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

[IH]

Response to 428

Ripley, clearly this is a Wifom point. Especially since you say "Either IH or Aimee?". Shifting a lynch from Para, and onto Aimee could have been bussing, or else you just thought it wasn't likely he would move onto Aimee.

It's a slight point against you two being a scum pairing, but I don't think so....

You are completely wrong to say that "everyone" said you were lurking while posting elsewhere. Of the 6 players alive at that time other than yourself, precisely one player (me) said this (in Post 254). And btw, it was true. Are you seriously telling us you've cleared Simenon on the basis of his making an excuse for you not posting in this game? Have you never, in all the games you've played here, seen a scum try to get on somebody's good side before? I really find that hard to believe. And if he is scum and you are town, look how well it's worked! One brief aside excusing your lurking, which cost him absolutely nothing, and he's cleared, to the extent that you're apparently willing to excuse or attempt to explain away absolutely anything else said or done by him or his successor. I find it really strange that in that situation you would not even be looking at that possibility.

perhaps I've blown it up in my mind, but me not posting was pretty clear, and I just do not see scum motives in that post. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's a null tell, but I would disagree I believe.

This is just rambling. There was a clear reason for him to have claimed: to try to avoid the mislynch. Moreover, the doc had already been outed, so Para, the cop, would not be killed that night and, if we managed to lynch the roleblocker instead, would also have an invcestigation result. Is there any part of that you disagree with? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters?

no, you told me to answer the question if Role Claiming was useless.
I've seen Skruffs misunderstand, and am pretty sure he did, since the phrase "It's useless cause he would have died!" In which instance Skruffs did not consider it stopping the mislynch, but only keeping the role alive.

In that case, then the above is not "rambling" but makes sense.

This is just impossibly vague. IH, this is a lylo situation; you have to do better than that. Please try and give at least one example of Patrick's posting that has led you to the belief that he's town.

Clearly that means it's a gut feeling, but I will try to give you an example of what I mean in my next post.

[Patrick]

If you believe, as you say you do, I was actively trying to shift the lynch here, you must surely see how wildly unlikely it is that I'm scum with Aimee. If so I'd be trying to shift the vote from a townie towards my scum partner, shortly before deadline.

Fairly strong words here. If I am to accept that logic then that would also make it "wildly unlikely" for you to be scum with IH, and I don't think you're scum with Skruffs, and I know I'm not scum, so...

But I don't think it makes it wildly unlikely. I disagree with IH that's it's just a WIFOM point, but I don't think it's anything very strong.

Also, IH, I don't think you explained why Aimee took Ripley's place at the top of your list.

[Ripley]

Fairly strong words here. If I am to accept that logic then that would also make it "wildly unlikely" for you to be scum with IH, and I don't think you're scum with Skruffs, and I know I'm not scum, so...

I was talking mainly to IH, who had repeatedly argued that I was trying to shift the vote away from Paradoxombie/Jordan, which he for some reason considered evidence against me. And my post asking you if you'd be willing to vote for IH/Aimee was part of his case. I still don't see how he can consistently claim to believe that, and have Aimee and me as his top scum pair. You can't just dismiss any inconsistencies in your position by crying "clearly WIFOM". IH has not come up with any logical reason why I, if I were scum, would consider bussing my scum partner in that position, because there is no logical reason. In fact he hasn't provided any logical reason, or at least not one that I could understand, why scum would have wanted to shift the vote at all.

I did think it was something for you and Skruffs to consider as well, if only because both of you had been supportive of the Ripley/Aimee theory. But since neither of you had claimed to believe I was trying to shift the vote, I downgraded it to "pretty unlikely" when addressing you two. See final paragraph of that post (428).

[Skruffs]

HMM. (not helpfu, I know)

[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.

[IH]

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

[Patrick]

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.

Ok, so you're not attacking him heavily, you're attacking him moderately. I still don't think it's a terribly important distinction; it's not as though I ever accused you of going all out against him, I said that your attacks seemed a tad oppotunistic.

I also disagree with him that I have been pushing the Skruffs/IH connection - I see that as a highly viable option.

Sure, I also think it's a viable option. I didn't express suspicion of you just because you think it's a viable option.

[Skruffs]

I'll have a post in this weekend. For some reason I am having a very hard time reading this. MAybe it's flashbacks, I don't know.

