Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[Sanjay]

@ Sanjay -

I think it is a little conceited to think that I so feared your onslaught that I would bus my flying under the radar Godfather to avoid it, but alright.

This isn't fair, Sanjay. I wouldn't think this about just anyone, but

you

made several comments about my play in both the Newbie 846 post-game and in the QT that do suggest this might be the case. It's not conceit, it's me trying to figure out how I'd expect you to react to me if you were scum, based on my past experience with you.

i'll respond to the rest later, I don't have time tonight.

I'll concede the point that it isn't fair for me to call you conceited. But it was either that or think that you think me a total idiot and a selfish bastard.

If I was really so scared of you, why wouldn't I just night kill you? Is that really that much worse of a plan than offing my godfather, who had practically no suspicion on him? As I recall, PhaerieM was the only one on that wagon that even had strong scum vibes from the dude. Most everyone else was policy lynching.

Also, I'm a lot less scared of you after my ninja defenses shot down everything you threw at me last time.

HIYA!

[Gammagooey]

I was actually posting when he posted that, added the oh hai to acknowledge it.

So it took you 5 minutes to rephrase a question I had already asked?

I was going to ask WHO'S THE MOST BESTEST LYNCH AND WHY but thought that could be borderline insulting to archae and didn't want to start with all of that again, so I reworded it.

[Benmage]

PharieM has been prodded

[PhaerieM]

Sorry everyone, Ive had some RL issues come up. I will catch up & make a substantial post hopefully tomorrow.

[archaebob]

I'll concede the point that it isn't fair for me to call you conceited. But it was either that or think that you think me a total idiot and a selfish bastard.

This is a really weird statement, Sanjay. Selfishness has nothing to do with it, this is mafia, and sometimes bussing is necessary. And besides, my hypothesis involves foilist being scum as well. How would it be selfish to switch from one scum-partner to another?

And you

know

I don't think you're an idiot. C'mon man. It's exactly because I know that you are very smart that I'm so disposed to coming up with conspiracy theories in which you are scum.

If I was really so scared of you, why wouldn't I just night kill you? Is that really that much worse of a plan than offing my godfather, who had practically no suspicion on him? As I recall, PhaerieM was the only one on that wagon that even had strong scum vibes from the dude. Most everyone else was policy lynching.

If you ever were actually scared of me (lol), you obviously would have been much less so after having successfully destroyed my first attempts at incriminating you. You said this yourself:

Also, I'm a lot less scared of you after my ninja defenses shot down everything you threw at me last time.

So obviously you weren't going to NK me out of fear. And dude...why are you defending yourself like this? You know its WIFOM. You keep saying, "why would I go after my own godfather, who had no suspicion on him?" Give me a break man, I know you don't need me to explain this to you. You went after your own godfather because you thought it would confirm you as town, as you so blatantly tried to claim today on several occasion. It is not implausible

at all

that a scum player would do exactly what you did, and I think it's especially plausible in your case, given how much you've tooted your horn today.

Going back to your Post 1008 now:

As for why I wasn't feeling the foilist13 wagon anymore, does anyone know why anyone feels anything? Feelings are strange and fickle mistresses of the mind and what is one day one's fervent passion can the next day be the slightest afterthought. I know feelings can be scary, but sometimes we just have to accept them.

This is SO weird, Sanjay. Read this again, and think about how it sounds. You are a logical, analytical player, and I know that you ARE capable of articulating your feelings. I mean, really? Let's take a look at your supposed reasons for voting foilist:

A lot of people have posted since I started typing this. I'm just going to pretend that they didn't if that's okay.

@Sanjay - I've got a vague town read on you right now. I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a scum slip so far, but that doesn't mean I'm not looking.

@Archaebob - I'm not saying that there are questions that have gone unanswered other than the ones you just posted, but his choice has been to simply disappear and hope that I get myself lynched, where as I am actively trying to defend myself.

And if you are not tunneling, then what other players have you seriously considered besides me and Almaster?

@Almaster - Why shouldn't we lynch you? Is it just because you've said you were the Doc, or is there something else you have to offer?

