You can theorize(is that a word?) on how I came to the conclusion... maybe I'm distancing, maybe I just saw something. I hope that the brighter minds among us will see what I'm implying with saying it.

maybe he is claiming mason, maybe he's not. this is a backtrack on the "certainty" of his original statement. it is vague. it provides no evidence but implies that disco may just be being disco.

How was I breadcrumbing a Mason?

please refer to your original post and its certainty. you all but claimed mason.

I could've just simply seen things in his posts or 1000 other things that are possible.

another vague statement which fails to explain your original statement.

Trying to out other masons? By accusing someone of not being mason? Eh, okay.

yes. i explained this. your post served only the purpose of narrowing down who may or may not be a mason. regardless of your intentions or alignment or role. if you are a mason, you outed yourself and possibly your partners. if i was a mason and you were scum or vanilla, you ran the risk of me outing myself in defense. if we are both vanilla, all you have done is lie and create suspicion on two vanilla players. etc. etc...

It was (partly) a fish for reactions. If you want to know more about Don's role, look more closely at his posts.

now your statement has become a gambit. you also imply that one can discern information regarding my role if they read my posts. yet you have since failed to point to anything in my posts which led you to your conclusion or which might lead someone else to the same conclusion. further, you have since recanted this implication and have implied that you deduced my role through my interactions with other players. you have still failed to explain which players and exactly where in the thread that these "interactions" occurred.

I unvoted Excedrin to vote Don, just wanted a votecount first. I don't think scum is dumb so I'm not going to vote Hewitt.

here is the first time you imply that i am at all scummy. before this you produced no accusations or evidence to back up your supposed intentions to vote me.

Besides, explaining myself would be bad for Town at this point, I think anyone with half a brain would've realised that by now.

^^ this is an implication that you somehow need to reveal role information in order to explain yourself. you said before this that anyone could deduce my role from reading my posts. this is yet another backtrack.

it would mean i'd have to claim my role. do you guys still want to do through with this?

^^ here you confirm 100% that you need to claim your role in order to explain yourself. this means that you were in fact lieing when you said people could deduce the information by reading my posts. confirmation of your backtracking.

The conclusion was from your interaction with others. I wanted to test your reaction to outing it, too.

if your conclusion is based on my "interaction" with others, then you should not need to roleclaim in any way shape or form to explain yourself. this directly contradicts your earlier statement where you say you have to claim to explain yourself. also, when asked to point out which "interactions" led you to believe i was not a mason, you have still failed to qualify the statement.

As I stated, explanation = claim. So you want me to claim? Nice one there.

It's simple,

I based that statement on my role

.

wtf? now we are back to "its based on my role". where are the "interactions"?

My logic only makes sense when you factor in my role. Too bad that at this point this could mean anything.

THE ONLY WAY YOUR ROLE WOULD FACTOR INTO YOUR STATEMENT WAS IF YOU ARE A MASON. if you made that statement as a mason, then you are not very bright. even if from your point of view hyposcumdj exists, your statement did nothing but out a mason and maybe more. the fact that you can't qualify any of your statements with evidence from this thread makes it seem that you are much more likely scum than mason.

It's hard to explain... It's just that you don't interact like I know a mason interacts with other players. Also, your buddying with me was one that partially sparked it.

no. its not hard to explain. you said "The conclusion was from your interaction with others." all you were asked to do is point out the post and/or posts which led you to believe that. all you were asked to do was point out which interactions led you to make the statement. oh, but that's right, in order for you to explain yoursaelf you need to roleclaim. oh, wait, you don't need to roleclaim, youy based your statement on my interaction with others. which interactions? oh, nevermind, i need to roleclaim. i mean interactions.

roleclaim.

interactions.

read his posts.

roleclaim.

interactions.

read his posts.

roleclaim...

are we clear?

[DiscoRoboto]

Ugh I am going to respond to that some time.

I'm laughing at how confused scum must be on their NK atm, haha.

[don_johnson]

As for DiscoRoboto himself... the claim now is that he was fishing for reactions. What have we learned? Summarise that for me please.

Wrong.

I wanted to test your reaction to outing it, too.

It was (partly) a fish for reactions.

seriously. disco, if you are a mason, just fucking claim. this kind of horseshit is wasting our time if you are a mason.

[farside22]

@Farside: Why would Disco have to claim in your logic? That is the major gap I'm looking at for the defense on Disco.

