Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Sir Tornado]

Throughout this post, I will be referring to this post by Aimee.

I am going to do a post focussing exclusively on Adel. I think that is the best course of action. I will then do another post focussing on other players.

Adel's early game policy can be summed up entirely from this quote:

Lurking is an anti-town action.

In the same post, she refers to "lynching all lurkers", and from this point on, an intense lurker hunt was established, and followed, by Adel, Ryan and Lowell. Speaking of Lowell, an early connection was formed from Adel to Lowell. In the same post as the above quote, she comments:

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

After then voting against Theo for lurking along with Lawrencelot, she immediately takes her vote off after he posts. Her post when she says this is interesting though:

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is indeed scummy...

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Also, at this point, Ryan seemingly latched himself onto Adel. Oh no for Adel. Especially since now Ryan has been proved to be scum. Although initially Adel ignores Ryan's linking, just like Lowell ignored hers. This, to me, suggests that she is scum trying to link with town (Lowell), and Ryan is an idiot scum trying to link with his partner.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

I've got to page 11, but I am missing things and stuff, so I am giving up now. I will be back for more later. But it is clear, Albert and everyone, that Adel is who I suspect today.

Now,

Adel's early game policy can be summed up entirely from this quote:

Lurking is an anti-town action.

In the same post, she refers to "lynching all lurkers", and from this point on, an intense lurker hunt was established, and followed, by Adel, Ryan and Lowell. Speaking of Lowell, an early connection was formed from Adel to Lowell. In the same post as the above quote, she comments:

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

After then voting against Theo for lurking along with Lawrencelot, she immediately takes her vote off after he posts. Her post when she says this is interesting though:

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

I want to know Lowell's take on this. I have already mentioned this incident in less detail than Aimee has in my last post (well, actually my post before the last one)

However, I disagree with Aimee on one count. I don't think Lowell or Adel actually meant to lynch the lurkers. I think that she and Lowell both wanted the lurkers to post, and they have, consistently taken the votes off the lurkers after the lurkers posted. Personally, I favour the policy of pressurising the lurkers -- consistent pressure ensures that there aren't any lurkers in the first place. However, care must be taken that while applying the pressure that the lurkers should not be lynched without giving them adequate time to put forth their views.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

Actually, I remember you saying it rather differently after diagrams were posted. Personally, I love diagrams, especially the ones created by Adel. And, since Adel was about the most active poster back then, I don't think you can accuse her of posting diagrams because she had nothing else to post. I appreciate the effort she would have put in creating them.

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

Ok, I agree with you on this point. I do believe, that at some point on day 1, the lurker flushers lost the plot completely and went overboard being obsessive about their lurker hunting, and that pretty much stopped all discussions except lurking. However, that lead to pressure being put on Papaya, and the double claim later on, which lead to the eventual modkilling of Ryan, so, I don't think it went too badly at all.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Promoting a system that would facilitate a scum victory is indeed scummy...

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Also, at this point, Ryan seemingly latched himself onto Adel. Oh no for Adel. Especially since now Ryan has been proved to be scum. Although initially Adel ignores Ryan's linking, just like Lowell ignored hers. This, to me, suggests that she is scum trying to link with town (Lowell), and Ryan is an idiot scum trying to link with his partner.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

I've got to page 11, but I am missing things and stuff, so I am giving up now. I will be back for more later. But it is clear, Albert and everyone, that Adel is who I suspect today.

Agree with this.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert

Well, I am not fussy about who puts the case out, really... just be done with it

Sure 8)

Sir Tornado, could you continue placing your vote on Aimee until she posts the person-by-person analysis she promised ?

Lawrencelot case coming up asap.

Aimee has already posted a analysis of Adel in post 514 (and which I have replied to in the last post), which is why I un-voted her. She has posted and is no longer lurking, and am think she would post analysis on other people soon (

To Aimee: Make sure you do post it!

), so I don't see any point in voting her again.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Aimee has already posted a analysis of Adel in post 514 (and which I have replied to in the last post), which is why I un-voted her. She has posted and is no longer lurking, and am think she would post analysis on other people soon (

To Aimee: Make sure you do post it!

), so I don't see any point in voting her again.

Fair enough. Do you think she is town ?

[Sir Tornado]

No idea at all.

Right now, attacking Adel and Lawrencelot seems to be a very safe option to everyone. I don't know if you can call anyone a townie just because they take potshots at the aforementioned duo.