Ha ha, foilist13. I can't believe you are accusing someone of tunneling in the same post as you continue your ridiculous policy of only having eyes for AlmasterGM.

Here's a question: Why did you consider it important that

I

considered your timeline plausible? I didn't notice it at first, but I think this is a scumslip on your part. Here's why?

Why is me finding something you said is plausible a point in your favor? For all you know I'm scummy scum trying to get the town to do my dirty work by having them lynch the power role so I don't have to. From what you know of my scum meta, I know you can trust me to

never

do that as scum, but you never know if I have changed my scum meta.

I think you listed me finding your defense plausible as a point in your favor because you know my alignment.

This probably would have been a better zinger if you had said you have a neutral or scummy read on me, thus making you valuing my opinion totally bananas. But oh well. I think it is a good point anyway.

Anyway, AlmasterGM's recent defense is a little head-scratching, but it actually makes me feel better about lynching foilist13 than AlmasterGM. If nothing else, it takes away the only reason foilist13 had for us not lynching him.

Vote: foilist13

I want to see one of these two flip and I'm just fine with it being foilist13.

You give us a whole post of reasons to justify your wagon-hopping onto foilist. Do you seriously to expect me to believe that at the last second...L-1...you suddenly decided that all of your logic was completely invalidated because of a

feeling

? I can tell from the way you play this game that you have an intellectual mind, and I can tell from the way that you write that you know the difference between an intuitive stance, and a fleeting afterthought. If this feeling that you had was such a fickle mistress of the mind (meaning, you know, in that category of idle passions that pass quickly and

unreliably

), then why was

that

enough to make you unvote foilist?

But more seriously, I think foilist13's little "dead man walking" routine kind of made me think I was wrong about him.

Oh, well I'm glad that we're getting super cereal now. However, I really don't believe you, and that's because there is no in way hell his whole AtE campaign could have convinced anyone of anything. But please, feel free to expand on what you found so compelling.

Firstly, saying Muffin was tunneling Chinaman is a big ol' misrepresentation. When Chinaman let up, Muffin let up. Muffin trying to get something going on Chinaman, keeping it up long enough to see if it'll work, and giving up on it. Not tunneling at all.

I disagree, i think he was tunneling.

Secondly, are you telling me that you fail to see what Muffin would have to gain from attacking a town player who nobody else was even looking at seriously? Are you reading your own posts? If being early on a mislynch wagon is important to a scum player, what could be better than starting your own mislynch wagon?

Sanjay, c'mon, I know you're better than this. Muffin's shots at getting Chinaman mislynched were pretty much nil, and there was never anything that indicated otherwise. And Muffin was smart enough to know of this. I really don't see why Muffin spent so much time on Chinaman, if he knew all along that he was town.

You are stretching a lot to make this "Sanjay is scum" thing work, archaebob.

I

was

beginning to think this actually, but fortunately, my confidence has since been restored.

@ EVERYONE -
Is anybody else actually paying attention to this exchange between me and Sanjay?

Here's the big points I have right now:

-Sanjay's reasons for switching on to the foilist wagon are extremely poor, and difficult to believe.
-Sanjay's reason for hopping off the foilist wagon at the last second is not at all clear, and smells like text-book scum
-Sanjay has blatantly stated that he should be confirmed town after his role in the Sociopath lynch yesterday. I reject this claim completely, and the assuming manner in which he has tried to make it seems very scummy to me.
-Sanjay's defenses against me today have been very weird.

Please seriously look at this stuff, go back and read the end of the day, and remain vigilant. I don't think this game is as simple as some people are trying to make it seem.

[archaebob]

It's not the same at all, unless I'm reading it wrong. The doc claim isn't figuring into his thinking, it's the fact that he's unable to form a wagon and get the town to follow. My reasoning was and is entirely based on the doc claim.

His reasons are different, but his position is the same. He suspects AGM, thinks he's scummy, but doesn't think he's a good lynch for other, unrelated reasons. I can't find a single place where he has been inconsistent about this.

I'm trying to ferret out his motivations, and it's a damn hard job. Your white knight act isn't helping.

