Open 50: The New C9 - Abandoned!

[Justin Playfair]

Okay, Shteven, I’m trying to be as cautious with this as I can be, but this response to Laptop Gun seems almost beyond reason:

When other players use meta defenses I tend to ignore them and the attack made. I will generally say something about not wanting to really read 40 pages and just judge them on the current game. This has lead to me voting Albert B. Rampage/TCS in some other games. Not because they claimed a meta-defense, but because they acted scummy and I didn't feel like verifying it was a universal behavior for them.

Here we go. If…

When other players use meta defenses I tend to ignore them and the attack made.

…then you may as well be accepting the meta-defense, because you have chosen to ignore the initial case made because a meta-defense was raised against it. Functionally, for all intents and purposes within the game you are playing, the meta-defense has worked, though you never bothered to verify it, because you then ignore “the attack made”.

And then you use meta-evidence to continue:

This has lead to me voting Albert B. Rampage/TCS in some other games.

So not only, after multiple posts, have you not addressed the basic, seemingly hypocritical contradiction posed by your using a meta-defense on your own behalf and proclaiming they make you nervous when used by another, but you have condensed this behavior by including both in the same post.

In addition, you have not answered this very simple question. You have done everything in your power to avoid answering it, to misdirect attention away from it. But you have not answered it.

In your 8th post, post number 126 in thread, you write:

Oman's case is based on his admitted band wagoning. I voted for this, but in looking back, it seems like Jordan may be the better choice.

You do this while you are under pressure. You provide no reason for this possible change of heart on your part. The pressure goes away and you never return to this statement, either to discount it or to give reasons for it. This is the point of your behavior in this post I would like you to address.

Your behavior in doing this seems opportunistic and purely defensive. In suggesting that Jordan might have been a better choice you seem to have been willing to push suspicion on Jordan for no other reason than to displace it from yourself. By offering no further reasoning either within this post or later your behavior seems to confirm this interpretation. Please address this at this time. To do so you must both address why you believed Jordan may have been a better choice, why you never returned to this thought when you were no longer under pressure, and, now, how your belief, as expressed in post 518…

I was curious about the other camp, which had picked up 5 people's votes (not all at the same time, though) so there were certainly several townies on it at some point.

…has managed to displace the position you have already defended in your post 508 in answer to me:

I felt that -3 was plenty of pressure for Jordan. Other players were applying the pressure; as I wasn't convinced of his guilt, I saw no reason to add pressure. If I thought he was scum, I would have been glad to move the wagon to -2...But I'm not going to join a wagon I don't believe in no matter how many votes it does or doesn't have.

These quotes are from two posts you made that were 10 posts apart. They outline contradictory positions on this issue. If one explanation above is uniquely meant to signify your thinking when you first declined to join the Jordan bandwagon and the other is meant to demonstrate your thinking only when, under pressure, you raised suspicion of Jordan, then the timing is once more damningly convenient. Please clarify.

Your answers to questions raised about your play throughout this game have been contradictory and evasive. Until such time as you are willing to actually address the points I have raised instead of doing all within your power to distract from them I am going to

Vote: Shteven

When you have answered these concerns I will go on to your contradictory claims about your behavior in regard to Sammich.

[Shteven]

I think I'll break this response up into a few smaller posts, I think it may be clearer.

I was curious about the other camp, which had picked up 5 people's votes (not all at the same time, though) so there were certainly several townies on it at some point.

…has managed to displace the position you have already defended in your post 508 in answer to me:

I felt that -3 was plenty of pressure for Jordan. Other players were applying the pressure; as I wasn't convinced of his guilt, I saw no reason to add pressure. If I thought he was scum, I would have been glad to move the wagon to -2...But I'm not going to join a wagon I don't believe in no matter how many votes it does or doesn't have.