I think he did it for reaction. I don't know what is in one mind. I have seen players say something to see what type of reaction they get for making a comment.
There is that devil side that he (disco) thinks he is close to being lynched and giving his buddies a head's up. But (1) he's not close to lynch (2) why give a heads up when people can see that DJ is buddying up to Disco (this is pre disco's comment) and know he's not mason with disco. So the heads up to scum is a no duh if Disco is scum.
IE: Disco giving a heads up that is unnecessary to scum based on the buddy up comment given by DJ. As scum already knows who is scum in the game.

All that aside I find it interesting that DJ doesn't see an issue with buddying up and defends someone for buddying (will look up who later) I have been in a few mason games and I never saw mason' buddy to begin with so where this logic about budding to hid mason came from doesn't make sense and I would like to know why he believe this helps the town when no other game I have been in I saw mason's buddy before.

[DiscoRoboto]

As for DiscoRoboto himself... the claim now is that he was fishing for reactions. What have we learned? Summarise that for me please.

Wrong.

I wanted to test your reaction to outing it,

too.

It was

(partly)

a fish for reactions.

seriously. disco, if you are a mason, just fucking claim. this kind of horseshit is wasting our time if you are a mason.

[Excedrin]

I explained it just fine. I even showed Dj's post and what Disco said. That doesn't not equal fustrated town at all.

lol, maybe statements like this one are why I don't follow your explanation.

[don_johnson]

All that aside I find it interesting that DJ doesn't see an issue with buddying up and defends someone for buddying (will look up who later) I have been in a few mason games and I never saw mason' buddy to begin with so where this logic about budding to hid mason came from doesn't make sense and I would like to know why he believe this helps the town when no other game I have been in I saw mason's buddy before.

i covered my theory here:

the name of the game is "friends and enemies". pointing out connections on day 1 is poor form. i.e.

i was asked ealier about my strategy given the open set-up of a game and answered that it alters my strategy.

most important thing for town to do is keep the mason's hidden as long as possible. with a three mason team we need to realize that there are two informed minority's and not just one. further,

the accusations of "buddying" are not all that applicable in this set-up

either. as the masons need to try and hide their identities and the identities of their partners, so to do vanilla's need to "act" like they are masons in order to draw nks away from the real mason team thereby increasing the chances of a town win.

^^ this is my personal theory developed from my experience and research regarding this set-up. i didn't just sign up for this game. i chose this set-up because i have been preparing for it. once we have a flip or two, "buddying" can be looked at more closely and players will need to explain themselves, but on day one, town's priority should be to keep the masons hidden. i put alot of time into preparing for this set-up which is why when disco made his statement i gave him the *facepalm* and considered replacing out. at that point in time his post read as though he was claiming mason and calling me out as vanilla which imo would be one the worst plays in this set-up.

[don_johnson]

What have we learned? Summarise that for me please.

[farside22]

DJ: Link to games you found were the mason's buddied.

[farside22]

I explained it just fine. I even showed Dj's post and what Disco said. That doesn't not equal fustrated town at all.

lol, maybe statements like this one are why I don't follow your explanation.

Well if your reading only one line out of a post no wonder you don't follow my explanation.

[don_johnson]

DJ: Link to games you found were the mason's buddied.

never said i had games where the mason's buddied. my theory is based on how i think the game

should

be played. i don't think mason's would make a concerted effort

to

buddy. the idea is that a vanilla townie defending someone under attack would be mistaken for a mason and then nk'd, thus leaving the mason team untouched. not sure why this is so difficult for you. i didn't like the attacks on disco. i defended him. he claimed to be a mason unnecessarily. now he has backtracked, lied, and has utterly failed to explain any of his actions. do you feel that you are tunneling at this point?

[farside22]

DJ: Link to games you found were the mason's buddied.

never said i had games where the mason's buddied. my theory is based on how i think the game

should

be played. i don't think mason's would make a concerted effort

to

buddy. the idea is that a vanilla townie defending someone under attack would be mistaken for a mason and then nk'd, thus leaving the mason team untouched. not sure why this is so difficult for you. i didn't like the attacks on disco. i defended him. he claimed to be a mason unnecessarily. now he has backtracked, lied, and has utterly failed to explain any of his actions. do you feel that you are tunneling at this point?

If you never saw it happen why state that we should look at the buddying and question players that buddy to others on day 1?
You know what he didn't claim mason. He said you were not mason.
I saw it as a reaction to your comments about talking about buddying up.
And by the way when I same your vote was OMGUS (the first vote on disco and then your vote on me) The first vote granted he didn't vote your you but your reaction was OMGUS. IE: How dare you try and out me.

[don_johnson]

If you never saw it happen why state that we should look at the buddying and question players that buddy to others on day 1?

i didn't say that. in fact, i said the exact opposite. i said "buddying" was not something which should be considered scummy on day 1. only until after a couple flips should it even be looked at, and then with a grain of salt.