I appreciate this, believe me, and I'd prefer to not be doing this. The only reason I'm intervening is because he's up to four votes, and I'm damn scared of this town quick-lynching people after how fast yesterday's wagon went. I really don't think he's scum, and I'm trying to stop the town from doing something dumb.

I can definitely back off from this discussion for a while if you would like me to, i just want to make sure the town doesn't wind up suffering from an overdose of confirmation bias.

vote: peanutman

[Gammagooey]

Archae, short version on you and Sanjay is I think you're being paranoid, and that Sanjay is probably town.

In your other game, Sanjay was able to get away with putting suspicion on and helping to lynch the cop because of his previous pro-town behavior, right?

Right now it's kind of the opposite: You're ignoring his helping to lynch the mafia godfather because of what you believe to be scummy actions, despite that said actions have actually made the town quite a bit better off.

I can see his posts coming from town, and the only point I really agree with on your list is that Sanjay's defense was weird. If I had to say why it's weird, I'd say he's a little overconfident. I don't think that makes him scum though, and my views on foilist (who you're basing most of San's case on) are still that he's the VI.

Last thing:If Sanjay is scum, his actions will hurt the town at some point or another. I haven't seen that happen yet.

[peanutman]

So essentially he asked me to explain why I didn't think archaebob was scum, and when I did, he accused me of playing for him. So, peanutman, another question you can answer when you deign to answer why you didn't vote for Muffin yesterday: Why would you ask me to explain someone's behavior and then accuse me of playing for him after I answer your question? Was it entrapment? Did you forget you asked the question? Are you just willing to say anything to discredit the case against you?

I felt you were completely ignoring Archae's complete inactivity since the BW-switch and called you up on it, wanting some reaction. However, instead of addressing why you felt it wasn't important, you went on to build a scenario as to why he hadn't posted, effectively giving him a way out if his absence was directed related to in-game events that unfolded. Big difference in my eyes.
As for the reasons for not having a vote on Muffin, I think you are completely misrepresenting and deliberately ignoring my original posts and previous answers to this. You don't have to agree, and you can think I'm scummy for it, but don't say I haven't answered it when I have, repeatedly. But I'll give it to you one last time, read closely :
With PZ's vote on Muffin, I saw hope that the day could end on a different lynch than AGM/Foilist, lynch's I wasn't feeling (as I had already stated). I saw an opportunity to vote someone else, a recent lurker no-less, and remembered a case that PhaerieM had made on Muffin. Therefore, I unvoted and encouraged others to look at Muffin, as I was doing. I didn't vote Muffin at that time because I wanted to get a proper read on him before doing so. By the time I did get a chance to read him in iso and form a solid D1 opinion, the wagon was at L-1. I wanted to give Socio a chance to claim, post, do something before hammering. AGM hammered before Socio chimed in (who knows if he actually would have). That's why I said, D2, that I played a role in the lynch, because I knew some would claim I wasn't one of the voters and I therefore did nothing for it. I felt that my actions contributed to the lynch, even though my vote was pre-empted by AGM's. It's not that I orchestrated it all, but I wasn't standing idly by, wa

AlmasterGM wrote:
AB wrote:
Heads I win tail you lose. This is unfalsifiable, and ignores, as cruelty rightly pointed out, that he has not talked about many players in this thread. It also ignores the fact that peanutman has said just as little about AGM and foilist, except when directly pressured.


Bolded part is scummy on cruelty's part.


It's also scummy on your part, peanutman's part, and foilist's part. Why the special treatment?

I don't think it's particularly scummy to not have made any direct comments towards another player in a 12-player game D1. You can get reads on different players through their interactions with others. I would venture that Scum are more interested in covering everyone to avoiding claims of distancing. Whereas a townie should not be concerned of apparent distancing with other players because he is not in that mindset. He's not trying to appear town, he's just a townie looking for scum. So the fact that I had not addressed in thread certain players does not bother me because I'm not concerned about apparent distancing. If things are said about someone, I will not, in thread, repeat those things in different words or ask similar questions to others already posted just to appear like I've noticed that person as well.

Archaebob

@ Papa Zito -

I just want to make sure I fully understand your position. I'm not trying to be lazy, or strawman you, so please correct me if I am wrong.