I see these two quotes as parts of a single perfectly cohesive position. A wagon that is voted for by 5 people at some point (only 3 at that point were still voting for him) means there's some town interest in the person. That doesn't prove he's scum. It means "pay attention to this wagon"...it doesn't mean "I trust this wagon completely". I was watching it, trying to see how Jordan was reacting, and considering him as being worthy of more attention. In the end, not much came of it, however. Sammich trying to out power roles took precedence. This is why I was starting to wonder if I should have been on Jordan; in the end, I didn't feel there was much there. That should answer the other quote you've mentioned a few times:

Oman's case is based on his admitted band wagoning. I voted for this, but in looking back, it seems like Jordan may be the better choice.

In hindsight, that does throw a bit more suspicion on him than he was due, but not all that much more. He's still here, doing fine. I dropped it soon after, as others (Sammich) took his place.

That's all there really is to it. I realize by now that you're a very technical player, and you are definitely trying to distill my words to pure logic. I admire the effort, but I think you're missing how simple it is. I'm not putting quite that much thought into the exact wording of every post. Try to see the forest instead of the trees.

[Shteven]

As far as ignoring metas, you aren't really on the same page as me as what a meta attack would be.

Let's say player A is acting fairly normal, townish. Player B says that player A is acting strangely, and read game 45, 42, and 37 and you'll see he's clearly never acted like this and those games he was town so he's got to be scum in this game.

He's not getting anywhere with me on that attack.

Let's say our good friend player A is acting scummily. He says, hey wait, I act like this all the time. Check out game 33 and 37 where I was lynched as a townie for doing exactly this!

He's getting lynched a third time if I have anything to do with it

So, ignoring metas (attacks and defenses) can easily lead to lynching someone. It's just going to be based on this game, and not another one.

[Shteven]

And finally, I'm sorry, but OMGUS!

More seriously; you seem far too eager to lynch me. It seems like you're arguing for the sake of argument. Most of our more recent posts are much more game-theory than game-content. Narrowing in on a single player without ever commenting on the vast majority of the game is a great way to hide being scum. We have nothing to go on with your connections to any other players besides myself and TylerJ.

So, two tasks:

1) I'd like you to pick three players besides myself and Tyler, and give us a some thoughts on their play. Hopefully they'll see reason to respond, because I'm sure there's more than two players in this game. Feel free to do more than three, but that should be enough.

2) Most of what you've gone back and forth are logical points, trying to point out contradictions. Contradictions are fine and often scum tells, but not necessarily. Especially at the level that you're going over my posts, I'd like to you make the case that these things are actually making me scum, and not simply wrong (I'm not claiming I am wrong, mind you).

I'm not going to vote for you. But it is worth a

FOS: Justin

.

[The Fonz]

Well, let's see. Tyler.

Uses my two least favourite arguments of all time, 'too defensive' and 'doesn't give reasons,' neither of which, of course, are actually scummy. Big pusher of the Oman crapwagon. Certainly a preferable lynch to Oman, however, I do worry that we might be finding ourselves in a MAD I situation, where all those participating get increasingly pissed off with one another, and most if not all are town, whilst the scum just lurk through for victory, so I won't be supporting this wagon just yet.

[CornerMan]

Hi I'm replacing LoudMouthLee, and I'm working on reading through the game, and typing up an analysis, of it. Just wanted to pop in, and tell you.

[CornerMan]

Oi, I'm done with pages 1 and 2, so just to get some content going, here it is:

Alright, Just now reading, I'll try to catalog LML's posts, and What I think of them.

Post 10:

God. A Night 1 shooting vig. Well then.

Quote:

Dear Vig,

Don't ever do that again.

-LML



On to possible scum hunting...

Jordan wrote:

Vig, while it is possible that you killed scum last night


The vig has a 50/50 chance of either hitting scum or hitting a townie. For all we know, the vig killed the townie and the SK killed the mafia member. In the other "New C9", kill methods were shown. Here, they were not.

I find it incredibly interesting that your opening post contained that line. It's possible, as you say, but no more probable that he was the SK. I find it very curious how the tone of your post makes it seem like you KNEW that the vig killed Mafia.