[CrashTextDummie]

Vote Count

:

Not voting

(5):

everyone

With 5 alive, it takes 3 to lynch.

The mod has been slacking, but that doesn't mean that you should slack as well. I'm considering a deadline. You have been warned.

[Skruffs]

Simenon starts out looking for trouble, as usual, and jumps on the same thing as I did on Jordan. Is acting weird about not giving his earlier reasons for suspecting Jordan; I don't see how it's going to lead to a slap fight. The fact that there is a counter-wagon of sorts against Simenon based largely on what seems to be Simenon just being Simenon, makes me feel a little better about him. Possible being used as a distraction if Jordan is scum.

Ripley starts off the game with more joking than usual, then a little theory/meta of the previous pie c9's, then talks about Jordan. Plays devils advocate on the Jordan issue, has yet to take a firm stand on anything. I'm still thinking about the validity of his points; they seem logical enough mostly, I'm just not sure if they are right being applied in this case, which to be fair Ripley acknowledged he might be over-thinking. I can see where Simenon is coming from in saying it's Jordan/Ripley, but it's obviously overstated at this stage.

This part of this post reassures me about Patrick (it's at the start of page 4) and reinforces the 'devil's advocate' i was seeing in Ripley. I didn't like how he was kind of goading Patrick's 'scum tell' (which we now know is false) on jordan without actually investing himself in it.


Aight, I've read through again. Third time is the charm.

Aimee's player post is similar to open 19, where she is dead in town. She infuses her opinions about the players in with how they've acted. I also like her comment on Ripley being "objective like scum should be' - I actually agree with that. Good scum want to be pleasant and helpful by day, knowing they won't be killed at night.

I am willing to offer a disclaimer on the following statement. I got in a lot of trouble in PieE7 #2 by not liking the Ripley/Patrick relationship. Neither of them were scum in that game but the way they reacted with each other really tripped my buttons. It happens again on here. Ripley, for example, mentions that Patrick always seems to be town - briefly mentions the first C9, even offers a link to it, but seems to dislike the idea of using Patrick's past behavior as an example in this game. In a lot of the first pages, Ripley plays a gentle devil's advocate - and I think Aimee also pointed this out - by pushing points that Patrick has made. I have not seen Ripley question Patrick in a way that seems suspicious, yet.

Para was a good target for a late day lynch, and IH is the one who really russled up that wagon. I really like Paradoxombie's call out in post 211. I'm curious about that game Jordan was talking about - the one where teffc replaced out and may be scum. When it was talked about, presumably, she was still a live?

Patrick really quieted down after the wagon on jordan because of his tell was replaced by IH on Paradoxombie action. Laziness is what was used, but again, I'm suspicious. More of Ripley than of Patrick. Why hasn't Ripley voted yet??
Right after Patrick says he's bored, Ripley pipes up with almost the exact same thing. Check it out. Note how Patrick responds to the IH/para case by talking only about Paradox.

Ripley sums it up best when he says he's not lurking, he's maintaining an enigmatic silence.

PAtrick pushes in a few posts that jordan or paradoxombie (both power roles who are now dead) should be lynched, or at least claim. (Why in the hell would a power role claim in a game where scum can block AND kill each night?? Patrick should know better than this...) and I am really digging this quote of his:

If Jordan isn't lynched, it seems that Paradoxombie would be the main alternative lynch. I guess I'd go with an Aimee or an IH lynch to avoid a no lynch.

One slightly interesting thing I noted just skimming back was that neither of the vote leaders are voting for each other. I wonder if that means anything. If I see CTD in scum-chat I'll poke him to get clarification on the deadline.

Patrick has not really referred to Ripley directly all game - it's as if the two of them just Assume the other is town and don't bother with each other. Again, this REALLY aggravates me, to the point where I am having a hard time looking at other players..

IH's play hasn't gone well in this game either, though. He posted and squabbled with para for a while, then, well, disappeared. Come back. IH.

Ripley's Post 268 is AWESOME. I hope he continues this train of thought in the following day.

Simenon (me) puts Para at 3, Patrick keeps his vote on the claimed doctor, questioning Simenon's' switch. zombie puts IH at 2 - and both Ripley and Patrick are not voting. Patrick rescinds his vote, and Ripley starts setting up the next day. The way he talks isn't anything more than 'perusing a newspaper' in nature, somehow I get the feeling that he knew no matter who got lynched, he would be okay. Patrick made a lot of fuss of being around for deadline - but if he was, he made no posts to demonstrate it. Certainly no votes, and after some discussing, Ripley finally hammers the cop.