These are the reasons that I can see for your cruelty suspicions:

- you agree with Muffin's case on cruelty
- Cruelty's general unwillingness to divulge information
- Cruelty's voting position on primarily the main bandwagons all game
- his bandwagon vote onto me
- Cruelty wasn't on the socio-path wagon.

Is that everything?

Wow, you don't even acknowledge the fact that you said that PZ had made no case against Cruelty other than his list of cases. In fact, let's look at that quote :

Papa Zito wrote:
Suggest you go back and read then, since several people have posted why they want cruelty dead.


I did read, Pops. Please, show me where you posted why you want cruelty dead.

The only explanation I see anywhere in your iso is this:
(list of PZ's cases)

Were you hoping no one would notice that lie? Because you made it quite clear that you read "Pops" in iso, but you omitted his actual case, a fairly long post with cruelty's name all over it.

Regarding your Muffin v. China analysis, I get the feeling, reading it, that you had already made up your mind as to how you wanted to perceive before you wrote it. That is, you made the comparison of scum-town and scum-scum with the end goal in mind of the scum-scum scenario being the better one. It doesn't really seem objective at all, some elements of which Sanjay has already raised.

I don't think this game is as simple as some people are trying to make it seem.

In this respect, you are quite right. In respect to your defense of Cruelty, I highly doubt with only two mafia left D2 that they would both be actively involved in defending each other. So I'm quite certain that Cruelty and Archaebob aren't both scum. However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.

Finally, I've brought this up numerous times, Archae, but stop voting without explanation. I assume your decision to vote on me is partly based on my recent absence (though I concede that you do have other suspicions as well), but at least post a thought with your vote. Because, at this point, you could come up with a whole slew of reasons after the fact for your vote, depending on the town's reactions.

I am therefore still content with my vote on you.

[Papa Zito]

Unofficial vote count:

Cruelty (4) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM, Gammagoey, foilist13
archaebob (2) peanutman, PharieM
peanutman (3) cruelty, MordyS, archaebob


Not Voting (1) Sanjay

---

@Sanjay, I'd like to see you commit to someone.
@Peanut, you stole my thunder. I was going to bring that up later. :/
@Bob, Why did you ask me for my cruelty case and then ignore it?

[archaebob]

@Bob, Why did you ask me for my cruelty case and then ignore it?

I just missed it the first time, when I was reading in iso. It came after your big list of what cases had been posted in the game, so for some reason or another, it didn't catch my eye. When you quoted it for me, I realized that I was wrong, went back and read it, and then used the information from it to compile all the points to your position that I could see. You said that my Post 1004 did a decent job of summarizing your views, so i stopped talking about it. i wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent you, I just didn't see that part of your post at first. The whole reason for my post 1004 was to make sure that I

wasn't

strawmanning you.

@ Gammagooey - first off, I think i'm beginning to agree more than i did before with your theory that AGM bussing out his partner would be suicide. This is making me somewhat more inclined to consider a cruelty lynch than I initially was, but I still don't see enough actual evidence that points to him being scum.

secondly, i respect why you aren't convinced right now. I just want to know that we are still keeping on our toes, and not making assumptions that aren't supported by the facts.

I haven't seen that happen yet.

Regarding your Muffin v. China analysis, I get the feeling, reading it, that you had already made up your mind as to how you wanted to perceive before you wrote it. That is, you made the comparison of scum-town and scum-scum with the end goal in mind of the scum-scum scenario being the better one. It doesn't really seem objective at all, some elements of which Sanjay has already raised.

I'm not claiming that it's objective. I'm drawing attention to something that strikes me as interesting, and describing my gut reaction to it. What IS objective, however, is the facts. I'm making my gut read based on things that Sanjay has done. What else can you do, save a cop investigation, that is more objective than that?

I don't think it's particularly scummy to not have made any direct comments towards another player in a 12-player game D1.

Whether or not I agree with this (and i'm pretty sure I don't), the point I was making was that it is illogical to find cruelty scummy for not mentioning people without finding you scummy for the same reasons. Given the statement that not mentioning other players is scummy, it is inconsistent to apply it only to cruelty.

