Open 20 - Pie E7 (Game over) - before 453

[Aimee]

Vote: Paradoxombie

, because his name is cool.

[Aimee]

Ripley or Patrick, have you got the links to the old Pie C9 games?

[Aimee]

Jordan, there hasn't been a night-phase yet. Ergo, Simenon cannot have any results, even if he was a cop.

[Aimee]

Simenon, I am at a loss to see why hiding information is at all beneficial to the town (with the exception of some cases, e.g. cops and their results etc.)

Jordan, are you saying your mistake is that you forgot that this game started in day?

[Aimee]

I will be on holiday from Monday through to Sunday. No access at all. Mod, you know I will be back. Replacement not needed.

[Aimee]

unvote

[Aimee]

I'm back. Post coming tomorrow.

[Aimee]

And Paradoxombie is just baffling me. What have Patrick or Ripley done to deserve any real suspicion at this stage. I agree with Patrick here - you voted against Simenon without any real reasoning.

[Aimee]

My main suspicion at the moment is towards Paradoxombie, for his somewhat "eager" attitude to go after Simenon, and seemingly ignore the Jordan issue entirely.

Meanwhile, he has left a FoS against Patrick and Ripley (both of whom I am seeing as pro-town at the moment), yet not explained this at all. I would like an explanation please.

Also, Jordan and Teffc, what do you think of Paradoxombie's behaviour so far?

[Aimee]

Bigger post coming tomorrow.

[Aimee]

My thoughts on everyone at this stage:

Jordan:

Panicked early and for no real reason when Simenon said he had reason to believe he was scum. Obviously doesn't pay much attention, because then he asks about the sanity of cops. Unnecessary if the front post was read. But does that point to Mafia or Town? It points mainly to stupidity. His reasons for the cop thing amount entirely to WIFOM, and he also says rather bizarrely that Simenon could be a roleblocker, which doesn't really solve anything. His explanations seem to be "oopsie, I'm a newbie!", which don't really explain anything, really. Overall, looking very defensive at the moment. Some rash votes have also occurred, mainly his vote against Simenon on post 123.

Patrick:

Whilst Jordan's immediate panic was suspicion, I feel that Patrick jumped on slightly too strong onto Jordan. Despite this, his points are clear and well made, and identifies flaws in Jordan's points (e.g. WIFOM). Typical Patrick, really. Patrick was also probably the strongest jumper onto Jordan.

Simenon:

The way he said Jordan and Ripley were scum advanced the game, but as for his reasons, he later said "it was fun making Jordan squirm". Despite this, we all know Simenon - he is always like this whether town or scum (or mod). However, some things I can't fathom reasons to. Post 75 - Simenon FoSes Ripley for reasons I can't understand. Perhaps it links back to what had previously been said when he considered Jordan and Ripley to be scum. I am sure that Simenon is just acting like his playstyle. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ripley:

My first note was that when Simenon accused Ripley and Jordan of being scum, it was Jordan who panicked, not Ripley (although Ripley was away so this holds less merit). He seems to be on Jordan's side, partially, thinking objectively as scum would, and seemingly taking on different points of view. One thing I have noticed is that Ripley hasn't really made a firm stance on anything yet - though his points seem logical enough. I am suspicious of his lack of opinion on Simenon - even though you have played with him before, an opinion, whether positive or negative should have formed by this stage.

Paradoxombie:

Whilst everyone else seems to focus on the Jordan issue, Paradox focuses on Simenon, saying he is suspicious for basically not revealing information. Whilst this may be mildly suspicious, the Jordan issue, which Paradox ignored is far more concrete. Overtly defensive player, who seems to heavily focus on minor issues - he FoSed Patrick and Ripley for basically disagreeing with him.

Teffc:

I get the sense she is trying to somewhat hide in the background. Her posts just seem to mirror what others have said, without really adding anything to that. And other points seem bizarre - she suggests that Patrick and Sim are a "dream team" sort of alliance, although nothing had previously indicated that.

[Aimee]

And someone referred to Lynch -1 after 4 pages. I am blind and can't see this. Did it happen, or am I a dumbass?

[Aimee]

You still haven't answered

my

question, so let me rephrase it:

Do you think Simenon was playing in a pro-town way by hiding information on his own play? But, hold on, let me answer with a quote of yours.

Simenon, I am at a loss to see why hiding information is at all beneficial to the town (with the exception of some cases, e.g. cops and their resultsetc.)

So you think it's supicious that I'm voting a player you admit is playing anti-town? That goes for Patrick and Ripley as well.

As others have said, hiding information can be even essential for the game, e.g. cop results. Hiding information, therefore isn't a blatant anti-town action, and in Simenon's case here it was more annoying than anti town.

And how on earth have Ripley and Patrick acted in an anti-town way?

[Aimee]

And someone referred to Lynch -1 after 4 pages. I am blind and can't see this. Did it happen, or am I a dumbass?

Nah, it didn't happen. Teffc just mentioned it, saying that's why she didn't vote Jordan (too risky).

A few questions for Aimee:
You said Ripley is "thinking objectively as scum would", is that a typo? If not then why do you think scum would think objectively?

You haven't placed a serious vote so far and I can't easily deduce who your top suspect is from your comments. Who is your top suspect, if any? What would you have done if CTD had said yesterday that the deadline wasn't changing?

Yeah, I got a bit carried away. That was a typo.

Vote: Paradox

. It just doesn't make sense. Wild accusations, the OMGUS style FoSes against Patrick and Ripley, the extreme offensive against Simenon... it's all far too strong and intense for my liking. The actions don't make any sense.

And I would also put a FoS against Teffc, for plodding along on a donkey so to speak, and not really contributing to discussion, and seeing every point of view. I have yet to see any real analysis from her at the moment. Oh, and Jordan for all that shinangins (damn spelling) earlier, that I mentioned in my previous post. I'm really interested to see what he thinks of everyone now, and would appreciate analysis from him as well.

FoS: Teffc, Jordan

[Aimee]

Also, Ripley and Teffc both have rabbit type avatars. Possible connection? You can add that to your notes Ripley, and congratulate me after the game.

Shhh, you'll give the game away! We just started!

Vote: Ripley for not voting

A scumtell older than the game itself

LIES

FoS

!