But, since there an be only 2 more scums, Aimee is not high up on my suspect list... above Ripley, you and A Papaya but below everyone else.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Mod: ryan has committed an illegal action by posting content after his death. If he were lying about this content, would you tell us ?

Actually that it isn't correct Albie. I PMed my scum-mate in Day instead of night session. Simply done, I broke the rules and got killed, nothing more nothing less.

Tornado, what do you think of a Bird/Lawrencelot scum pair ?

[Sir Tornado]

Just for the record, the "You" in the above post refers to Albert

[Adel]

I have a question to Lawrencelot and Adel:

What if you are

both

townies ?

It is possible. Would three scum be stupid enough to bandwagon? Would two? I think two is the more likely choice, followed by one, followed by three. Look at the other members of the wagon on Papaya. Theopor is cleared, but no one else is. But I'm not sure Lowell is the next logical choice if Lawrencelot and I are both town. Earlier today he posted something to the effect that he doubted Papaya's claim, but no the joint claim. When the claim became a joint claim I remember thinking that the game just got complicated, reevaluated my assessment of ABR and Papaya, and decided to stick by my guns and try to prove the claims were fake. Lowell ducking out wasn't pre-announced, was it? I can see a townie in his position being like "WTF- I'm out of here, unvote" because I remember wanting to. I'm not going to criticize Lawerencealot either. His opinion and my opinion were almost perfectly parallel. I totally understand where he is coming from if he is town.

And, of course, I still believe in hunting lurkers, but we are almost free of lurkers. The result I wanted all along.

Trying to be objective here, I think I'd look at Bird1111 initially, and then either Sir Tornado or Lowell. At the same time I'd pressure Aimee and Lowell: apply some stress and see what happens. Ripley is pretty much cleared in my book.

[Sir Tornado]

Tornado, what do you think of a Bird/Lawrencelot scum pair ?

Lawrencelot is currently at first position, especially after I reconsidered after reading your post: 527.

I don't think Lawrencelot and Adel would be the remaining pair. That is too obvious... and I do not believe in anything that seems to be easy (my general belief in life is that nothing is easy. If something looks easy, I am suspicious of it).

However, I am not excluding Adel from the possible suspects list yet. Adel, as I had said on day 1 looked pretty scummy then.

About Bird1111, I can say absolutely nothing at all. So, I really can't comment about Lawrencelot/Bird1111 being scum at this instant. I would like to reserve my judgment on Bird1111 till he returns and starts posting.

[Patrick]

Mod: ryan has committed an illegal action by posting content after his death. If he were lying about this content, would you tell us ?

No comment on what he did. I deliberately didn't say. I'll be PMing the list mod or some admin about his behaviour though.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Lawrencelot is currently at first position, especially after I reconsidered after reading your post: 527.

I don't think Lawrencelot and Adel would be the remaining pair. That is too obvious... and I do not believe in anything that seems to be easy (my general belief in life is that nothing is easy. If something looks easy, I am suspicious of it).

However, I am not excluding Adel from the possible suspects list yet. Adel, as I had said on day 1 looked pretty scummy then.

I agree completely. I would also like to add that Lowell seems completely innocent.

[Adel]

Lowell: from your post I take it you agree with me- am I correct in this assumption? I think it will take a group of active players cooperating to pressure the lurkers, and that may mean following "lynch the lurkers" to succeed. I am not sure how far we can safely take it though.

I am immediately uneasy here. Not only is it clearly apparent she is seeking to form a connection with Lowell, she proposes a sort of bizarre alliance system. A group of active players pressurising the lurkers. Sounds far too structured and tactical, and merely like alliance play.

You are pretty correct here. I wanted allies. I assumed that if they were scum they would balk if we target one of their fellow scum. A tell I was totally looking for. This is a tactic I plan on using in future games as well (if someone who is meta-gaming me reads this, I commend your diligence)

unvote: theopor_COD that is what i would call a content-filled post. One lurker flushed. Next up: let's flush A Papaya. I'll place the second vote again.
vote:A Papaya for not posting. I'll move it once some real content is shown under your by-line.

BTW: I am totally going to qualify for that Wishy-Washy tell. I'm expecting to move my vote two or three more times over the next few pages, so long as there is a lurker left to be flushed or until I am totally convinced that someone is scum. More information is better for town, and I can't think of a better way to flush lurkers than being Wishy-Washy like this.