However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.

So completely theoretical and WIFOM-full that I'm not sure how to respond to it. If you think I'd be scummy for defending a player that flipped town, then you should certainly think that the people on the Sociopath wagon are scummy for attacking a player that flipped scum.

Finally, I've brought this up numerous times, Archae, but stop voting without explanation. I assume your decision to vote on me is partly based on my recent absence (though I concede that you do have other suspicions as well), but at least post a thought with your vote. Because, at this point, you could come up with a whole slew of reasons after the fact for your vote, depending on the town's reactions.

And I've explained numerous times, Peanutman, why I disagree with you on this point, and you need to accept that I find voting without explanation useful some times.

But wait...Sanjay voted you without explanation as well. Why do you only direct comments like this at me?

@ Sanjay - i saw you online for a LONG time yesterday evening. Can you please respond to our conversation?

[Papa Zito]

I just missed it the first time, when I was reading in iso. It came after your big list of what cases had been posted in the game, so for some reason or another, it didn't catch my eye. When you quoted it for me, I realized that I was wrong, went back and read it, and then used the information from it to compile all the points to your position that I could see. You said that my Post 1004 did a decent job of summarizing your views, so i stopped talking about it. i wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent you, I just didn't see that part of your post at first. The whole reason for my post 1004 was to make sure that I

wasn't

strawmanning you.

That's not what I'm asking. You requested the information, I gave it, you summarized it, and then nothing happened. No opinion one way or another. I guess you don't realize how odd this is after you've been defending cruelty all day?

[Sanjay]

Unofficial vote count:

Cruelty (4) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM, Gammagoey, foilist13
archaebob (2) peanutman, PharieM
peanutman (3) cruelty, MordyS, archaebob


Not Voting (1) Sanjay

---

@Sanjay, I'd like to see you commit to someone.
@Peanut, you stole my thunder. I was going to bring that up later. :/
@Bob, Why did you ask me for my cruelty case and then ignore it?

You missed this post. Apparently so did peanutman.

I know I should stop voting for him without explanation, but it is just so darn funny

Bob, you'll have your response. What are you worried about?

[archaebob]

I guess you don't realize how odd this is after you've been defending cruelty all day?

I don't see what's odd, unless you were expecting something further from me. You're the one who's on the cruelty wagon, and I'm trying to understand your position. I'm looking at each one of your points and thinking seriously about how valid it is, and in the meantime, you've told me to stop actively defending cruelty. What do you want from me? Do you want me to go into depth about why I don't think cruelty is scum or not?

[Papa Zito]

You missed this post. Apparently so did peanutman.

I did miss it somehow. Sorry. Carry on.

---

Unofficial vote count:

cruelty (4) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM, Gammagoey, foilist13
archaebob (2) peanutman, PharieM
peanutman (4) cruelty, MordyS, archaebob, Sanjay

Not Voting (0)

10 means 6 to lynch, so cruelty and peanutman are at L-2.

I just realized that we still have an even number of players. That could be a problem later.

[Papa Zito]

I guess you don't realize how odd this is after you've been defending cruelty all day?

I don't see what's odd, unless you were expecting something further from me. You're the one who's on the cruelty wagon, and I'm trying to understand your position. I'm looking at each one of your points and thinking seriously about how valid it is, and in the meantime, you've told me to stop actively defending cruelty. What do you want from me? Do you want me to go into depth about why I don't think cruelty is scum or not?

I was expecting you to attack the case since you've attacked anything against cruelty today. So I'm surprised that you were silent. If you're still evaluating then that's fine.

