-.- Way to misinterpret everything here. You see, you actually made a grave error in your post. Basically, that most of my mistakes can be attributed to me having to read a 80+ page game in a little under 5 hours. My play is very inconsistent because between almost all my posts on Day 3 I was gaining a HELL of a lot of information, and for the most part I didn't exactly understand it all right away.
I'll try to walk you through it. This will take a while though because I've got to read your post then explain my reasonings and cite my own posts, and possibly posts going back over three days to explain my reasonings...
In addition I didn't exactly read the whole game in order. I was jumping around, target re-reading people I thought were suspect, and constantly trying to not lose what was going on with Day 3...
That includes what was going on with Guardian. The whole shit hit the fan while I was target re-reading Mana, and I had to start the fuck over with a new context, go back and re-read Glork and Guardian
again
, and had a bunch of other shit going on at the same time....
And I'm so annoyed that you post this so late at night >>. I don't want to leave this hanging, and I need to goto sleep. T.T
So, without further adu I'm going to attempt to just explain what was going through my head at the time of my posts and what was going on as best I can without actually finding the specific posts I was reading at the time -.-;
Here goes nothing:
BillyTwilight wrote:Kinetic, you replaced into the game with post #1981. Shortly after you entered, Manaspryte claimed, and the fiasco with Guardian started. Before Guardian rescinded his claim, you claimed to be very suspicious of him. Of course Guardian backpedaling on his claim did nothing to assuage that suspicion, but you weren't ready to vote him yet. There are a couple of posts of interest from you during this time. First
post #2015 in which you laid out your "big picture" of the game so far. In this post you voted TCS, and you used this as the reasons for your vote of him early today.
Ok, sounds fine so far...
BillyTwilight wrote:Next post of interest is
post #2059, where you claim a couple of things. First, you state you are still willing to push a TCS lynch, but that if a wagon begins to form against HH you are willing to vote there as well. Also you state that you are unsure about Guardian's "unclaim", that you thought he might be an SK before his unclaim, but that you wouldn't personally push for his vote but were willing to go after him if that's "the way this day goes". I'd like to note that twice in this post you mentioned that you were willing to follow town in a lynch that you weren't going to push otherwise. To me, it feels like you are trying to gauge where the town is going to go, so you can be on that lynch. Also it feels like you are more than willing to leave Guardian in the game if we decided not to lynch him. I find this to be anti-town play. Leaving Guardian in the game with his history is something scum would want to do, as I pointed out in my posts when we were lynching Guardian.
Ok, there is actually a specific reason why I started to follow the HH lynch... mainly because Glork was pushing it. It was at about this time I started to suspect that Glork might be the cop. Here are my notes. I haven't yet added anything from this day (Day 4), and the last time I added anything was near the end of Day 3:
Kinetic wrote:
0-1 Cop Glork? Would explain why he thinks there are not many power roles left.
.....
12. Glork
I have a strong feeling he might be one of the remaining team scum
No.. He's a power role. Seems possible he's the cop.
Not a mason
Proof he might be the cop below
.....
Glork wrote:Having re-examined inHim last night, I no longer believe that he is likely to be scum. I think I was just getting a bit to OMGUSy over his attacks on me. I still don't particularly like them, but I can kindasorta see where he was coming from. I've already put TCS in pretty much the exact same boat.
Glork is the cop!? Inhim is innocent/N2 Target.
Glork wrote:Jack wrote:Also glork, someone in the general discussion thread said that when you are pro-town you "reek of pro-town". You don't reek of pro-town this game. hmm?
Do you need me to start linking games where people found me scummy but I was town?
I find it rather absurd that you're taking one player's opinion and using it as law to meta me. For the record, the player who said that about me was Zindaras.
1) Zindaras and I have been playing mafia together since before either of us knew what MafiaScum was. I can say with the utmost confidence that there is no other player who can get more out of my posts to get a good read on me.
2) What one player (in this case, Zindaras) believes to be pro-town is not always what another player believes to be pro-town. This statement is proven by simple observation. If everybody thought that the same things were pro-town, all of the townies would agree on every lynch. The fact that there's so much debate in each and every mafia game, even amongst protown players, is testament to the fact that no two players find the same things pro-town or scummy.
**Case in point: My assessment of Albert's play in this very game. He alleged that shameless bandwagoning was a good way of hunting scum. I told him that he was going about it all wrong, that it takes a specific eye for reactions to bandwagons to make such tactics effective, and that even then it's a very dangerous game to play.
**Further case in point: The debate regarding BM's alleged "always scumminess." Some argue that BM is responsible for his actions in each game, regardless of what the meta towards him is. BM asserted that instead of just saying "oh, he's being scummy again, let's vote him" players should be looking at what makes him scum this time around as to the scummy town that he "usually" is.
I grow tired of this charade.
