Open 204: Friend and Enemies Over

[kunkstar7]

@PaltryEcxuse: I see your case on Light and agree with it. Yet the Disco situation is much more significant at the moment, due to its nature. I am not satisfied with Disco's response at all, and might as well get this claim over with:

unvote; vote: DiscoRoboto

[Excedrin]

Light, what do you think about all of this? Are you still playing at all?

[don_johnson]

PE: can you summarize the case on Light? maybe some post references and what not? imo it feels like more of a policy lynch, but that could be because my attention is elsewhere.

disco is at L-1. nobody hammer. i support the request for claim.

[Excedrin]

Another unofficial vote count.

hewitt (2): pwnman, DiscoRoboto
pwnman (1): McGriddle
DiscoRoboto (5): Excedrin, hewitt, don_johnson, Mindgamer, kunkstar7
Light (1): PaltryExcuse
don_johnson (1): farside22
not voting: Light, water_foul

I don't think he's L-1 unless I miscounted that's L-2.

[don_johnson]

hm. my bad. lets wait for an official vote count before someone piles on. i wonder why water_foul was so hesitant to vote him then? it seems as though the debate with farside has tapered off. i'm going to go back and do some iso reads and whatnot.

[hewitt]

Does no one want to lynch Light today?

I would if Disco wasn't being scummy as fuck. And I feel like water_foul is attempting to stall the day. If Disco flips scum then water_foul will look really bad in my opinion.

[DiscoRoboto]

What have we learned? Summarise that for me please.

You know I can't give a concrete answer to that.

Yet the Disco situation is much more significant at the moment,

due to its nature

. I am not satisfied with Disco's response at all

Elaborate

I would if Disco wasn't being scummy as fuck.

Elaborate

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.

Interactions are clarified when my role is revealed.

As you have probably noticed, I'm not going to explain this. Keep thinking about it.

Question to town: If I'd claim Vanilla, I'd probably be quicklynched, right? If I claim mason and I'm not mason, I'd be counterclaimed and I'd die, if I claim mason and I really am mason, I get killed by scum and my partners are deduced. If I claim scum I'm dead.
Any objections? If not, claiming won't help me.

[don_johnson]

disco: if you are a mason, getting nk'd is better than getting lynched.

if you are a mason and don't claim and we proceed to lynch you, then one of your partners will most likely end up stepping forward and claiming for you whcihc would be absolutely horrendous. you have been lieing and acting scummy. you are evading questions and are now employing a strategy that will only benefit scum(again). just claim. if you are a mason then you are taking a bullet tonight. if not, then you are being lynched. simple as that.

[DiscoRoboto]

you have been lieing and acting scummy

Point out both, lol.

and are now employing a strategy that will only benefit scum(again).

I don't think I ever outed my strategy, stop pretending to know what's going on when you can't even figure my original statement out.

if not, then you are being lynched.

If I'm lynched I want DJ to be quicklynched tomorrow. Don't want his scumpartners to help him out.

[farside22]

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

Because you said you were not going to talk about it. You ignored the question about why 1 line threw you over the edge to talk about asking to be replaced.
From someone saying you are not mason, to you saying facepalm, to him saying I'm not saying Im mason, blah, blah, blah. To you asking him if he want's to be lynched to throwing a tantram that fits a 2 year old that goes off on Disco and calling him names and saying I thought about replacing is assign. I don't for a second read it as frustrated town. I read it as caught scum.

Last time. Mason's don't buddy and checking the last game they are more careful about defending. The mason's if smart are good enough to keep their own views and use their own wit to mislead the scum. When 3 players buddy up too much day 1 I'm not saying oh they could be mason we should buddy to others. I'm looking at is one of those players buddying up scum to a town player trying to hope one is mason and fake claim later if said player flips mason.
And don't tell me that doesn't happen.

[PaltryExcuse]

Ze Case on Light:

A) He doesn't participate unless you ask him questions directly or pressure him.

At the start of the game I asked him 2 questions to try and get some sort of opinion out of him. He didn't give any answers, and so I voted him. Then he starts responding...

B) When he finally gives an opinion on something, it is extremely wishy-washy...

alright then paltryexcuse, i will get more involved. tbh the other mafia game i've been participating in seems much more interesting, which is why i've diverted a lot of my attention to it rather than split it 50-50.