Unfortunately I have to confirm that in all the games I've completed with him Patrick has been pro-town. I'm not quite sure how he manages this. These games include the previous Pie C9, where we managed to have a Day 1 that lasted for 2 months and contained almost no useful content. The whole of the game really happened on Day 2. I believe Patrick was in another Pie C9 before that one, too, so if anyone has anything useful to say about the setup it's probably him.

I have been in games with Patrick as scum!

I have also been his scumbuddy!

I really hope that wasn't a badly premature cop claim.

That, or he may be the roleblocker we're looking for.

Major FoS

You fisher of Roles!

There's nothing on the mods posts that mention the Cops sanity. And I'm trying to get a bit of meaningful discussion going, suppose you could say I achieved it. Rather noobish I'll admit, guess you have to learn from mistakes though.

Open=normal=Sane

One thing in Jordan's favor in all this is that if he were scum he'd have been more likely to be aware that the game didn't start with night. I mean, wouldn't you remember that you hadn't tried to kill anybody yet? I keep wondering whether there's some flaw in this argument, since nobody else (including Jordan) has mentioned it. Hmmm - maybe you might forget, especially if you were in a few games that had started around the same time; it's very easy to confuse them in the first pages.

Of course some games have a cop head start, don't they? In other words night for cop, day for everyone else.

How does the roleblocker comment fit in with the "jumpy scum fearing a cop result" theory? Maybe I'm trying too hard here to find logical reasoning behind a panicky post. I really don't know.

It fits wishy washy scum, trying to unsubstantiate a player for no reason = )

Also it is almost a loaded question.

Either Simenon is the cop,or he is scum.

These attacks on Jordan are justified, but have have yet to convince anyone(I hope) that Jordan is a worthy day 1 lynch

On the other hand I'm finding Simenon's play extremely suspicious. You keep suggesting that you have reasons for your original vote against Jordan, and I don't buy that. And I definitely don't believe that you've actually somehow posted your reasons.

You're definitely looking alot worse than Jordan to me

Vote: Simenon

FOS

If I were scum, there'd only be 1 other mafia, but I've only had 2 votes and 1 FOS so far.

How does this even make sense.

It's a highly debatable tell- now that there are other, more valid reasons for voting jordan, it would lead to an unecessary slap-fight.

I WANNA SEE IT DANGIT

FoS:Simenon for being stubborn, and it's pointless to hide anything

I don't like post 107

If that isn't flawed logic, I don't know what is, why on Earth would I try outing myself and my buddy like that, I'm a newbie, but I'm not stupid. Vote: Patrick

WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM

Nah. I <3 my Ripley.
:shrug:, I don't remember disagreeing with you much in the two or so games we played together.

I feel the distraction would lie in what I say. As I have said, my former reasoning is completely irrelevant, and could be used by ze opportunistic scum. Since there is no scummy aspect about my previous thinking, I don't feel obliged to disclose it.

What I see is an attempt to make a big ado about nothing. Let's not exaggerate the seriousness of this- I voted without an originally posted reason, because something turned me off, and jordan was wonderful (let's give him a hand) and provided me with another reason to vote him.

So, I ask for those who are voting me for this- what exactly could I accomplish as scum by refusing to disclose my reasoning and what exactly is scummy about me doing so?

TO stop this distracting conversation.

Also, I want to see what is so controversial it would start a slap fight, possible miles away from each other. (GLoves in the mail?)

SECRET SCUMTELLS SUCK = |

I hate post 122

Jordan does not know what appeal to emotion means. = )

Jordan's argument with simenon..... ugh, it hurts me to read his responses.....

HINT:Not simenon's

Paradoxombie continues to focus exclusively on Simenon's refusal to divulge his original scumtell on Jordan. I don't understand why this is such a huge issue. Simenon originally voted Jordan when all Jordan had done was random vote with a dice roll. He's probably prolonging the whole thing because it amuses him to be awkward.

I also have noticed this.

I don't see what significance his motive has, he says a piece of information is meaningless and not suspicious and yet refuses to tell us for what seems like no reason.

FOS: Patrick and Ripley

Neither of you haven't mentioned any flaws in my reasoning, so i don't understand what difference it makes.

Somthing doesn't make sense about Simenon and you just want to drop it? What possible reason could you have to want that? You think it's distracting? How about you convince Simenon to just come clean and explain himself? Wouldn't that be a more protown resolution than me just stopping, regardless of the significance of the issue?

While part of this seems to make sense, it really doesn't that much. Pretty much the only reason I want him to answer is to stop distracting from other things. This is like attacking someone for a random vote. Seriously, he has other reasons, and it wasn't like he was trying to hide them at first, but only after he has a better reason. It looks more like a null tell, as he's already said it;s irrelevant, which means he's not using it against him anymore.

Also, the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that you WON'T LOOK AT ANYONE ELSE. While jordan scum scrambles, you unsubstantiate another player.

FoS

dude.

unvote (if voting), vote:Paradoxombie.

after ALL that.....

cool.

seriously. This was stupid.

FoS:Aimee

Slightly. She only seems to post whenever she gets mentioned.

I'm almost certain one of Sim or Patrick is scum, if I had to guess, I'd guess Sim. For their partner, I think another experienced player, one who has decided to not vote for me for precisly the reason stated above, in fact, I think that's another point against Sim, trying to communicate in thread maybe? I know I'm not a scum, so, I'm going to Vote: Sim.

Why? Why do you think they are scum?

Panicked early and for no real reason when Simenon said he had reason to believe he was scum. Obviously doesn't pay much attention, because then he asks about the sanity of cops. Unnecessary if the front post was read. But does that point to Mafia or Town? It points mainly to stupidity. His reasons for the cop thing amount entirely to WIFOM, and he also says rather bizarrely that Simenon could be a roleblocker, which doesn't really solve anything. His explanations seem to be "oopsie, I'm a newbie!", which don't really explain anything, really. Overall, looking very defensive at the moment. Some rash votes have also occurred, mainly his vote against Simenon on post 123.

So.... what do you think about him? Scummy or town?

Patrick: Whilst Jordan's immediate panic was suspicion, I feel that Patrick jumped on slightly too strong onto Jordan. Despite this, his points are clear and well made, and identifies flaws in Jordan's points (e.g. WIFOM). Typical Patrick, really. Patrick was also probably the strongest jumper onto Jordan.

Same thing? Do you think he's being scummy, or being Patrick? TO uncomittal.