Vote: Jordan, our resident Serial Killer.

This would, of course, be the only way that anyone would know that the Vig killed mafia. I get that from the tone of his opening post.

____________________________________

Here, I think he makes a good point. Jordan did seem to know. On the other hand, Jordan could be our vig, breadcrumbing townie, so he doesn't have to claim, AND be a target for the mafia, or Serial Killer.
____________________________________
To the Serial Killer:
You are in more danger than the town, and the mafia are of equal threat to you
____________________________________
So, yeah, I don't know how you guys feel about having the town ally with the serial killer, but I'm all for it. In a case like this, one must look at all options.

____________________________________

On the rest of page one, I feel that it is just Jordan and LML argueing Jordan trying to direct the vig. Still siding with Lee here, tone does mean a lot about a statement. I can sa I'm going to kill that bratty child, when she annoys me, but that's a huge difference
from going up to the child with a knife, and telling her I'm going to kill here, in a serious voice, no?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 2:

So here, at the start random voting seems to be going on. In post 29 White says:
___________________________________

Wow no votes on me and I can't believe I missed the first page, so sorry, this wasn't on my watched list.

Vote: Jordan

Tone = gut in my book.
__________________________________

Is this vote random, are you siding with LML, or are you siding for Jordan? In that case, why are you voting for him.

LML in 32, FoSes Shteven, on the tone thing. I'm siding with Shteven here, I don't see how he looks like he knows more than he should.
He goes on to say that we should discuss the vig role. IMO,
_________________________
if (disscussion != 0)
{
scumlynch = 1;
}
else {
scumlynch =0;
}
_________________________
So, yeah, I think that let's not discuss this and that, kinda stuff is bull. Oman bandwagons Jordan, claims shameless, I'm OK with that, unless it becomes a repaeat behavior, that ends up getting a townie lynched.
Aimee, makes a good point, I don't like how the shift suspicion back onto LML, it's like using, Yeah, But statements in a debate.

For now, I'll

Vote: Jordan

[JordanA24]

Why are you voting after reading just 2 pages?

[CornerMan]

What I've seen so far is scummy, thus I'm voting you.

[Shteven]

Welcome CornerMan! Glad to see a replacement, I had a bunch of questions pending for LML, which I'm sure you'll get to in time. Some short things now:

I would agree that waiting until you've finished or at least get through more than half of the thread is a good idea before voting, but I don't think jordan is in all that much risk of dying.

Try using the actual quote tags for doing quotes, it is much clearer. Be sure to preview if you haven't used them before. Just enclose the quote in (quote) and (/quote) but use [] instead of ().

And finally, bonus points for using pseudo code in your post For anyone not familiar with it, it says "If we discuss [the vig role] we will lynch scum, otherwise we will mislynch". I don't think that the vig role would be that critical, but that's the translation for what it's worth. Obviously discussion in general is our best weapon

[CornerMan]

Actually, I did most of it in notepad. I would type the BBcode, but I never could remember all of it. (I'm absolutely horrid at remembering things, that I don't code myself, and even then, I suck at remembering my XML, but I've never forgotten a function I wrote myself, though.)

And with the discussion thing, I meant all discussion. Think of discussion as a function, that checks if all the members of the TypesDiscussion array are != 0, then returns 1 if all of them = 1, but 0 if even 1 of them != 1. I'm saying that, that discussion about the vig role is a part of discussion, and if we don't discuss everything, we are going to mislynch. I suppose that, I have a different definition of mislynch too, now that I think 'bout it.

What I meant by mislynch was lynching on false information. Yeah, we can lynch mafia, at the direction of a claimed cop. But that cop could be mafia, and then we are lynching for all the wrong reasons.

Still reading through,
Cornerman

[curiouskarmadog]

vote corner man

...

I didnt like LML upon a meta...

I am not liking your play now.