I do not think Exedrin is scum, however i may be swayed to vote for him if evidence is presented.

Right now my 2 suspects are:
water_foul - this is just my intuition playing in, but i think we need to check him/her out more.
pwnman - lurking

No explanation needed. Just read.

C) And it also targets the guy (pwnman) who has said NOTHING all game beyond responding to a prod and answering some RQS question.

This is disturbing because up until this point pwnman had said nothing, so it was a policy/easy lynch on the player with 3 votes at the time. Secondly, I would argue that Light was active lurking. It takes him less than a day to respond, however he still provides zilch.

D) He alludes to giving an analysis in this post, and his defense is only "this is the way I play" and "town would suffer a mislynch".

He's defeatist and appeals to emotion. He then defends himself a couple more times without an analysis still. The pressure dies down on him (a.k.a Disco makes his 'Don ain't a mason remark') And then he pops in two days later to go on V/LA. The V/LA I can't dispute as being legit (and I'm not), but he had two days between his last post and the announcement of his V/LA to say

SOMETHING

.

But not being open is also a shit thing.

My ease of being swayed? i said i could be swayed to vote for exedrin if enough evidence was presented. It wouldn't be "regardless of it's true merits" because im voting based on evidence presented.

So what would you have me do to prove my innocence then? be less ambiguous? Narhh, i play the way i play.

You cannot change my core playstyle, i will always be open. always, regardless of faction.

The defense of 'you don't know me'.

I also stated at page 7-8 that i would start paying more attention.

Did you not conclude that i have yet to fully analyze the pages and posts before it?

The promise of a future analysis.

If you believe me to be the scum, then vote me out. i have absolutely nothing to lose. However the town would have then suffered from a mislynch.

Appeal to emotion.

Overall: It's anti-town, and scummy to me. There is nothing good to be gleaned from this.

However, Light's V/LA is also why I want to know if we're going to be assuming that the (new?) mod is going to extend the day (or we're going to say s/he is going to due to extenuating circumstances). I want at least an answer before the end of the day, but if Light can't get on in time... my vote is on a guy who can't defend in time which sucks.

[farside22]

Oh I got a PM from the mod. He apparently is having a lot going on and promised an update today.

[hewitt]

I would if Disco wasn't being scummy as fuck.

Elaborate

No. It has been explained multiple times how you are being scummy.

And Paltry I'm not going to vote to lynch someone who's V/LA even though I can understand the case against him.

[DiscoRoboto]

Seeing as every one of those explanations was dumb or simply not true, I'm going to go ahead and withhold my laugh.

[don_johnson]

you have been lieing and acting scummy

Point out both, lol.

already have. ;aid out the case against you two pages back.

and are now employing a strategy that will only benefit scum(again).

I don't think I ever outed my strategy, stop pretending to know what's going on when you can't even figure my original statement out.

not claiming only benefits scum. your strategy is to not claim. thats what you stated in post 356. that's the strategy i am referring to.

if not, then you are being lynched.

If I'm lynched I want DJ to be quicklynched tomorrow. Don't want his scumpartners to help him out.

a) quicklynching is always a bad idea.
b) you have presented no case as to why i am scum.

Because you said you were not going to talk about it.

not going to talk about what? another nonsenssical post from fardside.

You ignored the question about why 1 line threw you over the edge to talk about asking to be replaced.

i did not ignore the question.

a) the question was presented poorly.
b) i never implied or said that "one line" "threw me over the edge". that was your interpretation. for instance, how would you answer this question:

farside, why are you overreacting about my strategy?

its not a fair question because it implies that you are overreacting. it creates a false dilemma because if you chooe to answer to answer it, you are, by default, admitting that you are overreacting. if you are town, you need to take another look at the situation. there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be defending disco at this point in time. he has dug his own hole with his inability to explain his post. he has backtracked several times and seems to think that ambiguity is his best strategy. sorry, but happy fun time is over. he needs to claim and clear up exactly why he is acting the way he is.

From someone saying you are not mason, to you saying facepalm, to him saying I'm not saying Im mason, blah, blah, blah. To you asking him if he want's to be lynched to throwing a tantram that fits a 2 year old that goes off on Disco and calling him names and saying I thought about replacing is assign. I don't for a second read it as frustrated town. I read it as caught scum.

read it how you want to read it. you have been saying this over and over. saying it over and over doesn't make it true. i can agree to disagree.