Same thing with all of them actually. You never actually commit to ANYTHING much here.....

MAJOR fos:Aimee

I think this post contains too much flourish and empty summary and too little actual analysis.

QF effin T (Sweet, I found a way to do it)

Bleh, I've been Sanarth'd like three times.

Also Jordan, I know what you're response is going to be I think.

"Look, see I told you" in an omgus-ee style.

I think Paradox is scum, as previously stated in later posts. I am also suspicious of Jordan, who I believe is trying to hide after the earlier incidents.

Paradox, what are you saying about ethics?

[Aimee]

I don't understand how you can ethically vote me for voting someone you FOS'd for the exact same reason. I didn't even think he was scummy! I just wanted to pressure him into telling me, which he did.

You admitted that you wanted to know, too. And agreed that Simenon made it abundantly clear that he wasn't hiding it for any good reason. How can you vote me for taking action to make it happen?

Didn't you say earlier that you were "extremely suspicious" of Simenon and said his action was anti-town. How can you therefore say you didn't find that scummy?

[Aimee]

With a deadline now set for under-a-week, I think I need to explain my thoughts and re-read. Also, Patrick, I wasn't really paying attention - I totally missed Ripley's post here.

I read Aimee's post in a hurry earlier and remember thinking afterwards - well, so who does Aimee actually suspect? It seemed like a substantial post but yet - somehow there was nothing much there to really get your teeth into (though it seemed ungrateful to grumble, when the post contained so many words, all sounding more or less sensible). Coming back to the thread now, I find both Patrick and Simenon have made remarks that confirm this impression.

Reading back, it was a long time since I wrote that, and some of the things I said were a bit bizarre. I have to say, reading back, it was rather uncommittal. I can accept this comment.

[quote="Ripley]

One thing I have noticed is that Ripley hasn't really made a firm stance on anything yet - though his points seem logical enough.

Really? I stated who I thought was the best deadline lynch, which seemed like a pretty solid stance to me (I hate deadlines, and I hate lynching anybody when I have so little idea of who the scum are as in this present game.) I've shared what opinions I've had, I've reread several times, and I've pointed out anything I could find that I thought was vaguely noteworthy. I'm not sure what else you want from me, Aimee. To point a finger at someone and say "you're scum?" Why should I be able to do that, if you can't? Would you say that you yourself have taken a firm stance on anything? [/quote]

What I meant was, although you have expressed your opinions, I haven't seen a firm "I think he/she is scum" type comment. Your posts have been helpful and analytical, yet they haven't really come to an overall conclusion about who you see as scum.

As for the Simenon comment, I totally agree that what I said didn't make much sense. My question to you is - what do you think of him now?

[Aimee]

With the deadline approaching, I felt it was a good time to affirm my stance on each player, starting with Paradoxombie, the person I am voting for.

1) Paradoxombie

The first post of substance he makes is post 78 - six days after his previous post. An obvious early bout of lurking, although I checked all his posts and he had no posts between May 26 and May 31. Were you away at that time Paradox? Anyway, post 78:

These attacks on Jordan are justified, but have have yet to convince anyone(I hope) that Jordan is a worthy day 1 lynch

On the other hand I'm finding Simenon's play extremely suspicious. You keep suggesting that you have reasons for your original vote against Jordan, and I don't buy that. And I definitely don't believe that you've actually somehow posted your reasons.

You're definitely looking alot worse than Jordan to me

Vote: Simenon

The first thing I note there is the very wishy-washy stance on Jordan - he says basically that they are "justified", but doesn't add anything else. Furthermore, no FoS or vote is given to Jordan, implying that he truly doesn't see the Jordan issue as a major point. He later says that Simenon looks a lot worse than Jordan, suggesting Jordan does look bad, but Simenon looks worse. If that is the case, why does Jordan get no FoS at all, yet Simenon gets a big fat vote on him?

The rest of the post focuses on Simenon. Instead of thinking that Simenon was concealing his reasons, he actually says "he doesn't buy that", suggesting he doesn't even think that Simenon had reasons, and Simenon was doing it for no reason. This is obviously not true - Simenon had previously stated he had reasons, yet was just not saying them at that stage.

I see this post as distancing. Jordan was under threat, so Paradox rushes in to state that Simenon is more suspicious - an attempt to draw attention away from Jordan, as others have already mentioned. It also shows an attempt to "fit in", concerning the Jordan issue, as he says they were "justified", yet doesn't expand in any way.

Again, it is almost another week before he posts, this time with another Simenon criticism.

I feel the distraction would lie in what I say. As I have said, my former reasoning is completely irrelevant, and could be used by ze opportunistic scum. Since there is no scummy aspect about my previous thinking, I don't feel obliged to disclose it.

So you are admitting your original reason would be suspicious, but we should take your word for that we would actually be wrong in our suspicion?

That sounds like you're trying to think for the rest of the town. I don't like when people try to make up my mind for me.

And please stop saying it's irrelevent, I'm not arguing about Jordan at all.

He really misinterprets Sim here - Simenon says "there is no scummy aspect about my previous thinking", yet Paradox says he is admitting his reasoning was "suspicious", which is obviously a lie. I don't understand Para's point about Sim trying to "thinking for the rest of the town", as I don't see any indication of Simenon doing this at all - he merely stated he had reason for his vote, but he didn't want to conceal it. Overall, it shows Para has a real drive to attack Simenon over the most minor issue.

No. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm saying that I had a reason that I don't feel like sharing, as it would only serve to be a distraction. It is irrelevant- there is no positive gain I can see by disclosing my reason. At all. Hell, for all you know, I may have even forgotten my original reasoning. That's how little impact it has on this game.

If it really is so irrelevent then I don't see why you won't just say it, unless it's suspect. Hence I assume it is suspicious. So you're denying that. Fine then.

So really, why would this insignificant little original reason that you claim has no bearing on the game be so dangerous to reveal? To the point where you believe it would be worse to reveal than to continue with this distraction it has become from your refusal to comply?

We have to trust your word for it that you made a mistake and I don't trust you particularly.

Yes, I think we all agree that taking someone's word in this game seems like a bad idea

/irony

The whole issue has been branded by Simenon as "irrelevant", and I agree. Paradox seems to want Simenon to give out his reasoning, even though Sim had said it would only benefit "opportunistic scum". Para uses some bizarre logic here - because the issue is irrelevant he assumes it is suspicious, something I don't really understand. The way he continues to attack Simenon over such an irrelevant issue is very suspicious in my eyes.