Either Glork or Jack is mafiascum. Explains the immediate Zindy kill. Jack didn't want Zindy confirming Glork or Glork didn't want Zindy outing him.
If you notice here, I'm not
entirely
sure that Glork is the cop. In my opinion there are two possibilities, Glork is either cop or scum. But I'm starting to lean toward cop direction. At this point I'm re-reading Glork, Jack, HH, and Guardian; as well as completely examining the lead-up to the near Guardian lynch on D2.
Also, the reason that I wasn't so gung ho about getting Guardian, for the reason you stated: "Because he would mess up the game if he stayed." Simply, I didn't understand that position yet. If you looked further into the day, when I DID attack Guardian, I realized that. It was one of the main reasons I STAYED on the lynch. Even if Guardian was town, at that point him staying in the game hurt the town. I agreed with that point eventually, I just didn't understand it right away...
BillyTwilight wrote:Post #2066: You give a vote count and vote HH to "even him up with Guardian." To me this makes no sense at all. First, in your "game summary" post you barely mentioned HH, other than to say you agreed with some of his thoughts on TCS. But, as noted above, you said later you were willing to pursue a HH lynch if that is where the game went, and in #2066 you claimed that both HH and Guardian were high on your list, although you had never pointed out anything that you found suspicious about HH. As much as you had talked about Guardian, the "evening up" vote of HH doesn't make any sense... and Jack pointed it out in the next post. In post #2070 Guardian posted his "I'm drunk, weeeee, I'm town post" and shortly thereafter you changed your vote to Guardian.
I'm leaning further toward Glork as possible cop now. In addition, if you noticed my wrap up of why I voted Guardian:
Post #2088. I was re-reading Guadian's lynch on Day 2 when he made those posts. I was literally ON THE POSTS he made when he was "drunk" the first time. I noticed him breadcrumbing the doc claim and also him pointing out the breadcrumbs. That was what finally convinced me to vote for him.
BillyTwilight wrote:I find the above occurrences to be very strange. Why the vote for HH? The unwillingness to vote for Guardian tells me two things. You wanted to make sure that going after Guardian on a LAL basis was not going to hurt you later, and you probably didn't really want to see Guardian lynched anyway, otherwise you would have voted Guardian instead of HH, who you hadn't talked about significantly in game. When Guardian posted his obnoxious drunk post you quickly jumped your vote to him. I think you saw those posts and felt Guardian was going to be the lynch, so you might as well be on it, and you also saw a way to avoid having to answer Jack's statement about switching your vote to HH.
That is just not true. I wasn't sure about Guardian yet, so I was following what I thought at the time was GlorkCop. I didn't answer Jack's question for three reasons. 1) Yes, I was re-reading then and noticed Guardian's 'interesting' reaction. By the time I noticed Jack's question I already had unvoted and voted Guardian. 2) I didn't want to explain that I thought Glork was possibly the cop, and I thought he might have a guilty on HH. 3) To Jack he has been in a game that took 1.5 months per lynch, but I was reading the entire game in one sitting... things were just moving faster for me at the time. It didn't seem odd to me that I didn't wait weeks before voting someone new.
BillyTwilight wrote:The vote change is also inconsistent with what you are claiming now for your reason to switch to Guardian. In
post #2143 you claim that "It wasn't until everything began falling into place that I realized how bad what you did really was. Yos2 and others who have more experience than I do realized it right away, and once I did the math I agreed." I am assuming that your latest post was referring to this reason for your switch on Guardian. I don't see this as being the reason you switched, there was no "convincing arguments by Yos2 and others" in between your vote of HH and vote of Guardian.
I basically was saying that I didn't understand to what extant having Guardian in the game late game might really fuck up the town. It wasn't until I started understanding that, and noticing how thoroughly he thought through this claim in advance of him actually claiming that I realized he needed to be lynched.
BillyTwilight wrote:After your vote switch you were incredibly gung-ho about the Guardian lynch, and you posted a significant dialog with Guardian pointing out his bad play. It makes some sense , I guess, but considering you weren't engaging in that discussion before your vote I wonder what the motivation was. You claimed (to Guardian) at the time that you could have just said "Lynch him, LaL, yeyeyeyeyeye", but instead you were spending a lot of time trying to "explain" to him the error of his ways and help make him a better player. If you were really interested in that, why did you not do this before you voted and immediately after his "unclaim"? I get a bit of a "see how helpful I am being!" feel from these posts; kind of a buddying up to town in general.
When I started arguing with Guardian I had already decided 100% he was going to die, but I've been in more games with Guardian than anyone else on this forum. And so far in two of them I've felt really bad about lynching him >>. Yos can attest, in the first game (24 Mafia Mini, finished) I was scum, but the entire time I attacked him and picked him apart relentlessly. I really don't like being that kind of person, but at the time I felt like that was the right play, and it was. The scum won a flawless victory in that game.