Patrick complains about why Paradox didn't claim - which is stupid. The doc was already being killed for claiming, it wouldn't be hard to block the cop. This was a bad post, a very bad post, one that an experienced PIE-er should have known way before he started fishing for claims. Paradox made the right play in not claiming - all it would do is make the scum's job completely easier, for two nights.

He followed it up by asking Simenon why he voted for town.
If I remember correctly, Patrick abstained from voting either player, so he doesn't 'get' to criticize others for voting badly, does he? No. If he had voted IH, Ripley could have 'chosen' between the two of them, but Patrick writes off Ripley in his first post. Why??!

Ripley's follow up post is even worse. "Well, Patrick, you see, I didn't *like* hammering him, I *thought* he was town, but I just *had* to do it." Why didn't he ask Patrick why he didn't vote?? And immediately after saying "I was sure paradox wasn't scum with anyone but you AND I knew it would be a bad lynch" he agrees with Patrick that Simenon was suspicious for switching to someone he thought of as town, earlier.

Patrick says Simenon is curious. Ripley echoes Patrick. Aimee echoes Ripley and Patrick. Hmm. Ripley and Simenon have an argument, and Simenon finally notices the relationship between Patrick and Ripley. Thank goodness I'm not the only one. He asks Patrick to comment on it, and Patrick, who's avoided directly accusing Ripley the entire game, and who has been trading off arguments with Ripley, for each other, sicne the beginning of day one, against Jordan, says this:

You attacked Ripley. You've asked him questions, made bold declarations in big letters. Why do you want me to answer that? Surely it's for him to respond to. Ok so you've randomly said you're pretty sure I'm scum with Ripley, but I can't give an answer to that unless you actually give a tangible reason. The only part I could see you want me to respond to is that bit at the start where you accuse him of completely ignoring everything you said. Which is an exaggeration.

Direct turn of pace. And yet it doesn't cast suspicion on Ripley, but rather on Simenon for asking him to comment on Ripley.

Ripley's response is that Simenon is ruining the game. To b frank, I've been in Simenon's shoes in those kind of games, and it Sucks to be town and feel like the odds are against you. Ripley, though, is doing Great. The game is great. Sure he hammered someone he thought was town, but Simenon *voted* for him. That Patrick avoided voting at all at deadline never, ever, crossed Ripley's lips, and Ripley has been very astute about his observations with both known towns. Somehow he's trying to push it on to Simenon after confessing to acting in the same way. It's bad. Very bad.

Ripley and Patrick tag team Simenon, without voting. This is Ripley's style anyways - he managed to encourage two wagons day one, on both power roles, without voting except as the last post of the day. As scum, a very finessed style.

Patrick didn't pile on a vote onto Ripley, but Ripley and Patrick were the only two people posting at that time besides Simenon. Ripley's response towards Simenon was that Simenon was acting brashly, with a healthy dose of appeal to emotion. He did not suggest that Simenon was pushing for a quick lynch - he more tried to convince Simenon that voting him could result in a quick lynch. The main focus was that he could be lynched, though, and wasn't really directed towards Simenon's alignment, if you get my drift, which makes me think it was all bluster. Slick, smooth bluster.


Patrick finally questioned Ripley in asking him about Ripley's statements in regards to if Patrick knew that Ripley was suspicious of he and Simenon and was trying to inflame those suspicions. Which is weird, because the meat of that logic is that Ripley may be being misled by Patrick. This also only happened after Simenon pointed out the relationship between the two - the first, if small, example of distancing. Regardless, Patrick's response was polite and curious, and Ripley rather avoided it completely by talking about experienced players on Jordan. I don't follow that, but Patrick did, and dropped it. It was all very courteous and almost scripted, I dunno.


Ah. IH is back. He notes that Ripley avoided Patrick in his suspicion of Simenon. YAY!

More reading, but it seems to be Simenon and Aimee right now. They both took Patrick's lead in casting suspicion over Simenon (me), and I get the impression that they were maybe hoping for a Patrick vote to quick hammer. I could be wrong though. LYLO with five players means anything goes as long as you can convince one townie to misvote.

I condensed it but drew ire for not posting quotes and stuff. That is the extended version. I cleaned it up a bit but it probably goes through things that other people have already addressed. IT is not meant as an attack, merely a point of reference from which I drew my first summary out of.