Paradoxombie, what do you think of Jordan so far?

I can't say, He's given off a few scumtells, but it seems that most of the pressure on him has decreased and I haven't reached any conclusions yet.

Also, explain what benefit you think Simenon is getting from refusing to reveal his original reason if he's scum. You must think he's the most likely scum because you're voting him.

I don't see what significance his motive has, he says a piece of information is meaningless and not suspicious and yet refuses to tell us for what seems like no reason.

FOS: Patrick and Ripley

Neither of you haven't mentioned any flaws in my reasoning, so i don't understand what difference it makes.

Somthing doesn't make sense about Simenon and you just want to drop it? What possible reason could you have to want that? You think it's distracting? How about you convince Simenon to just come clean and explain himself? Wouldn't that be a more

protown

resolution than me just stopping, regardless of the significance of the issue?

Once again, Paradox refuses to take a stand on the Jordan issue, and seems to ignore it completely. Again, more talk of Simenon, with an added FoS of Ripley and Patrick thrown in for seemingly no reason. It all, at this point, seems incredibly erratic play, throwing FoSes around, ignoring the entire Jordan issue, and attacking Simenon at all times.

And Paradoxombie is just baffling me. What have Patrick or Ripley done to deserve any real suspicion at this stage. I agree with Patrick here - you voted against Simenon without any real reasoning.

So you don't find Simenon suspicious?

And this post doesn't make any sense. I basically ask him why he FoSed Ripley and Patrick, but he then jumps straight back and asks me about Simenon. I really don't see what the big issue Paradox had with Simenon was. He obviously exaggerated the entire matter.

In his eighth post, he says in reply to Ripley that "I don't think I'm taking any of this too far", and then basically says he isn't going to back down until Simenon admits it, even though everyone else seemingly believed that the entire issue was irrelevant at that point. He does say that he would back down if "a better lead comes up". The fact is that:

1. Paradox's lead to Simenon was incredibly weak.
2. There already had been better leads - most notably the whole Jordan issue, which Paradix had not eluded to at all up to that point.

So here's one more from me: I think you guys are making a bigger deal of Jordan than you have to, dwelling on one issue isn't doing anything but slowing down the game. No one has anything new to add about the situation. Maybe Jordan is scum, maybe not. Sitting on this one thing is about as bad as not posting.

There now we both have 2 quotes on the Jordan "situation."
I honestly think mine are somewhat more helpful since
1. they give analysis
and likewise
2. Give people something so they can decide if I'm scum or not

but that's just me

He notes that "dwelling on one issue isn't doing anything but slowing down the game", yet that is entirely what he was doing with Simenon, and is obviously hypocritical. Again, no real response is made about Jordan, seeing as he says "Maybe Jordan is scum, maybe not." This suggests he doesn't really have an opinion on the whole thing. He also says his points on Jordan are helpful because they give analysis, but really, he is just sitting on the fence.

How ironic, I vote someone for claiming they have reasoning but refusing to reveal it, and you jump at me for not having reasoning.

Double standards = bad

As Patrick later pointed out, having reasoning for voting for someone but not revealing it (e.g. cop's investigations), is sometimes normal. Voting for someone with no reasoning is scummy - it suggests a degree of being lynch happy, as you are willing to vote for anyone for basically no reason.

I didn't even think he was scummy!

Here, he totally contradicts what he had previously said. He had previously been arguing that Simenon's actions had been "anti-town", which explained his vote. The very fact he admits he doesn't find Simenon scummy makes everything far more unclear, especially about his vote against Simenon in the first place.

I also agree (for the most part) with what IH is saying in his points against Paradox - he straight out ignored the Jordan argument, and focused exclusively on Simenon, who hadn't done anything majorly suspicious at that point. He ignored other, and better leads (he himself admitted he would move away from the Simenon issue if there were better leads - which there were).

Overall, I find that Paradoxombie is acting very suspiciously. He has attacked with weak reasoning, been hypocritical, contradictory, and slowed discussion with his full scale attack against Simenon earlier. I stand by what I said earlier to justify my vote:

It just doesn't make sense. Wild accusations, the OMGUS style FoSes against Patrick and Ripley, the extreme offensive against Simenon... it's all far too strong and intense for my liking. The actions don't make any sense.

Re-reading has made my view stronger and clearer.

[Aimee]

With the deadline approaching, I felt it was a good time to affirm my stance on each player, starting with Paradoxombie, the person I am voting for

This was followed by a lengthy analysis of Paradoxombie, but no others followed, and this was in fact Aimee's last post. Aimee, I'd like to hear from you in particular with regard to your voting intentions as the revised deadline approaches. Would you switch to Jordan? To anybody?

Same question to IH, who should have been back in town for a couple of days by now.

Yes, I was actually going to do that. But it will need to be tomorrow, I'm afraid.

[Aimee]

I want Paradoxombie first, but I would be willing to vote Jordan, I think (although I would need a re-read just to check).

Wouldn't be willing to vote for any of the other four.

[Aimee]

MOD: Can we get some prods on Jordan and IH, please?

[Aimee]

Well obviously Jordan is off the cards for today. Lynching a claimed doctor would be stupid.

I think Paradoxombie would be the best alternative. I made a massive case against him on the last page, to which he basically had no defence to. He is my preferred choice.

[Aimee]

Paradox, I made a big case against you a few pages back. You didn't defend yourself against any of it. I am still happy with all the reasons that I stated in it, and am happy with my vote.

Would one of Paradox or Jordan please give a case against IH? I haven't actually seen one, and it seems it was partially constructed because of his lurking.

[Aimee]

I don't think IH is as scummy as Paradox. I still see Paradoxombie as the best lynch for today.

[Aimee]

I'm here people. Today leaves us in an awkward situation.

I am suspicious of Simenon's third vote yesterday - I see that as quite opportunistic. His posts today also have a definite weird vibe.

[Aimee]

Sorry, I am here. I will try and post today, but definitely by tomorrow. Sorry for the inactivity.

[Aimee]

Okays. I'm back.