Last time. Mason's don't buddy and checking the last game they are more careful about defending.

nobody said they "buddy". the idea is that one informed minority is hunting another. scum is obviously going to be looking for connections between townies in order to uncover the masons, therefore the vanillas need to do a good job of "muddying the waters" so scum cannot see so clearly. hence, it is a good idea for vanillas to engage in "buddying" players they believe are town.

The mason's if smart are good enough to keep their own views and use their own wit to mislead the scum.

When 3 players buddy up too much day 1 I'm not saying oh they could be mason we should buddy to others.

I'm looking at is one of those players buddying up scum to a town player trying to hope one is mason and fake claim later if said player flips mason.
And don't tell me that doesn't happen.

never said it didn't happen. i have never seen it, but i see how one might think that. either way you slice it, disco's post was anti-town at best. he weakened towns position. i have explained this over and over. please stop talking to me. the bolded represents a poor strategy on your part. you are basically banking on the idea that our masons are good players. there is no guarantee that three smart players pulled the mason roles. i disagree with you here. townies had better do their best to cover up "buddying" on day 1. i never said or implied that it couldn't be looked at after a flip or two, in fact, i think it should, but on day 1 exposing "groups" of players makes scums job easier.

[DiscoRoboto]

Don can defo go now.

Unvote, Vote: DJ

Votecount pls?

[DiscoRoboto]

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:

Would it have the effect if I watered it down with an 'imo' or 'I think'?

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...

All of the above is false or incomplete.

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.

I never claimed certainty.

How was I breadcrumbing a Mason?

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

Answered this already

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.

Wasn't going to explain anyway.

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...

Anyone taking what I said for granted is an idiot... at least, until you claimed.

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.

Interactions happen in each post, some more then others. It isn't becoming a gambit, there is simply more then one reason for my action.

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.

My logic is based on my role. You can reason from every role in the game to do what I did though.

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.

More then one reason for a conclusion?

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"?

Multiple reasons... Do you have a brain?

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?

Ur moms clear in bed

[farside22]

i did not ignore the question.

a) the question was presented poorly.
b) i never implied or said that "one line" "threw me over the edge". that was your interpretation. for instance, how would you answer this question:

farside, why are you overreacting about my strategy?

Oh lets start mocking me is this how your scum tell is DJ?

I asked you 3 times what part of Disco threw you in such a tissy to want to ask for a replacement. Lets go over this tantrum one more time.

i'm not exactly sure what's going on here. DR is acting like a jack ass. if he wants to be lynched, then i'll vote for him. tbh, i am considering replacing out of this game. i don't know what else to do here. DR seems to have some insight as to my role. he needs to explain himself at this point, but i am not sure if he should as revealing role information unprovoked on day 1 only helps scum. if he's not a mason, i am fine with lynching him. if he is a mason, then 218 is quite possibly the worst post i have ever seen on this site. in fact:

unvote, vote: discoroboto

the only way i can deal with this issue is head on.

You said it's frustrated townie. Now what is frustating and why? 3 comments drove you this quickly over the edge? Seriously?

Frustration to the point of wanting to be replaced is extreme. I don't see a reason to say I wanted to be replaced as a I just am frustrated. This is panic.

How the fuck am I overreaction to your stradegy. I asked you questions and so far you haven't given one good reason that YOUR THEORY not anyone else in this game means that mason's buddy and that town should not try to point out the buddying in the game of others on day 1.
This is something only you believe and as I stated I never see mason's that are trying to hid buddy up or defend one another. They stay apart as long as they can unless a mason is about to be lynched.
There is no reason that anyone should ignore buddying based on a theory that is not fact in past game here at MS.

[don_johnson]

How the fuck am I overreaction to your stradegy.

i never said you were overreacting. i used that question as hypothetical to show you some of the finer points of how to communicate with other human beings. go sign up at your local community college for a basic course in communication and you will learn all about it.

I asked you questions and so far you haven't given one good reason that YOUR THEORY not anyone else in this game means that mason's buddy and that town should not try to point out the buddying in the game of others on day 1.

i've given you several reasons. you just don't agree.

This is something only you believe and as I stated I never see mason's that are trying to hid buddy up or defend one another.

yes. this is MY THEORY. i never implied otherwise.

They stay apart as long as they can unless a mason is about to be lynched.