Point of Note : This is a hard game to follow, for me. Ripley has noted that I easily make lots of excuses as to why I don't post. Oh well, sorry.

Patrick did notice this - questioned it - Ripley ignored it - and Patrick brought it to his attention again.but Ripley's response doesn't make ANY sense. Patrick seems to buy it though, and I wonder if this was some slight British distancing or something.

Skruffs wins this game

Until and unless Skruffs explains these comments of his, which he's been asked to do, the "game" is one to which he alone knows the rules. Do

you

understand what he meant? Or did this just strike you as a promising remark by Skruffs that quite probably meant something or other, so you just decided to throw a cheer in its direction, in line with your policy of blindly supporting everything said or done by Simenon/Skruffs, most especially if it attacks Ripley?

He said I won because I was referring to British distance techniques.

Skruffs, you also have Aimee/Ripley as your first choice, and Patrick thinks it's a good possibility. Whether or not you believe I was actively trying to shift the vote here, don't you think that's a pretty unlikely post for me to have made if I were scum with Aimee? (Incidentally, IH has never managed to explain convincingly how he thought it was scummy of me to be shifting the vote away from Jordan and Para, but that's another question...)

I really have no idea what the proper response to this would be. You are asking me to Meta, which, I can not force myself to do with any degree of certainty. Metas that I use will be metas I make up myself.

Here is my statements about players:
Ripley - Cheerful all day one and most of day two, but has started getting quite irritable. Maybe this is because nobody thought Ripley was scum day one, and he doesn't like the attention on him like this day two. That would explain the hesitancy to vote. I'm curious as to if Ripley asked for a claim from Paradoxombie before he hammered - I don't have the time right now to go check. Ripley didn't switch any votes day one, because he didn't make any, except for the one to end the day. To go after other people based on their vote trails, that suggests, to me, that it was intentionally vote-lurking. So Ripley's behavior suggests to me that he was enjoying this game with all it's dead power roles and it's one-misvote-to-win setting, whereas maybe the rest of us (esp Simenon) was not in such a good mood.

Aimee - Aimee happily added her agreement to the Simenon is scum. This was a mistake. You have to change your behavior to match the game's situations - something that works day one does not work day two. Now one of her defenses is that IH and Simenon are scum because they are defending each other, and because Simenon changed his vote over to Paradox instead of IH. AS compared to Aimee, who... didn't change her vote away from the power role she had it sitting on all if not most of day one. Again, staying low and picking at people who make the most noise.

IH - IH does not strike me as the scummy IH I saw in a very similar situation in a newbie game. I had mishammered day one and had the entire game of people suspicious of me. (I was a townie). IH, in that game, kinda chilled out, not really defending or attacking, and kind of added small tidbits of fuel to an already raging fire. I don't see that in this game. In this game, I see a bouncy, energetic IH (in the posts he makes) that is actually taking risks in saying one person is clear vs others. Of course no two games are the same.

Patrick - Patrick seems to be considering all angles, and I am very glad he at least acknowledged my fears about him and Ripley - even if they are scum buddies ( which I think less likely now ) it was good tht he didn't attack me for even thinking such a thing, or whatnot. We must all be vigilant.



Lastly, and I couldn't help but bring this up.

Patrick, you mentioned Tapioca Mafia earlier. In a way that game was the converse of Pie C9 2,

where I thought Skruffs was innocent,

and am thus having more trouble with his behavior in this game than you. You thought he was scum in that game and say that's caused to to recalibrate your expectations of him. In Tapioca, you had Aimee pegged as town but I was suspicious of her. And now in this game you're finding her suspicious. Maybe because I didn't get the strong protown vibe you did from her in Tapioca, I'm not noticing the same difference as you are.

versus this:

I had a look at that game I mentioned and found

I'd actually spent the end of Day 1 arguing vehemently with Skruffs, who'd replaced in a deadline situation and was posting a lot of excuses and generally finding reasons not to actually read the game, although he found the time to make lengthy posts about how he didn't have time to read the game, and for this and other reasons I thought he was scummy as hell.

Skruffs would probably dispute this account of his behavior, but actually it does show that like you, I've previously found Skruffs to be very scummy when he was actually town (although not for the same reasons as in this game).

Which is it?