Simenon states he had “no back-up plan” after what happened with Jordan. He says that he doesn’t like Ripley’s actions at the bandwagon, and because both pro-town players were on IH, he could see a pairing of Ripley/IH. In his next post, he says that IH is mostly town. Some of his evidence surrounding Ripley seems pretty flawed – he notes a very early post made by Ripley that was pretty clearly a joke. His reasoning is weak. Simenon's mini rant against Ripley seems, at least in my mind, to be quite baseless. As a result of this, I see Simenon's vote against Ripley to be scummy. I don't really see any of his reasoning. Simenon, if you still believe Ripley is scum, could you explain why? Also, I want you to explain why you see me and IH as being town at the moment (something Patrick definitely addressed previously).

I see Ripley as unreadable at this point, which is obviously concerning. One thing he said interested me - post 300, where he says "Patrick knows I think at least one of him and Simenon is scum". Could you explain what you meant here? From what I gather from your post, it seems as though you suspect this because they "basically fixated" on Jordan. You later seem to suggest the Jordan bandwagon would be "tempting" for scum to join, implying it was a better than the Paradoxombie wagon. Does this mean you are suspicious of them because they were "fixated" on Jordan? Further, you say as well that IH and myself were fixated on Paradox - does this mean one of IH/Aimee is scum, or does it mean we are less likely to be scum than Patrick and Simenon.

Then there is the other unreadable Patrick, who recently gave a post outlining his thoughts on each player. However, he didn't really explain who he actually thinks are scum, as far as I can see (apologies if I am being a complete idiot). Could you clearly state and explain who you think are scum at this point?

And finally the lurking IH. I find it annoying that he lurks at convenient times, as well as the fact I didn't see him really comment about the four remaining players at this point - his whole idea yesterday seemed to be the feud against Paradox, with some anti-Jordan comments thrown in for good measure. I could see IH as scum at this point.

Simenon is my top suspect at this point.

[Aimee]

From what I gather from your post, it seems as though you suspect this because they "basically fixated" on Jordan. You later seem to suggest the Jordan bandwagon would be "tempting" for scum to join, implying it was a better than the Paradoxombie wagon. Does this mean you are suspicious of them because they were "fixated" on Jordan? Further, you say as well that IH and myself were fixated on Paradox - does this mean one of IH/Aimee is scum, or does it mean we are less likely to be scum than Patrick and Simenon.

I thought I'd been through this pretty thoroughly already. It's the failure of anyone else to join the bandwagon or advance the case against Jordan that I was commenting on, rather than the fixation of those already on it. And I've explained in some detail (Post 340) why I don't think the failure of others to join the Paradoxombie wagon can be viewed in the same way. Also, in Post 342 I explained that I thought that one scum in each pair (IH/Aimee, Simenon/Patrick) was actually quite likely from my point of view.

Can I suggest you reread those posts? If you still don't think they answer your questions come back to me and I'll have a go at writing new answers.

Yeah, I had another re-read of them, and it makes more sense to me now.

Another argument that only occurred to me recently is that Jordan didn't recover well from the initial mistake. He refers constantly to how badly he's playing. I think there was ample material there for scum to build on the original case made by Simenon/Patrick, had they chosen to. Which makes it even less likely that both scum would have passed up the opportunity.

I would agree that Jordan was an easy target on day 1.

So, what do you think about Aimee now Patrick?

Looking back, I don't think Aimee responded to the questions in Ripley's post 184. I think there might be some worth in that.

Still kind of meh on the IH/Paradox debate, but I'll tentatively say Simenon is probably town for now, and hope he is as easy to read as he seems to be =P

Post 230 mod post

post 231, Aimee post, answers questions.

Coincedence much?

I think Ripley already addressed this, but yes, Patrick's post did remind me to answer those questions.

I also don't see how it is anti-town for Patrick to ask Jordan to claim.

Well obviously Jordan is off the cards for today. Lynching a claimed doctor would be stupid.

I think Paradoxombie would be the best alternative. I made a massive case against him on the last page, to which he basically had no defence to. He is my preferred choice.

Strange as well.

Why?

I also find it strange that Ripley thought it more important to try and cast suspicion on Simenon, who was voting for the other alternative from the unclaimed doc, and did not instead look at Patrick who had pressed for a power role claim.....

I don't understand this. Are you saying it would have been better not to press for a claim? If so, why?

I had no back up plan after jordan.

find that suspicious in itself.

May I ask why you find that suspicious?

He has already explained this...

Aimee-I dislike how she seems to be watching and posting. Maybe it's just breaks in the posting, and she comes in and looks, but she just seems to wait til the kind of critical mass type thing, and then posts a summary.

This is playstyle, in a way. Check any of my other games. I am like that in them as well.

I'm pretty concerned that IH considers Simenon the most town at this point, mainly because I completely disagree, and I'm not understanding why he seems so anti-Ripley and so pro-Simenon. I'm also disliking the way he seems so focused on Patrick asking Jordan to claim, seeing as I don't see that as anti-town at all.

My toes are all fine too...

[Aimee]

I checked Day 1 posts, and IH made no reference to finding him so pro-town, something he has stated so vehemently today. If anything, you found him scummy - you FoSed him and called him "slightly suspicious" (although it was in the context of something much greater for Jordan).

Overall, I don't undertand why he is so pro-Simenon/Skruffs today.

[Aimee]

Happy Birthday, old one. (You should have a party. Just sayin'.)

I would agree with Patrick that a pairing of Ripley/Skruffs seems rather unlikely at this point. Patrick, which of your two pairings there do you see as the most likely to be scum?

[Aimee]

Probably Skruffs/IH, I took into account Ripley's idea that both scum would be less likely to both pile of Paradoxombie and if they had one might have been tempted to switch to Jordan. I'm not as confident in that as he is. The problem is you aren't behaving like town either, or at least not in any way like the town I easily had pegged in Tapioca Mafia.

Could you clarify what you mean by the end bit please?

I don't know. I do need to re-read Patrick's posts as at the moment I am completely unsure of my thoughts on him.

IH needs to stop lurking. It's getting quite ridiculous, and I want to hear what he thinks of Skruffs' entry to the game, as well as his response to post 373.

Concerning Ripley I have a gut feeling that he is pro-town - I agree with a lot of his posts, and certainly take his side in the Ripley/Simenon discussion. I further agree with his points on Skruffs recently, where he is definitely spot on.

