Consulmaker II: the Pyrrhic War - Game over.

[The Fonz]

Hmm now that I'm rethinking... there's probably 2 scum left, maaaaaybe 3 but it's less likely, so the scum probably aren't voting together on the tribune wagon.
So Jack probably isn't scum since Nathanael is.

4 scum out of 21? Very unlikely considering the first two flipped goons. Five is more likely, gets you closer to the usual 25%.

[Parama]

This is a 19-player game, actually.

[The Fonz]

Thought someone said 21 earlier. My bad for not checking something very easily verified. I'd still lean five (especially if there's an SK), but your argument is more convincing than I first thought. If it's two groups, it's almost certainly 3-3, I would have thought.

[SensFan]

Is it just me, or does Nathan say something like "this is probably the worst post in the whole game. I am really having a hard time believing you could be town. I don't care how townish your predecessor was, you are going back to scummy after this" whenever anyone calls him Scum?

Seriously. I'm pretty sure his scumlist is currently: Sens/scot/Parama/Fonz

lol. no. if YOU had read my posts. you would see this (link):

ribwich

>>

The Fonz = Jack = primate

>

Feysal = Magua

>

scotmany

>

Leon Belmont = SpyreX = Parama

>

Lowell

>

Porochaz = SensFan

after I said Parama goes back to scum, this means

porochaz,SensFan,Lowell,Parama are my top suspects

after your accusations for "not reading", this gets you further scumpoints for hypocrisy.

also, I'd like to point out that it was you who attacked me AFTER I had been calling you scum (almost) the whole game, not the other way round. this get's you more hypocrisy points. (as if you hadn't enough already)

I have been reading your posts. So throroughly, in fact, that I remembered this scumlist from less than 48 hours ago:

Scum

scotmany12 (-) = Lowell () > SensFan (-)

[...] -...getting scummier;

So you'll forgive me for thinking that the logical continuation to you thinking scot was "Scum and getting scummier" 48 hours ago is that you still think he's probably Scum.

As for OMGUS, I'm not talking about me; we've suspected eachother. But Parama was neutral on your list, and then you quoted a post where he called you Scum and said he's been upgraded to your Scum list. You can claim I've been OMGUSing everyone as much as you want; its painfully obvious from my stances on scot and Fonz, to give but two examples, that I'm perfectly capable of separating the subjective from the objective in my reads.

[Parama]

Two groups is out of the question. 6 scum in a 19-player game is incredibly unbalanced. Plus, look at the game name... <_<
SK is possible, though still not very likely.

[scotmany12]

Two groups is out of the question. 6 scum in a 19-player game is incredibly unbalanced.

No its not.

[scotmany12]

Also:

I can't believe people are missing the towniest post in the game.

Enlighten us about this most towniest post in the game then.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Your Tribunes are ribwich and The Fonz.

Consuls may now execute.

[The Fonz]

Hey Nate, could you explain your suspicion of Porochaz?

Parama, six scum in competing groups in a 19p is absolutely not unbalanced. After all, 8-2-2 is more townfriendly than 9-3. I can dig out multiple twofold games to prove this if you wish.

[SensFan]

Yo Consuls, if you want to Glrok Jack even faster than I Glrok'd chesskid on D1, I promise I won't feel sad that you upstaged me.

[Parama]

Let's kill Nath and do it fast.

[SensFan]

Seeing a Nath execution would be like losing in overtime in the Gold medal game. I'd be really sad, and it would be a fairly hefty emotional letdown. But then the next morning, I'd realize I won the Olympic Silver medal, and I'd be happy and proud of what I accomplished.

(Yes, I'm watching Canada play international hockey right now.)

[The Fonz]

There are at least four players I'd sooner see dead then Nate at this point.

[Parama]

Glad you're not consul then.

[Feysal]

@Feysal. It wasn't one of the ones you showed. I just didn't like the overall tone of the post. I liked your response, though, but I prefer to keep you at null right now.

That's okay, null is a fine read to have mid-game.

But, here is another question: assume you had pointed out those things in someone else's post, would you have found it scummy? If yes, how scummy? If no, why did you think I could have found them scummy?