[MordyS]

As for the reasons for not having a vote on Muffin, I think you are completely misrepresenting and deliberately ignoring my original posts and previous answers to this. You don't have to agree, and you can think I'm scummy for it, but don't say I haven't answered it when I have, repeatedly. But I'll give it to you one last time, read closely :
With PZ's vote on Muffin, I saw hope that the day could end on a different lynch than AGM/Foilist, lynch's I wasn't feeling (as I had already stated). I saw an opportunity to vote someone else, a recent lurker no-less, and remembered a case that PhaerieM had made on Muffin. Therefore, I unvoted and encouraged others to look at Muffin, as I was doing. I didn't vote Muffin at that time because I wanted to get a proper read on him before doing so. By the time I did get a chance to read him in iso and form a solid D1 opinion, the wagon was at L-1. I wanted to give Socio a chance to claim, post, do something before hammering. AGM hammered before Socio chimed in (who knows if he actually would have). That's why I said, D2, that I played a role in the lynch, because I knew some would claim I wasn't one of the voters and I therefore did nothing for it. I felt that my actions contributed to the lynch, even though my vote was pre-empted by AGM's. It's not that I orchestrated it all, but I wasn't standing idly by

I know you said one last time, but please, once more. Explain how this ^^^^^^^ makes sense with this:

So, Sanjay, who do you suggest we lynch? Papa Zito brought up the fact that Sociopath hasn't really posted anything since he replaced in a week and a half ago. I would have to reread Muffin in iso before but, as I said, I don't think AGM of Foilist are scummiest. Therefore, I would be open to exploring a Muffin/Sociopath lynch. If PapaZito, you and I all vote for Sociopath, the three wagons are tied at 3 votes each.

I will reread Muffin in iso to determine who's the better "realistic" lynch IMO.(realistic = would garner enough town support (i.e. min. 4 votes) to be lynched).

If your only concern is which lynch was more "realistic," then you could have quickly joined the Muffin wagon. Instead, you spent the entire duration of the wagon posting sporadically about how you have yet to read Muffin in iso, you're almost going to read Muffin in iso, and then finally, when it was at L-1, how reading him in iso didn't change your mind but you're still not quite ready to hammer him. And, as I mentioned before, you even attacked people (myself and SpyreX) for joining the wagon. If you honestly believed that AlmasterGM + foilist13 were bad lynch candidates, and that Muffin was a good lynch candidate, then your refusal to put a vote down and your criticizing those who did is a tad confusing.

Moreover, you wrote that, "I would definitely hammer at this point but will wait for Socio to respond first. My read-through of Muffin didn't change my mind." The implication of this sentence is that you had a scum read on Muffin -- and therefore reading him didn't change your mind. If you had a scum read on him, you weren't just exploring other lynch options. You were confirming that your scum read was real by reading him in iso. Not only is this incongruent with what you're claiming here, but it's also incongruent with your other actions. For instance, you voted for Foilist13 because you wanted a lynch, even tho you didn't think he was the best lynch candidate.

So here's the question for you: How come when it comes to foilist13, you were happy to vote, but when it came to Muffin, someone who you felt was scummy, you continue to insist to me that you didn't want to vote until you read him in isolation to confirm that feeling -- waiting until not only a full wagon had formed but someone else had hammered him?

I have no doubt at this point that peanutman is lying. I'm just unsure whether he's a townie who has legitimately confused himself, or he's scum who didn't want Peanutman lynched and was holding off until the end from voting for him on the hopes that a different lynch would surface.

[archaebob]

@ PZ -

My opinion right now is I i'm not at all convinced, I think the points are exaggerated, and could come from town. The biggest issue I'm having is I don't see anywhere that he has been

inconsistent

. It would do wonders for the case against him if you could quote me an incident where he contradicts himself.

Beyond that, I've decided to abstain from actively defending him any further for the time being.

@ MordyS - if peanutman flipped scum, who would you pick as the last mafioso?

[MordyS]

AlmasterGM ftw!

[cruelty]

@ Gammagooey - first off, I think i'm beginning to agree more than i did before with your theory that AGM bussing out his partner would be suicide. This is making me somewhat more inclined to consider a cruelty lynch than I initially was, but I still don't see enough actual evidence that points to him being scum.

I'd have thought this would work both ways - I haven't exactly been quiet about my doubts re: AGM either, although I've stopped short of voting him. Which I'm getting tired of explaining, but:

Maybe this is a semantics problem. You say you don't want him dead but it sounds like you mean aren't able to make him dead. Putting the credibility issues aside, do you want him lynched?