I don't like the fact Skruffs has not commented at all on IH - this just emphasises my already high and increasingly thoughts that they are a scum-pair. At the same time, he hasn't commented on me, either, seemingly saying I have the least amount of information, yet doesn't seem to analyse this or take a stand. I also really don't agree with the way he is focusing exclusively on the one setup - it's a very narrow-minded way of looking at things. Furthermore, Skruffs' not liking the way Patrick pushed for a claim is also bizarre - I see no way at all that this is scummy. He has done nothing to alieviate my suspicions of Simenon.

[Aimee]

Just in case people wonder where I am, I may have a bit of limited access coming up.

Will be gone from August 4th to September 1st in the French Riviera.

I'll be studying in a college there so I should have access for several
afternoons each week, yet probably not everyday.

I should probably be gone from Saturday to Tuesday/Wednesday. CTD/Guardian, I would request that I don't get replaced.

Also, I'll get some content up before I go, guys. Promise.

[Aimee]

Aimee - you are suspicious of Simenon today but I don't remember you really pushing for him the day before, not in your player post or anything else. Why the change, and are you basing it on the same reasoning you used to think that Paradoxombie was probably scum?

Well, my reasons for voting Paradoxombie were these:

Overall, I find that Paradoxombie is acting very suspiciously. He has attacked with weak reasoning, been hypocritical, contradictory, and slowed discussion with his full scale attack against Simenon earlier. I stand by what I said earlier to justify my vote:

...

It just doesn't make sense. Wild accusations, the OMGUS style FoSes against Patrick and Ripley, the extreme offensive against Simenon... it's all far too strong and intense for my liking. The actions don't make any sense.

As for Simenon, his vote for Paradoxombie late in Day 1 made me very edgy, especially since it seemed to me like he was definitely going with the flow without really saying that much - it seemed very opportunistic. Furthermore, his rather extreme case against Ripley, which led to a vote early on Day 2 strikes me as scummy, since Ripley hasn't done anything majorly scummy.

Skruffs, can I clarify - are you anti-Patrick asking Jordan to claim?

IH, I'd still like an explanation on the previous point I made:

I checked Day 1 posts, and IH made no reference to finding him so pro-town, something he has stated so vehemently today. If anything, you found him scummy - you FoSed him and called him "slightly suspicious" (although it was in the context of something much greater for Jordan).

since it has gone unanswered.

I find this point by Ripley rather interesting because I agree with it:

However: Skruffs finds nothing at all to comment on in IH's play, or that of Teffc, nor can he find a single question to ask him in his "things I would really like to know:" section at the end of his post.

I'm getting slightly concerned about the way Skruffs and IH seem to be acting around each other. With IH, it's been a chorus of "Simenon/Skruffs is THE most pro-town person in the game" rather obviously. With Skruffs it has been more subtle - as far as I can see, the only reference he made to IH in his post 403 is saying he was "happy" with a post where IH noticed Simenon, and says that he would rather IH would be lynched than himself.

One point that Skruffs didn't really expand upon is his end point. He says IH-scum could be buddying up to Simenon due to the way he so obviously agrees with Simenon/Skruffs and calls him outright pro-town.

As for the final point in Ripley's 405, about Patrick:

One reservation I have about a Skruffs/IH pairing is that IH's first significant post today would be very bold in that case. He states that he pretty strongly feels Simenon is protown, and that's after every other player has expressed suspicion of Simenon, albeit varying levels. It creates a link to Simenon that would be difficult for him to deny later if Simenon was ever lynched as scum. I suppose I could take the opposite direction and wonder why IH didn't jump onto the convenient Simenon "bandwagon" if IH is scum and Simenon/Skruffs town. But maybe that would look too obvious and I'm getting close to the realms of wifom with this.

I'm not really sure about whether or not we can 'backwards predict' what he would have done as scum and as town. I think it would have been quite distinct and obvious had he jumped over the Simenon wagon on Day 2. However, I'm becoming increasingly worried than IH's reaction and posts concerning Skruffs/Simenon is merely a way of buddying up to a townie, to make himself appear more town.

Ripley's already made his opinions quite clear about this, but let me ask this - do you think you would have suspected IH more or less than you do now if he had said he found Simenon to be suspicious.

I'm not sure I can give a straight answer anymore, but I'm starting to move towards Aimee as a higher suspicion. This comes with the lower chance of a Skruffs/IH pairing mentioned above, and I think her attacks today on Simenon and Skruffs seem a tad oppotunistic.

I don't really agree with this, mainly because I don't see my "attacks" on Skruffs/Simenon as being that much like attacks - I don't think at all that I am "attacking" Simenon and Skruffs as much as you seem to think I am.

That said, I do think that my posts have recently focused more on IH and Skruffs rather than Ripley and yourself, Patrick. I'm definitely going to go back and make a post about things I find notable about you.

[Aimee]

I`m really sorry about this. On Monday I should have more time to answer this, but I`m about to go to a restaurant, and the family I am living with don`t have a computer. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I really do not wwant to be replaced.

[Aimee]

I'm not really sure about whether or not we can 'backwards predict' what he would have done as scum and as town. I think it would have been quite distinct and obvious had he jumped over the Simenon wagon on Day 2. However, I'm becoming increasingly worried than IH's reaction and posts concerning Skruffs/Simenon is merely a way of buddying up to a townie, to make himself appear more town.

What do you mean by, "backwards predict what he would have done as scum or as town"? I'm trying to make guesses as to how I think scum might act in various situations, which is what mafia is all about.

No, but speculation that delves too clearly into this can prove difficult without confirmed alignment. Especially concerning IH, who I find one of the most worrying players - I find him incredibly unreadable and unmetagamable.

You say it yourself later:

I'm not really sure about whether or not we can 'backwards predict' what he would have done as scum and as town. I think it would have been quite distinct and obvious had he jumped over the Simenon wagon on Day 2. However, I'm becoming increasingly worried than IH's reaction and posts concerning Skruffs/Simenon is merely a way of buddying up to a townie, to make himself appear more town.

Difficult to answer this one without further information really. It would depend on whether or not he made a case against Simenon, whether I liked it, how original the case was etc. If he'd just checked it and said basically, "Yeah Simenon is acting weird and I suspect him" then I would have been suspicious of that.

"Difficult to answer without information" being your words. This was what I was meaning here.