[Shteven]

but I've never forgotten a function I wrote myself, though

Well now I know you're lying

[CornerMan]

I'm halfway done, and I still don't like Jordan. Obvious townies are SHTEVEN, OMAN, AND DENNIS.

[TylerJ]

I didn't like Cornermans quick vote. At the same time though, I didn't like CKD's either. Both are kinda jumping the gun.

And while Justin is knitpicking at everything, I merely think that is how he plays regardless of aligment (playstyle).

Now to fonz, I used those arguments because I thought they were valid, not because I wanted you to like them...

Now to shortly reiderate,

FOS:CKD and Cornerman

. Maybe they are distancing... just a thought.

[curiouskarmadog]

Obvious townies are SHTEVEN, OMAN, AND DENNIS.

yet another reason why I am not liking this guy.

[The Fonz]

Now to fonz, I used those arguments because I thought they were valid, not because I wanted you to like them...

And I strongly dislike them because I believe them invalid, and hence scummy.

[TylerJ]

you BELIEVE them invalid. That doesn't make them so. I believe them to be valid, maybe not the strongest case, but valid nonetheless.

[The Fonz]

I BELIEVE them scummy.

NOT GIVING REASONS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM ATTACKS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

Anyone who tries to claim the contrary is likely opportunistic scum. It's the oldest trick in the scum playbook to attack someone, then claim they are 'getting defensive' when they defend themselves. And whether or not players give reasons is a playstyle thing (some players actually believe long posts are scummy).

[Shteven]

God I hope we don't have too many of those long-posts-are-scummy people in this game! Seriously though, I think unclear/misleading/vague posts are scummy. And it can be hard to be clear in a huge wall of text if readers lose interest in it, but I think it takes a bit more than a word count function to make the claim someone's trying to be difficult to understand.

[Shteven]

Shteven's Maybe-one-of-these-days-I'll-be-a-real-mod-mommy Vote Count!

Sammich- 5 (SSF, JordanA24, Aimee, ooba, Shteven)
Oman- 3 (AlyG, Manaspyrte, TylerJ)
CornerMan(LML) - 2 (TylerJ, CKD)
Laptop Gun- 1 (White)
Jordan - 1 (CornerMan)
TylerJ - 1 (Oman)
Shteven - 1 (Justin Playfair)

17 alive; 9 to lynch.

Not Voting: Opposed Force, Sammich, LaptopGun, The Fonz, ooba

In doing this vote count it occured to me that I am still voting for Oman. I'd much rather rest it on Sammich, where I thought it had already been, so

Vote: Sammich

. This vote is already reflected in the vote count.

Let me know if I made any errors.

[Shteven]

It would probably be wise to point out that TylerJ does not in fact have a double voting power... Disregard the above count. Ooba is also not simultaneously voting for sammich and not voting.

Sammich- 5 (SSF, JordanA24, Aimee, ooba, Shteven)
Oman- 2 (AlyG, Manaspyrte)
CornerMan(LML) - 2 (TylerJ, CKD)
Laptop Gun- 1 (White)
Jordan - 1 (CornerMan)
TylerJ - 1 (Oman)
Shteven - 1 (Justin Playfair)

17 alive; 9 to lynch.

Not Voting: Opposed Force, Sammich, LaptopGun, The Fonz

Hopefully this time that adds up to 17 votes instead of 19.

[Justin Playfair]

All right. As I said when I replaced I have these worked up for everyone. I'll post the next three from my original list, in order of suspicion. More on request or logically as we continue.

Shteven, the reason I have stayed with you as long as I have is that I believe you are giving me deliberately evasive answers. I began with TylerJ, and when he gave me answers which although not entirely satisfactory to me seemed to be on point and direct innocent interpretations of his actions I move on. I would and will do the same for you when I believe we have reached that point.

On the point of your first using a meta defense on your own behalf, as a shield against seeming defensive and then expressing nervousness about them when they were used on behalf of Oman I should think the implication is obvious. When you felt you needed a meta case to pull yourself out from under suspicion you had no scruples about using one. When one was being used on behalf of Oman you either forgot your previous use of meta on your own behalf and expressed a more general true feeling you had or specifically attacked the method of defense because you were less interested in the truth than in pressing suspicion on Oman.