Mod-edit: fixed quote tags

[Skruffs]

Darn. Mod, could you fix my quote thing in the last paragraph there? The ["Ripley"] should be "Ripley"].

[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.

[Patrick]

PAtrick pushes in a few posts that jordan or paradoxombie (both power roles who are now dead) should be lynched, or at least claim. (Why in the hell would a power role claim in a game where scum can block AND kill each night?? Patrick should know better than this...) and I am really digging this quote of his:

No Skruffs, for like the tenth time. You are a moron if you truly believe this.

He should have claimed to save himself from being lynched. The objective of the game is to lynch scum not poweroles. Yes, he'd have fairly likely made his actual investigation ability useless, but that would have been the lesser of the two evils (the other evil being the one that happened).

If you want to keep repeating this, make a counter argument to the above. Your position makes no sense.

Patrick has not really referred to Ripley directly all game - it's as if the two of them just Assume the other is town and don't bother with each other. Again, this REALLY aggravates me, to the point where I am having a hard time looking at other players..

Misrepresents my position. I did not, and do not, presume to know his alignment. Have you looked at the attitutes of the other players towards Ripley day 1? I'll do it:

Simenon: Brief FoS of Ripley because, "Ripley is never just dumb".
Jordan: Seemed to think Ripley was townish
Aimee: No attacks on Ripley
Teffc/IH: Seemed to have no problems either
Paradox: A FoS of Ripley along with me for a bad reason

Hardly anyone went after Ripley on day 1. What makes me so special in that regard? Should I attack him if I don't find anything suspicious about him?

Patrick made a lot of fuss of being around for deadline - but if he was, he made no posts to demonstrate it. Certainly no votes, and after some discussing, Ripley finally hammers the cop.

Already explained exactly what happened to me at deadline, please don't ignore what I said. I would add that despite being on dodgy access, I actually added more to the situation than some people.

Patrick complains about why Paradox didn't claim - which is stupid. The doc was already being killed for claiming, it wouldn't be hard to block the cop. This was a bad post, a very bad post, one that an experienced PIE-er should have known way before he started fishing for claims. Paradox made the right play in not claiming - all it would do is make the scum's job completely easier, for two nights.

Megafail. I hope for your sake that you're scum in this game.

He followed it up by asking Simenon why he voted for town.
If I remember correctly, Patrick abstained from voting either player, so he doesn't 'get' to criticize others for voting badly, does he? No. If he had voted IH, Ripley could have 'chosen' between the two of them, but Patrick writes off Ripley in his first post. Why??!

I asked Simenon why he voted Paradoxombie, but not merely because Paradoxombie was town (too lazy to check but I'm sure all of us have voted town at some point). His vote for Paradox was clearly inconsistent with his words yesterday. I tend to think scum can be caught on inconsistencies.

Patrick finally questioned Ripley in asking him about Ripley's statements in regards to if Patrick knew that Ripley was suspicious of he and Simenon and was trying to inflame those suspicions. Which is weird, because the meat of that logic is that Ripley may be being misled by Patrick. This also only happened after Simenon pointed out the relationship between the two - the first, if small, example of distancing. Regardless, Patrick's response was polite and curious, and Ripley rather avoided it completely by talking about experienced players on Jordan. I don't follow that, but Patrick did, and dropped it. It was all very courteous and almost scripted, I dunno.

I'm not sure you've understood what I was asking about. I was asking about the false dilemna that one of myself and Simenon had to be scum. I wanted to see him justify it. He did avoid answering it once or twice, so I kept asking until he answered.

More reading, but it seems to be Simenon and Aimee right now. They both took Patrick's lead in casting suspicion over Simenon (me), and I get the impression that they were maybe hoping for a Patrick vote to quick hammer. I could be wrong though. LYLO with five players means anything goes as long as you can convince one townie to misvote.

You mean Ripley and Aimee I assume. Not Simenon and Aimee.

You seem to have drawn alot of connections between Ripley and I to say you don't think we're scumbuddies currently.

[Skruffs]

THe connection is almost entirely from your interactions day one.
Your actions today, PAtrick, helped to dispel that.

[Ripley]

Skruffs, the two remarks you've bolded in two quotes at the end of your post referred to different games.