I don't really agree with this, mainly because I don't see my "attacks" on Skruffs/Simenon as being that much like attacks - I don't think at all that I am "attacking" Simenon and Skruffs as much as you seem to think I am.

This is just odd. I'm curious though, as to what you'd call you're attitude towards Simenon/Skruffs if it's not attacking? Looking at your isolated posts that seem relevant to this issue:

Post 24 I don't like much for the reason already given by IH. It just checks in to push forward the Simenon is acting weird thing.

Your post 26 contains what I see as an attack on Simenon. The first paragraph is attacking him, and at the end of your post you say that Simenon is your top suspect. Tell me if you disagree.

Post 27, you re assert that you're anti Simenon at the end of this post.
Post 28, you don't get why IH is so pro Simenon today.
Poat 30, you're pushing (slightly too hard IMO) the Skruffs/IH connection. I'd call it an attack on both.

So yeah, I have a hard time seeing how you're not attacking Simenon/Skruffs today.

That wasn`t my point - although I can see how it would be interpreted as such.

The fact is that I wouldn`t call the way I have been attacking Simenon/Skruffs as a complete OMG offensive against him - I think you are over-estimating this.

Because Me and LFR are on a wavelength man. Waaaave Leeeength.

No, the way you so resolutely consider him the most pro-town is bizarre at best ad scummy at worst. Please tell me why Skruffs/Simenon was/is so pro-town.

IH also says in post 425 that he found him so pro-town due to Sim`s actions on Day 1. This is simply not the case; as stated, IH said numerous times he was suspicious of Simenon`s behaviour, and even FOSed him. I`m not impressed with his very evasive answer, including a vague "Simenon acted pro-town".

I`m pretty unimpressed about how he says he wants me lynched, yet gives no reasons at all, other than process of elimination. Given the wagon of suspicion forming against me, I see his actions as a more subtle attempt at what could have happened earlier - he could have jumped on the Sim bandwagon but didn`t. However, he has jumped on the Aimee wagon with no reasoning and I find this very interesting.

Patrick`s post about me - I do agree I was low on the radar Day 1, but my stances were relatively clear - I was firmly against Paradox, and not nearly against Jordan as others seemed to be.

I also disagree with him that I have been pushing the Skruffs/IH connection - I see that as a highly viable option. However, perhaps it`s clearer to say that I am much more suspicious of IH as a result - as sai before I think IH`s actions equate to scum buddying with town, and as a result this doesn`t incriminate Skruffs as much as IH.

Also, I`m aware you said more, but I`m being shoved off a computer by a grumpy French woman. Could be next week before I post anything else, but I don`t want to be replaced.

[Aimee]

I point blank disagree with Skruffs`interpretation of Ripley there. Irritable is a no, he is merely pointing out and analysing facts, and I wouldn`t call most of his content irrelevant.

I think Ripley explained that his Paradox vote was just slightly before the deadline, so he didn`t really have time to ask for a claim.

I don`t really agree with what he says about me, either. I wouldn`t say my views were at all quiet - I was committal on Day 1, and have kept that going on Day 2. Furthermore, picking on the people "who make the most noise" doesnt`t make sense - surely then I would be going for Patrick and Ripley.

I don`t really get his conclusion on IH, since he seems to contrast his behaviour to that of a different game, but then says all games are different. What is therefore your point?

I notice that his stance on Patrick isn`t really a stance, merely a point. Skruffs, do you see him as town or scum?

[Aimee]

Aimee, for your quesions about Simenon, reading ftw from Ripley's answers.

Does this mean that you have already answered, or that you are going to answer? Sorry, I`m quite dumb at the moment after speaking French for 2 eeks straight, and I don`t really understand English right now.

[Aimee]

I would disagree that on Day 1 I wasn`t proactive - I was actively hunting scum as proven by my behaviour towards Paradoxombie. I think, as I have said before my stances are quite clear.

[Aimee]

I`m still here. i was really wanting IH to respond to everything but this seems unlikely now. also, i will be back on saturday, with a bigger post definitely on sunday.

[Aimee]

Hola Zindiebaby!

[Aimee]

Any luck with that re-read, Zindie?

[Aimee]

I've had a read through of Day 2, and here are some things that were brought to my attention.

I'm here people. Today leaves us in an awkward situation.

I am suspicious of Simenon's third vote yesterday - I see that as quite opportunistic. His posts today also have a definite weird vibe.

Patrick, can you explain what makes you so uneasy about this post. You said that you weren't happy with my first post of Day 2 and this is it. What makes it scummy?

Also, whilst reading, I noticed in Post 347, I find it odd that when I pressed him about who he thought was scum, he said he connected the IH/Simenon, IH/Aimee theories so would pick IH. I find it notable that he doesn’t really do say anything that explains IH being scum other than this. Whilst this is still logical, I'm quite surprised he didn't point out anything IH had actually done that was suspicious. It reminds me a bit of IH's process of elimination that made me his rather randomly selected preferred lynch target.

Oh, and his pointless refusal to reveal an early scum tell he believed (wrongly) to have found caused a massive distraction that created a situation where it was very easy for people to vote the (innocent) Paradoxombie.

I find it interesting here that Ripley, who at the time on Day 1 had mentioned nothing about Simenon's refusal to reveal a scumtell, was now using it as a point against him. If it is so important, why didn't you mention it at the time? As Simenon does argue, “Why didn’t you mention it as distracting when it actually occurred...?”

And of course, maybe your efforts are halfhearted because you're actually scum, and you know there's nothing there to find.

Just like you seemed to know Jordan wouldn't get counterclaimed yesterday.

This was about Simenon. Yet even as scum, he wouldn't know Jordan was a power-role. As a result, I'm not quite sure of Ripley's point here. Maybe I'm over-emphasising the importance of semantics here, but it seems Ripley is over-accusing Simenon, as also voiced by my point above.

I'm still not sure why Simenon voted for Ripley - perhaps as the 'frustrated townie' idea came in, but nonetheless, I do see it as opportunistic and scummy, especially after Ripley did disprove basically his entire flimsy argument.

I'm also unsure why Skruffs is so against Patrick asking Jordan to claim. Skruffs, how is that an anti-town thing to do? I'm failing to understand this in any way.

Lastly - you weren't hunting scum if you were trying to get a (now) known power role lynched.

This was said about me, concerning Paradox. But as I said above, even as scum I wouldn't know the power-roles. Which kind of defeats the whole purpose of your point here.