You know what he didn't claim mason. He said you were not mason.

yes. he said that with certainty. it initially read as a claim/huge breadcrumb. he has since backtracked. he has also failed to explain why he said it with certainty and the reasoning behind his certainty seems to shift between three different answers. none of which have been explained.

I saw it as a reaction to your comments about talking about buddying up.

and? no matter what it was, i have already explained why his statement did nothing to help town regardless of his role, alignment, or intentions.

And by the way when I same your vote was OMGUS (the first vote on disco and then your vote on me) The first vote granted he didn't vote your you but your reaction was OMGUS. IE: How dare you try and out me.

no. not omgus. i thought it through. it made no sense for him to make his statement and then backtrack. it made no sense for a townie to identify another players role. especially not in this set-up. i have already explained all of this.

DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE TUNNELING? DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN FOR THE FACT THAT DISCO HAS NOT EXPLAINED HIMSELF AND THAT HE IS SHIFTING BETWEEN THREE SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY HE MADE HIS STATEMENT?

[farside22]

i didn't say that. in fact, i said the exact opposite. i said "buddying" was not something which should be considered scummy on day 1. only until after a couple flips should it even be looked at, and then with a grain of salt.

Why should we not consider buddying on day 1? Your theory is only in your head (if it actually exsist) I already and you agreed that mason don't normally buddy up anyways.

DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE TUNNELING? DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN FOR THE FACT THAT DISCO HAS NOT EXPLAINED HIMSELF AND THAT HE IS SHIFTING BETWEEN THREE SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY HE MADE HIS STATEMENT?

No I'm asking you questions and I'm not satisfied with your answers.
Do you feel threatened with me asking questions to you?
I'll get back to you on your second question when I'm done asking you questions.
Do you think your tunneling on Disco?
What is your opinion of McG, Light, Excendrin and Mindgamer?

[don_johnson]

Why should we not consider buddying on day 1? Your theory is only in your head (if it actually exsist)

it exists. i posted it earlier. onemore time: on day 1, town's most important job is to keep the mason team hidden, therefore vanilla townies are just as likely to engage in the activity of defense and buddying as scum and/or masons. this renders "buddying" a virtual null tell. until we have a couple flips, examining the nature of buddying can help scum uncover the identity of the masons. i.e. if player a buddies player b and player a is nk'd and flips mason. then scum will most likely target player b next. hence, vanilla's need to engage in interactions that could read as mason interactions(i.e. "buddying", whatever you want to call it) in order to help protect the masons. i have been consistent in this view from the beginning of this game. i still think it is poor form to draw connections before there is a flip and a night phase as it can greatly benefit the scum team.

I already and you agreed that mason don't normally buddy up anyways.

no. we don't agree there.

No I'm asking you questions and I'm not satisfied with your answers.
Do you feel threatened with me asking questions to you?

no. annoyed is a better term. i feel like i am saying the same thing over and over and you just don't seem to get it.

Do you think your tunneling on Disco?

100% yes. absolutely. i am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that disco should be placed at L-1 and forced to claim. his inconsistencies in his explanations warrant that scrutiny.

What is your opinion of McG, Light, Excendrin and Mindgamer?

i'll have to get back to you on that as i have been fully engaged with both you and disco. atm, i am not wholly concerned with any of them. i want solid explanations from disco. his play is atrocious and i am stunned that he is not under more scrutiny at this point in time.(although wf has agreed to place him at L-1)

water_foul: will you place disco to L-1 and request a claim? you seem to be waiting to do that in hopes that we have a longer day, but i don't see much coming from you in the way of participation.

for me, this is simple. disco is mason or scum. i think he is way more likely scum, so yeah.

[farside22]

no. we don't agree there.

farside22 wrote:
DJ: Link to games you found were the mason's buddied.

don_johnson wrote:

never said i had games where the mason's buddied. my theory is based on how i think the game should be played. i don't think mason's would make a concerted effort to buddy. the idea is that a vanilla townie defending someone under attack would be mistaken for a mason and then nk'd, thus leaving the mason team untouched. not sure why this is so difficult for you. i didn't like the attacks on disco. i defended him. he claimed to be a mason unnecessarily. now he has backtracked, lied, and has utterly failed to explain any of his actions. do you feel that you are tunneling at this point?

If you never saw it then how do you know it exsist?

Waterfowl had stated he saw three player screaming scum team when you brought on this:

further, the accusations of "buddying" are not all that applicable in this set-up either. as the masons need to try and hide their identities and the identities of their partners, so to do vanilla's need to "act" like they are masons in order to draw nks away from the real mason team thereby increasing the chances of a town win.