I'm not replying in detail to your post. Much of it has already been covered, and I've spent endless hours already replying in minute detail to previous posts from you and from IH, those replies, and questions of my own contained in them, being more often than not ignored. You continue to repeat arguments which have been challenged, without addressing the replies. I'll state in general terms that I completely disagree with your characterisations of my play; with your constant linkage of me with Patrick; and with your repeated attempts to portray me as upset, jittery, cracking under pressure and, now, irritable. If you or anybody else has a particular question you'd like me to respond to, go ahead.

Both Simenon/Skruffs and IH seemed to start off today absolutely determined to do everything possible to find evidence of my guilt. Neither of them seems really interested in listening to my replies. They're only interested in finding ammunition to use against me, in mudslinging and insinuations and repeating accusations that they've failed to justify, or that I've replied to. It's impossible for me to understand how anybody protown, who should be trying to find scum, would approach a game like that. I'm looking at everybody with an open mind. Why aren't they? I have to wonder if the real reason is that this was the plan agreed to on Night 1, and neither of them can be bothered to change it. We know from Skruffs' first post that Simenon contacted him about the game before the replacement:

Oh, so I *have* replaced.
Hi everyone.
What do I need to know?
Simenon said I Was on the chopping block.

Simenon, incidentally, didn't have a single vote, the only vote of the day having been made by himself, and any suspicion he was under was entirely of his own making as a result of how he started off Day 2. However, the accuracy of his comment isn't really the point; the point is, would he have bothered to contact his replacement just to complain about his situation? Hmm... possibly. But if he were scum he would

definitely

have contacted him, because he'd have a night's worth of scum discussion to pass on.

As for IH, it's become almost impossible to have any kind of reasoned discussion with him. It's not just the long intervals between posts; his writing style is increasingly careless and hard to follow, and in a game which is entirely dependent on communication by the written word, it's becoming a nuisance. Like Aimee, I have no idea what he meant by post 455, a single sentence which has been his only contribution since the 11th. There have been many other examples. Like Skruffs, he continues to repeat points that have been answered, over and over. Also, his apparent inability to disagree with Simenon/Skruffs about

anything

would make it pretty difficult to discuss things with him even if he were posting regularly and in flawless English. He gives the impression these are both players he admires, and that he is actually quite pleased to be in a situation where he can offer unqualified support.

IH, we're still waiting to hear from you what it is about Patrick's posts that has caused you to think he's innocent. Surely you can do better than "gut feeling", which is IMO usually shorthand for "I can't be bothered to wade through all his posts right now and try to find out what, if anything, made me think this way".

[Patrick]

Skruffs, could you make some kind of response to my reply please? Otherwise I feel you might just bring up those issues again later as if I'd never addressed them.

[Skruffs]

PAtrick, I will reply, but the huge post-quote at the beginning of my big post was the long version of my initial post. I didn't mean for it to rehash old things, I Was more trying to provide a more detailed reasoning for the 'vague suggestions' that ripley was angry at me about. IT was NOT Meant to be a series of fresh attacks - I have changed my mind about your call for someone to claim. IT would have rendered the role useless BUT it would have maybe avoided a mislynch. I do agree with you on that. SOrry if that upset you or skewed your view on me but I Was honestly trying to give Ripley what he was requesting when he dismissed my critique of his game style.

Aimee - It seems more and more that it is you and Ripley vs me and IH. Patrick seems to be becoming the swing vote today, but that doesn't make him town or scum in my eyes. Lastly - you weren't hunting scum if you were trying to get a (now) known power role lynched.

Ripley - No, I believe they both refer to open 18. [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=422 You later clarified it yourself by posting a direct link to PieC9. [/url[ (click link for proof). The first one states the game title right in the block, the second one you clarified for patrick. ??? So is this a huge slip or what?
I don't see how you can say that my only goal today has been to get you lynched. You wanted me to post my opinions, and apparently, when I do, they are the wrong ones. Sorry!

Lastly - PAtrick - knowing that that big quote was a much earlier argument - and that my views have changed somewhat - what would you like me to reply to?

[Ripley]

You've messed up your quotes, but anyway:

The first reference, as you say, states the game title:

Patrick, you mentioned Tapioca Mafia earlier. In a way that game was the converse of Pie C9 2, where I thought Skruffs was innocent...

Pie C9 2, which was Open 11. Agreed so far?

The second reference:

I had a look at that game I mentioned...

is to C9 + 2, Open 18, confirmed by the link I provided (Post 424) when Patrick asked me which game I was referring to. When I say "that game I mentioned", I'm referring back to the last sentence of Post 418:

I've played 1 more game with him, but he was a replacement as usual and I got NK'ed night 1 so we didn't overlap by much. I'll dig it out and take a look though.