Two things here are established. Firstly, the lurker "flushing out" scheme is shown, when she immediately moves towards a new lurker, A Papaya. Also, she attempts to give an excuse for her vote hopping which may occur in the future. Excuses here are irrelevant - what is clear is that Adel is attempting to open herself up to allowing her vote to freely move between all lurkers.

100% dead-on. I was explicit and transparent so that the masons wouldn't think I was scummy, as well as to help convince other townies to join me. The whole point was to generate enough content from all players for good analysis at the end of day 1, where lurking wouldn't be a scumtell because no one would be lurking.

A diagram is posted in post 93. Whilst I do love my pretty pictures, I do find them a bit pointless. It is like players doing vote counts (one of my pet hates). Players doing diagrams and vote counts just annoys me. It is just an attempt to look active, without actually doing much. In this case, the diagram wasn't useful, because it focused heavily on random voting and not on real votes, as it was too early for this. As a result, it has basically no use.

If you have any suggestions on how the graphics can be more useful, I'd be glad to hear them. Was the later one any better?

Lowell: we are on the same page. That is a great metric to track. Are you willing to track people's time since last post and list them in order here periodically, say every three or four days? It would save several of us from having to do the same work, and quality assurance would not be a problem. FoS: Sir Tornado

As well as moving onto another lurker, she focuses again on the link she seems to desire between herself and Lowell. Whilst Lowell doesn't seem to be saying anything Adel, Adel is almost leading Lowell - in the above quote she is seemingly coaching him and leading him into following her "lynch all lurkers" scheme. It seems again like an attempt to form links with active players so she can achieve her personal goals.

I was. I thought tracking the time since last post would apply pressure to lurkers without us actually having to go through the bother of bandwagoning them. Hopefully scum would begin to post periodic content-free posts, which would be a great tell later on.

Adel's playstyle does seem very strategic. As Ripley argues:

The last time I saw a player like Adel, he was scum. The resemblances are uncanny: the bounding enthusiasm, the helpfulness, the taking charge, the quirky approach illustrated by posting charts and diagrams in thread. Maybe he (the other guy) always played that way, but I can say for sure that it's a most effective cover for scum.

I agree completely with the above quote, which emphasises completely the ways Adel is acting.

I was trying to be strategic. As a townie I saw my role as being so damn useful that I'd draw the NK, proving my alignment, and leaving enough evidence to help the town win. All of those qualities listed I see as being pro-town. This argument seems to accuse me of being Too Townie. I remember thinking that Ripley's post was a scumtell at the time.

After Ripley's post, which was also against Lowell, Adel replied with this defence for Lowell:

I don't buy the anti-Lowell argument for a second. Everyone of his actions has been pro-town...

This is, of course, far-fetched to the extreme. Lowell's actions have hardly all be pro-town. Note on page 2, for example, when he seemingly wanted to hide and make all the masons do the work. So this is clearly a blind defence of Lowell. As Albert later argues:

I find Adel too quick to rise in support of Lowell with lack of evidence and little explanation for her rejected proposal.

Adel then replies to Ripley with:

Fos: Ripley for trying to derail the lurker hunting, again.

Again, she argues the importance of her lurker hunt, placing suspicion on those who actually look at other actions.

Isn't that slightly hypocritical? Adel wants the lurkers to post so she can get real content from them. But when Ripley utilises previous content from Adel, she plants a FoS on them for "derailing the lurker hunt". Isn't that actually derailing the

real

discussion, though, which is clearly more important? Suspicion should be able to flow naturally.

I was focusing on the portion of Ripley's argument that presented "lynch the lurker" as a scum tell. I don't think I engaged on anything else. My theory was that an active scum would attack the theory because it's acceptance would endanger the other scum. Scum cooperating with me would be walking into a trap. So I wasn't worried about Lowell or ryan being scum, I knew I would get around to it after we flushed the lurkers. If they were scum I thought it was extra clever that by creating an alliance they would be stuck co-operating in a pro-town activity, scum acting pro-town can actually help the town. I thought I was brilliant at this point in the game.

Ripley then makes an excellent point:

Adel, you are sounding somewhat obsessive about lurker hunting, and I'm also starting to question your following Lowell so blindly and uncritically. It's not something I've seen before, especially so early in a game.

I fundamentally believe that Adel's lurker hunt actually prohibited discussion during the early pages. It was attempting to bring lurkers into the light, and meant Adel wasn't actually focussing on the actions that had already happened. Raradoxically for Adel, who was arguing she was helping the town with her lurker hunt, in my opinion it was a detriment to the town and its discussion.