Either way there are clear scummy implications. Saying whatever you need to at the moment is scummy. Instead of having a clear and consistent town reading of events you end up dissembling in order to get what you need at the moment.

This is also why I have pressed you on your fleeting suspicion of Jordan coinciding so neatly with the moment in time you felt under pressure from LML. Once again, I would also like to explore your behavior regarding Sammich in more depth, but first I will give you the following three, numbers four through six from my original list.

[Justin Playfair]

LaptopGun

Let’s start with 64, LapTop Gunner’s first post with content. In some ways it’s probably his best post but it starts one of the most maddening and suspicious trends in his posting. Here:

I am gonna way in on the 2 major bandwagons we seem to be arranging. It seems to me one of the two was either started or stoked in order to protect a mafia who had come under scrutiny.

Okay, this post starts a trend of Laptop Gun believing that almost everything that happens was possibly or likely started by scum. After awhile a suspicious fellow might start thinking that LtG keeps saying things are driven by mafia because LtG’s not driving any of them and that means he must not be mafia. What hurts most is that LaptopGun never takes the next step, the only one that could begin to help the town, and identify who he thinks these scum are.

More examples: Post 106 where Laptop Gun observes the game is moving very fast and asks “is (are) player(s) manipulating things?” This only becomes useful if you then provide a notion of who you think the player(s) are. Post 253 where “I also think at least one of the bandwagons was fanned by a mafia member.” Which bandwagon and who? Post 319 where “I will maintain that I feel the mafia have been fanning the bandwagons... or perhaps starting new ones to divert attention from their cohorts. In this game the mafia have been active (more active than in my previous experience). Or that's my theory...” And this, the worst of the bunch: “Ok. I think one of the bandwagons we dealt with was either started by or faned by the mafia, perhaps in an attempt to protect one of their own from getting lynched.”

And it’s like this on almost every front. Laptop Gun points suspicion, even on occasion gives votes, to SomeStrangeFlea, Tyler, Oman and Sammich, but he never takes a serous swing at any of them. In the case of SomeStrangeFlea and Tyler Laptop spends as much time apologizing for his cases and taking them back as he does making them. In the case of both Sammich and Oman he suggests that even while he’s suspicious of them he thinks mafia might be driving their wagons. In the case of Jordan, he uses SomeStrangeFlea mildly defending Jordan as one evidence of why he’s suspicious of SomeStrangeFlea even though Laptop states that he doesn’t like the wagon.

No part of Laptop Gun’s long tenure of voting for SSF seems sincere to me, with LtG never making a single honest attempt to present a case that would attract serious attention, and on several occasions suggesting he thought his suspicions were less than valid. LtG pointed suspicion at Tyler and then spent nearly as much time posting why he thought he might not be scum as scum. He’s expressed suspicion of Sammich and then posted distaste and distrust of the fact people were expressing suspicion of Sammich. The only player he’s come close to maintaining a consistent attitude toward is Oman. I know LtG says this is a play style, but it’s a style that makes him look like scum. Oh, I also hated the bit where Laptop Gun said he couldn’t take his vote off SSF because it would make him look scummy. Like saying that doesn’t?

And Laptop Gun’s catch 22 post was just terrible. First, there are plenty of things to talk about, plenty of directions to push in, and plenty of leads to follow. Reading the thread, identifying them and then following them is all that’s required, but to do that you have to be willing to commit to something. Second, “Oman could be scum or the mafia are pushing for a mislynch, but to find out we may have to lynch him.”? This is not a catch 22. These are possibilities you face with any lynch, in any game, at any juncture. Well, except for it being Oman. And LTG’s statement smells way too much like, oh well, we may have to lynch Oman just to find out what dark forces may be behind lynching him. They’ll certainly be the ones responsible if he is lynched and comes up town, not good townfolk like me. Third is just inexplicable. If folks aren’t posting you prod them. If prodding doesn’t work you replace them. Thus goes the game.