There are reasons why I don't think I can get him lynched, and reasons why I don't want him lynched. There's even a reason I don't

need

him lynched. I'll list them, hopefully clearly this time.

Can't

: I'm currently one of two main suspects. I don't have the credibility at this point to push a wagon onto a claimed doctor. I've spent basically the whole day defending myself thus far, and whilst I don't think I've done a bad job on the whole, I don't believe I am in a position to lead a lynch yet. So yeah, credibility and general town mindset are an issue for me with regards to AGM.

Don't need

: Lynching AGM today will save me (unless he's town in which case I guess I'm fucked), but my lynch and possible town flip will doom him. I don't need to push his wagon because I think he's effectively done it for me.

Don't want

: I don't think he's the right choice for today (and I didn't yesterday). I'm pretty confident he's scum (or as I've said, the worst doctor ever) but I think of it like having an ugly girl as backup in case you can't score the hot one - we have the numbers and town momentum right now to go after the other scum player. If Muffin had flipped town I'd probably be pushing hard to get AGM lynched (because yeah, the objective is to lynch scum) but the situation is hardly one of desperation right now and long-term, I think removing him early is potentially a mistake.

However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.

I thought about this, and I think it's a valid point. His defence (whilst appreciated) I take with a grain of salt because I can absolutely see why scum would want to be seen to be visibly opposed to a mislynch. Especially scum who wasn't on the godfather wagon yesterday.

@peanut, I notice that you've barely mentioned AGM at all today. Can you give us some thoughts on him? Specifically, his tunneling on me and his hammer.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
cruelty (4) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM, Gammagoey, foilist13
archaebob (2) peanutman, PharieM
peanutman (4) cruelty, MordyS, Sanjay, archaebob

[Sanjay]

I think WIFOMy defenses are just fine in this instance for two reasons.

One, I don't really think of this as a defense. I think your theory that foilist13 is my scumbuddy and I shifted a wagon from foilist13 to Sociopath because I was worried how the foilist13 wagon would reflect on me isn't very good, I am trying to point out why it is implausible and trying to figure out why you are sporting this implausible theory.

Two, it isn't even WIFOM. I'm not claiming that the fact that you weren't night killed means I'm town. Here's the thing. According to your theory, I got my godfather lynched (who had practically no suspicion on him) instead of foilist13 (who people were totally down to lynch), just to get you off my back. That's retarded, given that I could have nightkilled you instead. You are saying I did something really extreme and harmful to my win condition and the motivation you have ascribed me for this just doesn't make sense.

Am I auto town because of how the Sociopath lynch went down? No. I could be doing it to gain townie points. I might not have liked the position I had on the foilist13 lynch and I sought to move myself somewhere less suspicious. But the reasons you had? Silly.

The reason I said I would be selfish to lynch Sociopath like I did, by the by, is because I think if Sociopath was my scumbuddy I think at that stage of the game it would be better to get a little bit more heat on me than to turn attention to him.

This isn't about me. It's about you.

As for my foilist13 unvote, let me lay this out for you nice and pretty:

I had a lot of reasons why I was cool with a foilist13 lynch. Still do, I guess. I think his "Sanjay thinks I'm town" stuff was weird, I hate that he's probably going to survive to endgame with all this stuff against him (his bizarre MordyS vote, the fact that he has barely scumhunted etc. etc.), and I've had a tough time nailing down a solid read on him. All that means I definitely wouldn't mind the town stringing him up (sorry foilist13).

I didn't have a strong scum read on foilist13. I had a strong ridiculous read on him. And his appeal to emotion stuff appealed to my emotions. Sorry? I know scum can use that stuff to trick townies into thinking they are town, but I guess I wasn't that worried about that from foilist13. While it isn't pro-town, I think giving up in the face of a strong wagon against you is a town-tell (not in this game anymore since I said that, but still).

Plus all this waaa waa waaa I want to vote for someone else but we have to vote AlmasterGM or foilist13 stuff really stunk to me. Even if Muffin had flipped town, I think we would have been better off. In a town of super-contributors, getting absolutely nothing from Sociopath would have been devestating.