^^ this is

your

opinion and it follows along with my theory. a mason gets into trouble and his partners try and save him. that's a form of "buddying" regardless of when the trouble occurs.

There is no reason that anyone should ignore buddying based on a theory that is not fact in past game here at MS.

noone said to IGNORE buddying. all i said is that the accusation is poorly fettered on day 1.

i don't actually believe that you are this dense.

dr: your post is shit. you are a backtracking liar and you need to be lynched. certainty wasn't "claimed", it was "implied" by your use of words. you said english isn't your first language. well it is mine and i know what you said implied certainty by the way you worded it. again, you seem to say your explanation is role based information and interactions. you can't seem to point out these interactions even still.

someone put this guy at L-1. i'm getting sick of this conversation. its entirely circular.

[farside22]

farside, why are you overreacting about my strategy?

i never said you were overreacting. i used that question as hypothetical to show you some of the finer points of how to communicate with other human beings. go sign up at your local community college for a basic course in communication and you will learn all about it.

Right people can read body lanuage on the computer or see hypothetical with that question. Way out of left field points. Good job scum

noone said to IGNORE buddying. all i said is that the accusation is poorly fettered on day 1.

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

Seriously? Fine you called it poor form. Why you are wrong right here is the follow:
First off this happened early in the day so their is no reason for a mason to "buddy" So pointing out a connection this early in the day is valid
Again unless a mason is under scrinty they will not "buddy" up to their mason partner or defend them.
It's not my opinion it's what i have seen in other games of Friends and Enemies.
Your theory unless agreed with by others before waterfawl mentioned the buddying is pretty useless after the fact. You don't know if those accused of buddying are scum, town or mason. You just want to shut it down right then and there.
You know what I did last game when I thought someone was mason. I didn't buddy up. I looked for scum. I didn't protect them with fake buddying. I looked at those players I thought were town and those who I thought were scum and I made cases. The one mason was NK. The other mason was outted because of scum making weak cases. Not on "buddying".

[don_johnson]

for instance, how would you answer this question:

farside, why are you overreacting about my strategy?

FOR INSTANCE. < implies that it is a hypothetical question. it means i am using it as an example.

Seriously? Fine you called it poor form. Why you are wrong right here is the follow:
First off this happened early in the day so their is no reason for a mason to "buddy" So pointing out a connection this early in the day is valid
Again unless a mason is under scrinty they will not "buddy" up to their mason partner or defend them.

disco was under pretty heavy scrutiny at the time. the attacks on him were poor. he was doing nothing to alleviate the pressure. if he were my mason partner, i would most likely have either tried to alleviate the pressure or hung back to avoid being tied to him. either or. two options. as a vanilla, by defending him, if he later flips mason, i could then be targeted by scum as a possible partner thus forcing scum to waste a nk oppurtunity.

It's not my opinion it's what i have seen in other games of Friends and Enemies.

good for you.

Your theory unless agreed with by others before waterfawl mentioned the buddying is pretty useless after the fact. You don't know if those accused of buddying are scum, town or mason. You just want to shut it down right then and there.

not sure what you are talking about here. i don't think lynching a player for "buddying" on day 1 is a good idea because you have no idea who they are buddying to. therefore, those observations are best made discreetly and looked at later. by exposing them on day 1 before we have any flips, we run the risk of helping scum figure out who the masons are.

You know what I did last game when I thought someone was mason. I didn't buddy up. I looked for scum. I didn't protect them with fake buddying. I looked at those players I thought were town and those who I thought were scum and I made cases. The one mason was NK. The other mason was outted because of scum making weak cases. Not on "buddying".

good for you. you play how you play, i'll play how i play. as far as scumhunting goes, it might be in your best interest to reread disco's ubercontradictory posting instead of continually arguing with me about a theory of mine that you disagree with.

does anyone else here feel like this day is turning into a broken record?

[PaltryExcuse]

This has become VERY cyclical.

Vote: DiscoRoboto

That

need

to claim thing still bothers me. This is L-1. Claim away, IMO.

[Light]

im back

feel free to ask me questions etc etc etc. some1 also mind filling me on whats happening>?

[PaltryExcuse]

Reading is key. Analysis is good.

You have until midnight Mar. 5th (deadline) to make your voice heard and elicit responses.

[PaltryExcuse]

Good luck ^_^