I thought ryan was following me blindly and uncritically, and I was trying to get Lowell to do the same. I wasn't focusing on actions, that would come later, I was trying to get more stuff on the record. I thought Ripley was trying to derail the lurker hunt, and I didn't like that. I

knew

that getting everyone to post was in our best interest. I remember complimenting Ripley for making good posts, even though I disagreed with them. What she was doing was exactly what I was after: good posting.

On page 6, Adel has a bit of crap logic:

The player who thinks like me and acts like me is likely to be playing the same alignment as me, therefore I will think Lowell is likely town until some real evidence comes to light.

Wrong. Absolutely ridiculous. The problem is she seemingly bases her argument around this. She seems to presume Lowell is innocent, with absolutely no reason for doing so.

Since he was co-operating with what I saw as the most pro-town play, that was all the evidence I needed to give him the benefit of the doubt until we flushed all lurkers. If he dropped scumtells in the mean time, than cool, because it would give a later argument against him by me more authority if I defended him first.

Look, if I had been correct about A Papaya, I would be a goddess right now. Probably dead by NK, but a great asset to the town. I linked Papaya to ABR, and the third would be pretty easy to get after that. By explicitly linking Papaya to ABR (before either claimed, mind you) even my NK wouldn't keep me from busting the game wide open. Papaya was guilty as sin. Totally. I would do the same thing over again. I think I played wonderfully up until the point where ABR claimed. I should've gone camping (literally) at that point.

Why are you doing it then? You understand that lynching lurkers

benefits the town in no way whatsoever

. Only scum benefit from lynching lurkers. Therefore by attempting to lynch the lurkers, you are acting scummy, something you freely admit is scummy. Therefore, you admit you are scummy. Argument is therefore flawed.

Putting the fear of the lynch into scum forcing them to fake-claim or drop huge scum tells (like Papaya did) is awesome though. I am in love with that strategy. It breaks the meta-tactic of scum lurking their way into day 2. I think it is the best play for town day 1. Force all players to post, force all players to vote, evaluate evidence, lynch. Only break from the pattern if someone drop lynch-worthy evidence on themselves. Simple and effective. Arguing against my strategy is anti-town, anti-town does not = scum though, a point that went over my head when Albert originally pointed it out.

After this, Adel seemingly "calls" the scum as A Papaya and Albert. Oh dear. How this occurred I don't know. But it fits with her whole "Lynch all Lurkers or die" approach.

Papaya was clearly scum. At least 3 townies thought so, probably 4. I correctly linked Albert to Papaya. I was a rock-star. I blame Papaya for playing so scummy. I think my play was great, up until Albert claimed. If we hadn't gotten personal earlier, and if his continued personal attacks hadn't pissed me off, I think I would've played better. I'm still bearing a grudge against Albert- I may not play in another game with him. But since he is clearly a mason, I'll just have to deal with it and cooperate until this game is over.

Not much occurs until page 10, where Adel and others' forceful play pushed a mason out of the closet (although not in that way). She then refers to Ryan as "part of the posse", which indeed shows that links do exist.

I was a huge ryan fan. He was helping me break the game for town.

Adel then makes a fatal blow.

...if nothing convincing and serious comes up my vote goes back to A Papaya. I'm mostly convinced that he is scum; if he is town or mason he isn't much good to us as town or mason.

Horrible idea. So you want to lynch a claimed mason on day 1? That is a horrible horrible idea. If I had been there I would have pounced on you for that. And saying he is useless doesn't help - if he is a mason, he is a mason, and they are incredibly useful to have. Lynching a mason would be horrible.

You are correct. I didn't believe for a second that there was a chance he was a mason, and I overstated my case by saying something that wasn't true. You called me out on a huge scum tell, which wouldn't have mattered if Papaya was scum. I was in my "I got the bastard, I can say anything" mode. Pure hubris.


Aimee, I am

not

calling you scummy for printing your analysis. On the whole it is pretty penetrating and accurate. I hope by giving you more information you will be able to make a better evaluation.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Red = Accusations
Green = Adel, upon innocence, clears Lowell
Blue = These players are confirmed unrelated to eachother


Adel clears Lowell because if Lowell were scum, he would attach himself to her.

Among the three lurkers, only one can be scum, else ryan wouldn't have been modkilled.