I admit that if I was not trying to find something wrong with that specific post, I might have missed or ignored those things, neither of them was very scummy by itself. But, I could've found them scummy in context with something else. I've seen town make enough mistakes to consider them a null tell, so the first point I mentioned I find weaker, but I've met players who would disagree, thinking I was trying to direct town actions. As for the second, if I saw someone claiming a town read on someone without explanation or previous mention of the player, I could consider it scummy, particularly if I disagreed with that read. In past games, when I've seen a player claim a town read on someone with no justification for it, they've been scum together often enough for me to take note when I see it. In this case, I had mentioned before why I thought Scotmany to be town, but nothing about SpyreX, so I thought it best to explain those reads, and Magua too while I was at it.

Looks like I missed the deadline with Tribune votes. I'm fine with The Fonz, the way he has been posting his thoughts as he caught up looked very town to me.

I'm a couple pages behind, catching up now.

[The Fonz]

Glad you're not consul then.

No, but unless someone makes a good case why Nate, who is making arguments, asserting positions, risking unpopularity, and generally looking like he might be scumhunting, is scummier than all of the following:

1) Jack
2) Magua
3) Sens
4) Lowell
5) Prozac

You can guess what I'm going to do.

[SensFan]

Fonz, would you mind summing up in a nutshell why I make #3 on your list? I know you weren't a fan at all of my D1 play, and there's nothing I can possibly say to explain that, but is there anything more recent that you could point to? I know you said somewhere that I started off scummy but have looked better recently; so should I assume that it's still just leftovers from D1 that have me there?

Apologies if I missed you posting a summary; you've posted a ton sicne you replaced in and I may have overlooked it.

[Nathanael]

Hey Nate, could you explain your suspicion of Porochaz?

there is a block about him in this post that shows it pretty well.
summing up it's:
-> active lurking
-> tunnelling without providing a case
-> sheeping crappy cases
-> posts like this show absolutely NO interest in finding scum.

I really hope our consuls are sensible enough to execute one of {Porochaz, SensFan, Lowell and Parama}
I'd prefer SensFan.

As for OMGUS, I'm not talking about me;

we've suspected eachother

. But Parama was neutral on your list, and then you quoted a post where he called you Scum and said he's been upgraded to your Scum list. You can claim I've been OMGUSing everyone as much as you want; its painfully obvious from my stances on scot and Fonz, to give but two examples, that I'm perfectly capable of separating the subjective from the objective in my reads.

emphasis mine. this is serious BS! you kept discrediting what I said WITHOUT CALLING ME SCUM EVEN ONCE! I had to ask you 2 (or was it 3?) times until you showed a stance on me. and then it was as if it had always been there. this is the first time you dare to call me scum.
Also, you are totally strawmanning my point. I never claimed you were OMGUS'ing! I said it was extremely hypocritical to call me out for attacking my attackers and then attack me.

[The Fonz]

Sens, basically:

Your D1 play was hugely scummy, and your 'Look how willing I am to do controversial things! I must be town!' act felt forced. If you look at what I've actually said, it's less that you look better- there's nothing really solid to redeem you that I've seen- I just happen to agree with your game theory stances on Jack. But you're smart enough to know that you can't completely diverge from your meta as scum. Day two really didn't throw up that much of much interest apart from showing where everyone stood on Lynch All Liars, and it's not like, other than the Jack situation, you've done any scumhunting that's really wowed me.

On the other hand, there's also the factor that I really don't see Sens/Magua, so my individual scumread on at least one of you has to be wrong. Bearing that in mind, there's no reason not to work with you on those issues where the positions you are taking seem to me to be townfriendly, regardless of whether they're genuine or simply convenient.

[The Fonz]

Prozac case

Thanks. I agree, by and large. It's just that I saw him in your little scumlist, and couldn't actually remember you particularly trying to make a case on him, which set my distancing sensor off.

[SensFan]

Incidentally, can you point to where you got your 'Sens is a LAL believer' meta from? Not that I doubt you, I just don't remember ever being particularily stronly in favour of it as a strict policy.

[The Fonz]

It's the combination of our little back and forth in that newbie game a while back, and the fact that you said earlier in this thread that you loved policy lynching or suchlike. Also, I read a recent game of yours where you advocated LACM, and that's a much more... controversial meta stand than LAL. So when I saw you pushing a LAL lynch, it seemed in character.

[SensFan]

LACM?

[The Fonz]

Lynch All Claimed Millers. IIRC, you're pretty much the only one who agrees with me on it.

[SensFan]

I certainly don't have that a policy, and I'm 95% sure I've never advocated for it in any particular game, either. I'm in the "Millers need to claim D1" camp.