Why should we not look at players that are buddying up if I have never seen in a game mason's buddy before?
Please stop dodging this question.

[don_johnson]

no. we don't agree there.

farside22 wrote:
DJ: Link to games you found were the mason's buddied.

don_johnson wrote:

never said i had games where the mason's buddied. my theory is based on how i think the game should be played. i don't think mason's would make a concerted effort to buddy. the idea is that a vanilla townie defending someone under attack would be mistaken for a mason and then nk'd, thus leaving the mason team untouched. not sure why this is so difficult for you. i didn't like the attacks on disco. i defended him. he claimed to be a mason unnecessarily. now he has backtracked, lied, and has utterly failed to explain any of his actions. do you feel that you are tunneling at this point?

If you never saw it then how do you know it exsist?

how do i know what exists? noone said masons "buddied".

Waterfowl had stated he saw three player screaming scum team when you brought on this:

further, the accusations of "buddying" are not all that applicable in this set-up either. as the masons need to try and hide their identities and the identities of their partners, so to do vanilla's need to "act" like they are masons in order to draw nks away from the real mason team thereby increasing the chances of a town win.

Why should we not look at players that are buddying up if I have never seen in a game mason's buddy before?
Please stop dodging this question.

stop dodgin what question? this:

Why should we not look at players that are buddying up if I have never seen in a game mason's buddy before?

i have answered this already. if we call out "buddying" and point to scum "teams" as opposed to single suspicion, it makes the scum teams job of finding the masons that much easier. i.e. if i were to say "farside and disco look connected at the hip" and disco later claimed mason, where do you think scum will look to find disco's mason partner? they would most likely think that you were disco's mason partner.

hence, pointing out connections and partnerships on day one is POOR FUCKING FORM.

look at players who are buddying all you want, but pursuing a player solely because they are buddying is shit for brains scum hunting. look at players who are acting scummy.

i was defending disco from poor attacks. his actions in response to that are scummy. he has STILL FAILED TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF.

i haven't avoided a single question posted my way.

[hewitt]

I had almost the same reaction that don_johnson had (I wasn't as frustrated), I don't think his reaction is scummy at all and his frustration seems genuine.

Keeping this in mind in case either Excedrin or DJ ever flips scum.

My logic only makes sense when you factor in my role. Too bad that at this point this could mean anything.

It's hard to explain... It's just that you don't interact like I know a mason interacts with other players. Also, your buddying with me was one that partially sparked it.

To me that only means one thing, you're attempting to claim Mason or scum. Because a vanilla townie would have no idea. And your argument was just that you were able to deduce he wasn't a Mason based on how he interacted with other players. That means you shouldn't have to claim to explain yourself and honestly this is taking way to long for you to explain already.

Yes I would, like I said I believe that he is scum but I want a full day

I don't see any logic behind this line of thinking.

And this is getting annoying as fuck.

[farside22]

DJ: There has never been as far as any game I have ever been in seen mason's buddy up. Your theory is all based on mason's buddying. Now either link a game you saw mason's buddy or you comment about ignoring buddying looks that much more scummy.

[PaltryExcuse]

Does no one want to lynch Light today?

And are we assuming deadline holds sans mod?

[don_johnson]

DJ: There has never been as far as any game I have ever been in seen mason's buddy up. Your theory is all based on mason's buddying. Now either link a game you saw mason's buddy or you comment about ignoring buddying looks that much more scummy.

*FACEFUCKINGPALM*

no.

my theory is based on the fact that this set-up contains two informed minority's.

scum and masons. by exposing links between players without a confirmed scum flip, you then run the risk of exposing the

wrong

informed minority. the only power town has in this set-up is the ability of the masons to confirm each other. exposing them early is suicide for town as it allows scum to pick them off unprotected at night while spinning lynches on the vanillas.

hypothetically: player A and player B are masons. if player A gets into a tight spot, most likely player B will defend him. player B will try to not go to the extent of revealing a link between the players, but the "buddying" will be there.

you are basically arguing the semantics of the term "buddying". players who know each others alignments will subconsciously engage in behavior that resembles buddying. therefore, as a vanilla townie, it makes the most sense to model ones behavior after the type of behavior one might think to see from a mason. if i was disco's mason partner i would have done what i could to defend him to protect him from having to claim.

why is it scummy for me to have defended disco from poor attacks? your initial issue with me was not because of my behavior

before

disco's post, but for my behavior

after

his post. you seem to have shifted the focus of your case. why?