1. Pie 9 C2, Open 11.
2. C9 + 2, Open 18.

Different games. OK?

[Skruffs]

I think I've played too many games. That was the game I was a cop and we won. My only successful win as a power role!
My apologies. I associate one game by C9 and the other by "the game where SV was scum".

So I was town in all three games - and I'm sure if you had lived in the other one, you would have disagreed with me, because, well, frankly, you are scared by my brawny intellect. *flex* don't worry though, it's okay.


Moving on, did you want to comment on my indication of Patrick as a swing vote?
Do you think it's more likely that patrick is scum, or town?

[Patrick]

Skruffs, I hadn't realised that you were giving a longer version of what you said before and that you actually don't think that now. That makes it a bit better I suppose, though your post was a bit uncoordinated because of it.

Aimee - It seems more and more that it is you and Ripley vs me and IH. Patrick seems to be becoming the swing vote today, but that doesn't make him town or scum in my eyes. Lastly - you weren't hunting scum if you were trying to get a (now) known power role lynched.

It's interesting that you should say this, which has crossed my mind once or twice. The idea of trying to decide which group is more likely sort of terrifies me. However, other scumgroups are definitely possible, even from my POV of ruling myself out. IH/Aimee is still one that bothers me. Nothing jumps out at me that says IH/Ripley couldn't be scum together either. Skruffs/Aimee is probably a rung lower down, and Ripley/Skruffs seems unlikely.

On your comment about Aimee, it is possible to still be hunting scum even if you went after a powerole. You couldn't say that you found scum, but you could still have been hunting scum. What bothers me is not so much the lack of success, which applies to all of us, but the lack of curiosity.

[Skruffs]

Patrick - I didn't mean to imply - because I don't feel - that the scum could be considered all one group or another. It's possible that one of each 'group' is scum, I was more referring to the sides that are taking place.

[Ripley]

My apologies. I associate one game by C9 and the other by "the game where SV was scum".

Accepted.

So I was town in all three games - and I'm sure if you had lived in the other one, you would have disagreed with me, because, well, frankly, you are scared by my brawny intellect. *flex* don't worry though, it's okay.

You know, nothing illustrates so clearly the turn this game has taken as the fact that I'm reluctant to do what I would normally do here, and crack a joke about my fear of your brawny intellect. Both you and your predecessor Simenon have used obvious jokes as evidence against me. It's taken a lot of the fun out of the game.

Moving on, did you want to comment on my indication of Patrick as a swing vote?

Not really. I guess it could turn out that way. I'm usually more than happy to chat openly and think aloud about this kind of stuff, but again, Skruffs, I don't think you've treated me at all fairly up to this point, and eventually a certain amount of inhibition is bound to set in with my dealings with you. On previous form, you'd quite likely respond to anything I said by ignoring the content and describing the tone as "increasingly desperate" or "obviously panicking". If your approach has changed, well, when I see that I'll probably be chattier.

Do you think it's more likely that patrick is scum, or town?

Town, marginally, but I'm still very unsure. About everybody.

[Skruffs]

That wasn't evidence against you. You were supposed to mock me for it. Games are supposed to be fun - and I pointed out that you seemed to be in a good mood when this game started. Now you are not so happy - why?

I'm not sure how I've treated you 'unfairly' - While my suspicions are on you more than others, those suspicions do not stem from a bias that I brought into the game. They come from what I have seen in the game - just as your suspicions towards me have been, right?

I don't disregard content, but this is a game about discussion - and more importantly, it's about convincing other people you are right, regardless of your position in the game.

I apologize if you think I am intentionally ignoring content you say, but I have been quite slack in getting involved in this game, and usually the things you have said have in general been replied to by the time I look at them. So my responses are much more about cleaning up - watching people's 'faces' that they show to the game.

Right now, you are showing a face that I show often as town and that is generally called the "poor me" face. And I hate it when people use that against me, they did it to me in C&H where I am confirmed town and in Open 17 where I am still alive, and if you are in a similar position as I was, it's that you feel you are being bounced around like a bean bag and being ignored and degraded upon.

But you can se how I picked up on "The turn" that you referred to in your second paragraph? How the game doesn't seem to be as exciting for you anymore?