So, Laptop Gun, I would ask you at this point to put names to any of the five individual times above when you suggested that scum were manipulating events. Which scum and how? Because if you can’t at least give us examples of who you suspected, then these posts can only be seen as maliciously unhelpful to town. Without names they represent at best an attempt to make any action of your own seem blameless and at worst attempting to muddy the actions of every player with vague, blanket suspicions that serve only to make it harder for town to hunt scum.

I’d like to finish with two back to back posts of Laptop Gun’s, both on the subject of Sammich:

I am not voting anyone at this time as I have a lot to think about. Shteven is going through some interesting machinations to really hammer home Sammich is scum. I find Sammich's behavior scummy while I think Shteven is trying to really help town. The problem is the mafia would want to be this nice and hammer home how an innocent townie is scum. Whatever the case I got scum vibes from Sammich. Im gonna do a reread and see if I get more of them.

Well here we go. Either Sammich is scum or he's innocent getting railroaded. I will say I feel bad for him that his hardworn analysis has left the people who are still responding to the thread unsatisfied. I just dont know at this point. I will maintain that I feel the mafia have been fanning the bandwagons... or perhaps starting new ones to divert attention from their cohorts. In this game the mafia have been active (more active than in my previous experience). Or that's my theory...

That second post, I presume, came after the reread.

At some point, LtG, you have to tell us who the dark forces are that are manipulating every event. You have to present evidence as to why you believe it to be true. Or you have to commit to someone you claim to be suspicious of and attempt to prove it, first to yourself and then to the rest of us. This may be your play style, and you may just be compassionate and uncertain. But it is a play style that works against town and for you in a way that isn’t very town-like.

If you can please also tell us if you have yet decided whether or not Sammich or Oman are likely scum. Based on their actions, not on the possibility that those who have accused them or questioned them are themselves scum (unless you would like to present an actual case for this being so). Thank you for your response.

[Justin Playfair]

Oman

You know, I’m not as convinced Oman is scum as some people here. It’s sure on the table, Oman has had some pretty bad moments and he makes a pretty easy target. I just think there are people who have gotten a lot less attention for being scummier than he has.

Oman jumps on the Jordan bandwagon in post 35, and yes he makes it clear he’s bandwagoning. Now I mostly don’t agree with bandwagons to apply more or less random early pressure on people, but I know I’m in the minority. But here’s the thing, brought up by others and most undeniably true: If you tell the person you’re putting pressure on that you’re only doing it to put pressure on them, there are only two possibilities: 1. You’re lying. 2. You’ve just stopped putting on the pressure you were talking about. And when Oman says in post 69 that he’s wagoning for wagon’s sake and that he’ll definitely jump off at -1 or -2 then he’s doing one or the other. Because Jordan, the guy Oman was wanting to put pressure on? He can read that post too. And even if he doesn’t believe it, Oman’s sure given him something to talk about that drains that pressure away.

Because of this, when in post 100 Oman switches his vote to TylerJ it looks like he’s doing it to prove his point. Not that the reasons Oman gave weren’t, at the time, as valid as the reasons for just about any of the votes cast to that point, but it seemed a little cause and effect. And responding die scum die to TylerJ’s explanation of his statement made Oman look bad. It was bad in a way that attracts votes, especially in the early stages of a game.

Post 150 isn’t so good either. Because Oman votes Jordan and calls him a hypocrite for voting against Oman even though Jordan’s explanation of why he was doing so was, like Oman’s explanation of his vote against TylerJ, about as good as it got at this point in the game. Now do I suspect there was some element of ‘yes, look at somebody other than me’ and maybe just a little smidgen of OMGUS in Jordan’s vote? Yes. Then again I think it’s pretty understandable. Oman’s response looked strictly OMGUS, and his tone made him seem more immediately defensive than Jordan had.