Accusations are mostly who that player think is scummiest. Adel attacked Lawrencelot, but I'm not sure whether or not she feels strongly about this, so I didn't include it in the pretty picture.

Papaya has his vote on Law. I myself am leaning towards Lawrencelot too, but I'm keeping an open mind.

[Adel]

Accusations are mostly who that player think is scummiest. Adel attacked Lawrencelot, but I'm not sure whether or not she feels strongly about this, so I didn't include it in the pretty picture.

I don't, I think that either him or I are a logical place to start, not to lynch but to gather information. My vote is on Law because Alert told me to. If it was up to me I wouldn't have a vote placed other than for short-term tactic considerations. Knowing me, probably to pressure Bird1111

[Albert B. Rampage]

Accusations are mostly who that player think is scummiest. Adel attacked Lawrencelot, but I'm not sure whether or not she feels strongly about this, so I didn't include it in the pretty picture.

I don't, I think that either him or I are a logical place to start, not to lynch but to gather information. My vote is on Law because Alert told me to. If it was up to me I wouldn't have a vote placed other than for short-term tactic considerations. Knowing me, probably to pressure Bird1111

Hey Adel, I'm sorry I pushed things too far a few days ago. Let me ask you a question tough, if I choose someone, will you still put a vote on that person ?

[Adel]

Other than me, yes. I am not going to self vote. Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry I started it.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Other than me, yes. I am not going to self vote. Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry I started it.

Alright, I'm fairly confident who the scum are. And I'm totally willing to bandwagon them, but my conscience tells me I should wait for more discussion. What do you think I should do ?

[Adel]

Get Bird and Aimee and Lowell to post more, in addition to whomever you think is the pick for today. Quicklynch isn't the move yet. There is no danger of the third mason being outed with you directing traffic. Take all the time you want. I think you are smart for not showing your hand, and for keeping Papaya from posting much. Be careful of hubris though, you can't be 100% sure, & if you have trouble effectively playing devil's avocate for yourself get someone else to. You really did make the best of a bad situation yesterday. It sucks that I made that much noise.

Best advice I can think of off the top of my head.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Adel, I firmly believe that it isn't necessary for Bird to post anymore. He will likely just side with me, and we won't be learning anything from him. Everyone right now is saying the same things: "Adel and Lawrencelot are scummy, Albert and Papaya are masons."

Why can't we just get this over with, and quicklynch the scum ?

[Adel]

I am a fan of information. He may spot some relationship that others missed. He may slip some thing interesting. I hate lurkers. I don't think you have the third mason in your group of suspects, if I am correct about who your suspects are. Out of Lowell, Lawrencalot and I, I'm pretty confident that you have 1, and I think that the second is part of the other group of non-mason.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Yeah, Lawrencelot is part of the 2 players I think are scum.

This is the case on him:

This post:

Is A Papaya at lynch -1 or -2 now? I don't like this bandwagon at all. However, with so many people on it, that probably means the town wants him dead. Adel, are you that certain of papaya being scum that you want to risk being lynched next day? I don't know if you can still do anything about it, but I won't blame you if you unvote. If you keep your vote on him, I might vote A papaya too but if he is town I will vote you next day.

Also:

Defends papaya until the claim, when papaya was most likely to be lynched. But when papaya started getting safe, he attacks him.

Keeps FoS'ing COD and Ripley, then un-FoS'ing them.

Doesn't attack ryan when he himself is attacked by ryan.

Tries to use Adel as bait countless times, even goes so far as saying that "Adel is town".

Makes a lot of assumptions, also going so far as to say that theopor_COD is part of our group. After the NK, he asks why theopor_COD was NK'd instead of scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

EBWOP

"NK'd instead of a mason"

[Adel]

I'm just afraid that if the next two lynches go bad, scum could still win. And I expect that I will be one of those two lynches. I'll vote with you, but I'm not quite sold on Law. The quote from Law would be far scummier if Papaya turned out to be scum, but I see how it could be scum looking for clearance to drop the hammer on a townie. I don't remember contradictions in his Fos's, but I'll admit I haven't read through those embarrassing pages since the modkill, choosing to write off of memory instead. I also stated that theopor_COD is part of your group, which one of us said it first? Which way would be scummier? I'm not sure.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Who do you think is the other person besides Lawrencelot ?

[Albert B. Rampage]

EBWOP

Who do you think I think is scum besides Law ?

[Adel]

Me! If not me, than I have no clue.