I don't have anything to say about IH at this point, other than the fact he never answered me about his so called Simenon town thoughts on Day 1. It's quite clear in my eyes that he was making it all up - he last pointed to the end of day 1, where he admitted earlier he had been lurking. Hmm.

And I'm also still not getting why it was so anti-town for Patrick to ask Jordan to claim. Ih was magnanimously in favour of this view point, but I never saw his argument conceptualise with any sort of brilliance. It remained rather flawed despite how he pushed it.

[Aimee]

OK. There are 20 pages for Zindaras to read, and he has indicated he won't have time to start for a while. Patrick and I prefer to abandon it. Aimee? Skruffs? Is it really worth carrying on with this?

Hm. I don't really want to abandon it, since I hate abandoning games, but it seems like lots of the momentum has gone, which is definitely a shame. For my part in the lurking, I apologise.

[Aimee]

Yay posting!

Update: I'd most like to lynch Zindaras, since I remember really disliking IH's play, regarding Simenon in particular. I'd have to re-read again, though, obviously.

I wouldn't really be happy lynching anyone else, if I'm honest.

Patrick can you clarify, does your "tiers of suspicion" mean that you consider Zindie and myself as

individually

most likely to be scum or most likely to be scum partners. The reason I ask is mainly due to Ripley/Skruffs being lower down - I think the idea of those two being a partnership is fairly unlikely, judging by former Simenon/Ripley interactions in particular.

Would seriously like some comment from Zindaras at this stage.

[Aimee]

Mod:

Requesting deadline extension.

Reason: Likely no access at deadline. At best limited access.

[Aimee]

Limited access starting now.

I don't know whether to vote or not - I may check back later, but not for long.

CTD - deadline extension, please?

[Aimee]

I won't be voting. Instead, I'll be hoping to get access before Wednesday, so I can control my vote then.

[Aimee]

Patrick said something earlier about Aimee not being curious about who the scum were. I recognise that that comment was a comparison of Aimee's play in this game with her play in other games, but I think IH was also massively uncurious in this game.

This is actually a question to Patrick.

Do

you consider IH/Zindie as "uncurious" as you perceive myself to be? I noticed this wasn't actually answered.

[Aimee]

This is a good question. IH has a long history of not posting often enough in this game, apparently due to a loss of interest in general, and Zindaras has also been late with his analysis. I'm fairly sure that on looking at a few of IH's games at the time, I saw that he was acting in a similar fashion in those and so the "loss of interest" excuse wasn't a complete fabrication, though of course he could have been trying to milk it in this game. Whereas with you, I more get the expression you're trying to appear curious.

Interesting answer, and I'll have to re-read IH's posts, but what I remember is that there was a distinct fall in activity after Day 1 ended. I'm not quite sure what this means in term of curiousity - it perhaps indicates more tat Ih

could

be more pro-town.

That said, I am not particularly happy with Zindaras' content so far and definitely feel that he is making too big an issue on the "Ripley gave a link which disproved his point" thing.

[Aimee]

Okay, sorry. I thought you were at page 7 (not sure where I got that from.)

[Aimee]

Access is not too bad, so I should be on tomorrow for at least a bit.

[Aimee]

Eh, Aimee's 148 gives me bad vibes. Bad bad vibes.

Reason?

Aimee's 164 is bad, again.

Can you explain why "a narrow view of Paradox" is so scummy?

I'm unlikely to vote for anyone but Zindaras today. His views on myself and Ripley, as well as IH's actions make him quite clearly the logical lynch target for today.

[Aimee]

Reason?

And Paradoxombie is just baffling me. What have Patrick or Ripley done to deserve any real suspicion at this stage. I agree with Patrick here - you voted against Simenon without any real reasoning.

Buddying up to Patsy and Ripley, basically this is just bandwagoning.

Care to explain why this is actually scummy?

I welcome you to justify Paradoxombie's FoS on Patrick and Ripley, but I'm not comprehending how you will manage to gauge a reason out of such a silly action which had absolutely no justfication.

Can you explain why "a narrow view of Paradox" is so scummy?

You're focusing way too much on Paradox. Your entire post is about Paradox and trying to set people up against him.

Narrow-mindedness is a scumtell because it leaves your opinion on other players open, something scum wants to do.

... Whilst this would make sense in a large post analysis, the fact is my post was merely

several

lines, and was an observation about Paradox. Since it's pretty obvious that was the entire point of the post, I still fail to see how it's narrow-minded.

I'm unlikely to vote for anyone but Zindaras today. His views on myself and Ripley, as well as IH's actions make him quite clearly the logical lynch target for today.

Yay for OMGUS.

Quite clearly your definition of OMGUS is flawed. IH has basically been my top suspect for the entire day. You come in and accuse me, and when I reaffirm my position you simply fling out OMGUS?

[Aimee]

Aimee, if Zindaras is scum, who's his buddy?

I'd need to re-read. But I'd most advocate Skruffs, mainly due to the seeming alliance which formed between himself and IH. However, I'd definitely need to re-read to see if I had missed something.

Zindie, I notice you completely ignore when I asked you to explain why Paradox's FoSes of Ripley and Patrick were justified. Stuck?

I see Patrick/Aimee/Zindaras have been doing the dance of ruling thselves out in all possible pairings due to being online at the same time and not lynching me. However, any of these posts could just as well be a message to a scum partner: "I'm still here... Skruffs isn't around, let's go for it."

I don't know why I'm being accused of this (if I am being). It's mainly Patrick who is (and I'm not really seeing why it would discount you anyway.)

[Aimee]

I don't understand your final comment. I hadn't claimed that it discounted me.

No, I meant this for Patrick - the way he was saying "Not me and Zindie together!" doesn't really discount them from being scum in any way.

I think Paradox FoSsed Ripley and Patrick because he felt they were defending Simmy from him. And I can see why he'd have felt that way, and why he would've FoSsed them.

I can't. I don't see any real reason for his FoSes, other than rather blatant OMGUS.

Aimee, you said (Post 558) that you were unlikely to vote for anybody but Zindaras today. Is this still the case, and when can we expect your vote?

I'm pretty okay to vote now, actually.

vote: Zindaras

Although it could be minorly threatening, he is the only person I would be willing to vote for today.

[Aimee]

Bah.