[Sanjay]

By the way, archaebob, since your problem with me is mostly meta based (The Sanjay I know is a strong analytical player, what's with him voting with his feelings?) let me make some comments on my meta:

In 846, I played an analytical game for two reasons. One, there was a town player who really had control of the town discussion and he seemed to respond well to me being the analytical voice of reason. Two, I find it kind of easy to come up with legitimate reason to vote for townies, but I get nervous faking gut reads.

And if you think me ignoring solid cases to go with my gut is somehow strange for me, let me point you to some other games:

Newbie 825: My very first game where I had strong gut reads on both the scum and a town read on everyone else and threw it all away because I found strong cases to make against other people. Losing this game was absolutely devastating and it has definitely shaped my play.

Dice Mafia: This one is actually hilarious and a quick read if you'd like to check it out. Midway through the day me and this other player just decided we didn't like any of the cases against anyone and started lynching arbitrarily. It worked out fantastically

Newbie 837: In six-person mylo, I had solid cases on three different people (one scum, two town) and a gut scum read on the other scumster but absolutely no case against him. This game actually gave me quite a sense of redemption for Newbie 825, because one of the townies I had a solid case against was the same player I built a bogus case against in Newbie 825.

Again, all this doesn't confirm me as town. I'm quite aware of my town meta and could certainly be playing to it as scum. But it does mean you don't really have a meta case against me.

[archaebob]

mk.

@ Sanjay -

Let's discontinue this for now. I don't really think you are the right lynch today, even assuming that I'm still totally confident in my scum read on you.

@ everyone -

I want Peanutman or foilist lynched today. I still think the connection I found between the two of them yesterday is a damn good one, and if either one of them flips scum, I'll definitely think the other probably is as well.

If peanutman flips scum, and foilist flips town, then I think that AGM is pretty plausibly the last scum.

If foilist flips scum, and peanutman town, then I'd really hope you all would take another look at Sanjay. Failing that, I'd probably stick with AGM again.

Regarding cruelty:

I really do have a town read on him right now. Y'all are beginning to theorize that I might just be scum who KNOWS cruelty is town, and is defending him to get the town cred when he flips. There's no way I can defend against this, and this is yet another heads i win, tails you lose construct. If cruelty flips scum, you all will say that I was defending him because he was my partner. If he flips town, you will say that I already KNEW he was town, and that I'm even more scummy for having defended him. This isn't scientific at all.

I was reading some of his exchanges again, and i noticed in particular how excruciatingly bad AGM's reasoning has been with regards to cruelty. Just something I noticed.

What I need to see to be receptive to a cruelty lynch is an instance of cruelty actually contradicting himself, being inconsistent, or doing something unexplainable as town. All I see right now are superficially scummy things that, though anti-town, are in line with the philosophy that Cruelty has expounded all game.

Regarding the sociopath wagon yesterday:

I've looked and looked, and I really can't see what people saw that made them so suddenly unhappy with lynching AGM or foilist. I don't see the evidence against Muffin/Sociopath, and I don't think that there was a legitimate reason to lynch him. I can't see that wagon forming the way it did with everyone on it being town, because it was too fast, too confident, and too random. I'm therefore forced to conclude that there were people on that wagon with insider information. I'd expect that town would be worried about jumping on a possible mislynch wagon like that with little actual evidence...had socio flipped cop or something, i don't think all of you self-aggrandizing wagon hoppers would be as pleased with yourselves. The fact that so many people felt so confident about quicklynching like that makes me suspect that there were people on that wagon who actually KNEW sociopath was going to flip scum, and were looking for that town cred.

So, here's how i stand: I buy PharieM's vote, Papa Zito's vote, and MordyS's vote onto that wagon. I

don't

buy Sanjay's vote, foilist's vote, or AGM's hammer. As far as I'm concerned, Socio's flip makes the second three

more

suspicious to me, not less suspicious.

[Sanjay]

I'm fine dropping it

Can we still talk about your ridiculous interpretation of the Chinaman Muffin conversations?

[Sanjay]

archaebob, do you think I'm suspicious as far as the conversation goes just because of Muffin tunneling Chinaman, or because of Chinaman tunneling Muffin?