I’m not big on the whole idea of someone getting defensive being a tell, by the way. But claiming you’re the kind of player who likes bandwagoning to put on pressure and then reacting this way when the pressure is put on you doesn’t look great. And this, from Oman’s post 153, is worse:

This bandwagon attack on me because of my playstyle is bullshit, complete and utter. That doesn't mean I think everyone on it is scum, but I certainly advise everyone who is on me to really look at why they are on me, and if bandwagoning is your only reason, well thats really poor play.

Hmm…”if bandwagoning is your only reason, well that’s really poor play.”? What, precisely, would make their bandwagoning poor play and Oman’s bandwagoning good play? Wouldn’t Oman’s bandwagoning be as good a reason to put some pressure on him as Jordan’s tone would on him? It certainly produced much more discussion.

Now as for the AlyG incident I have no problem with Oman being upset. And I think the attempts to turn his anger over it into some meta-meta scum tell were just stupid. Whether you’re town or scum you’d equally not want to be lynched over something like that. On the other hand I also think Oman claiming that this made AlyG scum didn’t make much sense either. AlyG did something dumb.

I agree with Oman’s post 188 where he calls Shteven’s vote on Sammich really bad. For that point in the game and Shteven’s given reason it was pretty bad. And I like that with a wagon on top of Oman he still pointed this out. It would have been easy to just heave a sigh and be glad it wasn’t a vote on him. Oman goes even further in post 192 and I like this a lot. When TylerJ tries to suggest Oman’s “hinting” at people it is one of the single oddest accusations in the entire thread. Oman’s previously called Jordan “Jordanscum”, posted “die scum die” to TylerJ and voted for everyone on his post 192 list but himself.
I don’t agree with Oman’s continued suspicion of Jordan but his post 273 was the best critical breakdown of the Sammich analysis post.

I also agree with Oman in voting for Shteven in post 294. And I agree with him again when he called out SomeStrangeFlea for some tortured logic involving Sammich’s claim about Shteven’s role.

But then…this. Post 379:

I'm going to say chronic lurking has broken this game apart a fair bit.

Now...I'm going to put forward an unpopular idea bbbbuuutttt...What if we just lynch a lurker (and I'm not usually in favour of this but this C9 allows a fair few mislynches I think). I mean, we get a bit more info (based on NKs and lynchee).

Or we could jsut lynch Schteven.

And I have to ask you here, Oman…was there a scummier way you could have worded this? Just lynch a lurker? When we could more easily than not lynch a townie? And then maybe see three more town die overnight? No, that still wouldn’t bring up a lynch or lose, but going that far down the road to one on the basis of a random lynch just seems horrible. And then throwing in that we could just lynch Shteven?

I also don’t like that Ooba actually sort of agreed with Oman on this. Ooba’s been pretty close to Oman throughout this game.

Oman points out that town has had an extremely difficult time coming to a consensus on who to lynch. And he suggests Sammich and TylerJ as folks he wouldn’t mind lynching. But what about Shteven, from back just a few posts ago? So Oman, are you saying you’d be happy with TylerJ, Sammich or Shteven?

I do absolutely agree with Oman taking LapTop Gun to task for his catch 22 list.

In short Oman, looks awfully spotty to me. He’s had some good moments in this game, which is more than can be said for some folks, and when he seems to be trying he’s honed in on what I found to be some compelling things. On the other hand he has an OMGUS problem and has made a couple of just attention grabbing horrible posts that don’t seem consistent with town behavior. Plus, I don’t particularly like the seeming relationship with Ooba. I’m suspicious of Oman, but he doesn’t make the cut for my top three.

Oman, if you’re still out there, anything you could tell me that would help me understand what differentiates the bandwagons you like jumping on and the one that built on you early would be appreciated. Also anything that would make sense of your suggestiong that a random lurker be lynched but that you would also be happy with lynching any of three named players would be nice. Thank you.