Since then I had been trying to apologize to Guardian for the way I acted. Even after 24 mafia I made a funny jab at him in the Mini Theme Queue when he signed up for Ibby's game that I regretted. Ibby messaged me on aim and told me that Guardian actually took it personally, which I never intended. It was just a joke to me, and I said that in the thread after word saying that and even sent him a PM apologizing and asking him to please not drop out of Ibby's game because I was a jerk.
So now when I realized Guardian had to be lynched again, honestly I was trying to explain to him how much of a fuck up he made. I didn't think anyone else was going to at least do that for him, since he REALLY didn't understand exactly how big of a deal this was. So I wanted him to completely understand I really didn't
want
to do this, but for the betterment of the town I had to. Hell, that is among the reasons why I held my vote for as long as I did and tried to deny doing it...
BillyTwilight wrote:All in all I find your treatment of the Guardian wagon to be scummy, and your play in general on day 3 to be pretty bad. I don't think your explanation of your switch wrt Guardian matches what you claim it to be, and I don't like that even though you stated several times that you thought there was a good possibility of Guardian being a SK and knowing that he lied about his doc claim, you still seemed more interested in a TCS lynch and in a HH lynch, a player you had barely analyzed at all.
I've explained my reasons, this time maybe a little more thoroughly, but I honestly don't think I did a bad job on day 3 or when I explained myself the first time.
By the end of day 3 I felt Guardian was inevitable and was starting to look for day 4.
BillyTwilight wrote:Here is another, more concrete inconsistency in your play. In
post #2206, you state that you
KNEW
Glork was a cop when he made his post #1985. But in
post #2015, your general summary post, you
specifically state
that "Glork: Could be teamscum or SK. That being said he was rather pivotal to getting Sarcastro lynched, and with one of the doctors saying they protected him and a mafia no kill, we have too many inconsistencies." If you KNEW at the time that you made this post that Glork was a cop, why make this statement? Why mention Glork at all? You claim that HH was one person "at the top of your list", but you didn't mention him in this post. If someone who you really thought might be scum wasn't worth mentioning, why place someone in the list who you claim to know for sure was a cop, and then why put ambiguity on that person's role? I mean, I could see mentioning him and saying "I really thing Glork is pro-town because of the night kill not going through, or this and that and the other." Instead you say he could be teamscum or SK, but you just aren't sure and there are too many inconsistencies? Earlier in the post you said "Now assuming BM is town, we can suspect there are 2-3 scum on this wagon as well. Sarcastro has already been outed, so this leaves Glork, BT, TCS, and YB left (Guardian is excluded because of his low likeliness to be teamscum)." If you thought that Guardian's low likely hood of being teamscum should evict him from that list, how could you not have taken Glork off if you KNEW he was a cop? You could have easily done this without outing him: "Glork initiated the bandwagon so I don't find him scummy" or the like. All in all in this post, you seem to be leaving open the possibility of voting for him later; why would you do that if you knew he was a cop?
Either you are lying now and you had no idea that he was a cop when you made your summary post, or you
did
know he was a cop then, and didn't mind leaving suspicion on him as long as he hadn't claimed. Either way I find your play scummy, and I want a really good explanation for these events.
Because I wasn't sure yet... Read above, those are my actual notes. Explains this "inconsistency" consistently. I wasn't
Glork was cop until Mana came up dead. As soon as that happened I did this equation in my head:
Mana is the only doc. Glork was the scum target N2. Guardian wasn't the scum target because there is no 2nd doc. Glork cannot be mafia. Glork must be cop.
Perfectly consistent actually.
I'll admit, I was already
leaning
toward the Glork as a cop before this, but I was trying to force myself to remember he could also be mafia.
BillyTwilight wrote:BTW, you still have to be held accountable for BM's play, which I found to be very strange anyway; don't think that just because you can't know his motivations for his actions means that you don't have to live up to inconsistency in his play. BM is one of the hardest players for me to get a read on, but it seems very obvious to me that he really wanted to stay in this game but simply couldn't keep up with how fast it was on day 1 and 2. I don't see BM playing that way if he was vanilla town: we already have both cops, you've stated yourself that there is probably not another doc in the game, the chances of a vig being in the game are minuscule (and I can't imagine BM not using it N1 if he was so excited about playing vig), and you have stated several times that you don't know if there are masons in the game or not, implying that you aren't a mason. If all of these are true then it leaves only 2 possible power roles left for Battle Mage to have been; unfortunately for you, both those roles are anti-town.
Or... BM was a vanilla townie that didn't find this game very important because he wasn't a power role. He neglected it and didn't want to constantly catch up since it was moving so fast. The first time he was replaced he was annoyed/hurt, and decided to try and get back involved. He failed, and didn't try and stop being replaced the second time.
). 2) I don't want someone else to argue a point and then just jump on and say "Yea!". 
