Open 177 (Monks and Masons) - Game Over.

[Fuzzyman]

The stupid duck Vote Count

Riceballtail: ODDing, Farside22, ElectricBadger, Fuzzyman
Fuzzyman: Scien, Hewitt, Riceballtail
Scien: ZazieR
Maemuki: Wulfy

Not Voting: Maemuki, Canada
With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch. Countdown to deadline is here
Lots of love,
Hayl xxx

You are yet to tell ODDin where he was "coaching" me, the AtE accusation on me is controversial, and my activity, although not the best, has been fairly consistent, I think. If it seems I am posting more because of suspicion on me, it is worth noting that I may also be more active because we are

only 66 hous away from a dealine, people

.

[hewitt]

Unvote

Clearly my vote was faulty reasoning and I realize that now and since I don't feel comfortable claiming anybody to be scum I'm just going to unvote.

[Fuzzyman]

Hewitt, nothing changing, who will your vote be on at deadline?

[hewitt]

Hewitt, nothing changing, who will your vote be on at deadline?

At this point it could very well be on nobody.

[Fuzzyman]

Then allow me to expand that question to everybody:

Who is your deadline vote?

[hewitt]

I doubt though that I will be voting nobody come deadline.

[Wulfy]

I still don't care for mae. Too quiet and generally a side note still. hewitt's last unvote looks like scum backing out of his convictions because I agree with Farside's statement of "if Fuzzy flipped scum, then I'm looking to Hewitt"

His last statements seem no non-committal as well, none of which I personally care for. I doubt RBT is scum at the moment, but it could be because I think the case against her is just a confusion on word choice which could be stretched (with very little effort, as I had to read it several times to decide who I thought was correct) to mean (or to think) that she wanted to lynch claimers.

[Fuzzyman]

I doubt a lurker lynch on Maemuki is viable.

[Fuzzyman]

The following is an UNOFFICIAL vote count. It should not be construed as or mistaken to be created or endorsed by Haylen, unless she explicitly states that it is. Thank you for your cooperation.

---

VOTE COUNT THAT IS NOT ENDORSED BY HAYLEN, THE MOD

Fuzzyman: Scien, Riceballtail
Scien: ZazieR
Maemuki: Wulfy
Riceballtail: ODDin, Farside22, ElectricBadger, Fuzzyman

Not Voting: Maemuki, Canada

[Fuzzyman]

EBWOP: Hewitt and Nikanor aren't voting.

[Maemuki]

Who is your deadline vote?

Anybody to impede a no-lynch. Seriously.

I like the fact that you think that hewitt is scummy, but you're still voting for me. Why is that, Wulfy?

@ Riceball, even if you don't want to lynch a Mason/Monk, you want to out them. They're power-roles. If I can avoid power-role outing, I'm happy.

[ODDin]

No-lynch? Seriously?

[Maemuki]

You would prefer to have a no-lynch?

[farside22]

Just a point. RBT makes this comments which is outing M/M (which is scummy) and reading this I feel he would lynch any of them

Have no fear, for setup-breaker is here!

If you are a monk or mason, you should claim immediately, along with your partner. There are four available setups, and these pairings are, in essence, neighbors with one confirmed non-scum faction. I do believe it is in our best interest to make sure these pairs are listed, as one flipping scum will confirm a town. Since the odds of all four being town is 1/4, we can provide additional information to the remainder of the town for other places to find scum. It will probably cost us a townie or two, but the benefits outweigh the cost. Yes there is more reasoning, and no, you can't have it yet.

VOTE:ODDin

After this comment and a page later hewit claims fuzzy has his Mason partner and RBT votes on what I feel was just BS reasoning and seems to be a follow through of his comment above. That's why I like my vote.

Fuzzy would still be my second choice.

[Scien]

^ I think that this is a stretch. I made the same one.

Between this comment, and the immediate vote for fuzzy on Hewitt's claim, I was under the impression that the 'I want to see masons/monks flip' was a motivation for the vote. However when I questioned about it, RBT immediately said that she never said she wanted to lynch the m/ms. Going back and trying to prove her wrong, I couldn't find her pushing this reason for her vote ever.

It's an assumption, and a decent one, but its not very concrete. You think the assumption is strong enough to lynch RBT over?

Assuming the assumption is correct, why is it more likely that RBT is scum, over just wanting to pursue bad play?

IMO, I think a fuzzy lynch would give us more information over a RBT lynch. I think I am sticking with my vote.

[Scien]

Oh and mod, when you get back, could we get some clarification about if the Masons/Monks can have multiple anti-town roles in them? Is the amount of wolves/scum variable? Or is the 1-2 listed in early game just vanilla anti-town roles?

I still believe that my view on possible game setup is right. And if that is the case, then I believe everyone's game state changes.

[Haylen]

Hello people, sorry bout that. You will find vote counts at the top of every page now. I'm going to replace Zazie, he has been picking up his prods but not posting. I am going to prod everyone because it is so close to deadline (it wont count to your 3 prods per game or you get replaced thingy).

There cannot be 2 scumroles in the masons and monks groups, there could, however be one i. I shall change the OP to make it clearer.

Deadline is Tuesday, 9pm british time.

[Fuzzyman]

This is a big advancement. Thanks muchly.

Scien, why am I the best info lynch? I'm not opposed to going down for the team, but it'd be nice to know why.

[Haylen]

CSL replaces ZazieR, affective immediately, welcome him guys.

[Fuzzyman]

Hi, CSL. Read like the wind.

[Scien]

Welcome in CSL.

Scien, why am I the best info lynch? I'm not opposed to going down for the team, but it'd be nice to know why.

This is in response to me saying, "IMO, I think a fuzzy lynch would give us more information over a RBT lynch. I think I am sticking with my vote."

First off, I said you would provide more info over a RBT lynch, not that you would provide the most information out of everyone. That's a difference.

This is because you are in an all but confirmed mason/monk group. Haylen just confirmed one part of my view of possible game setup. And that is that there is always going to be one pro-town role in a mason/monk group.

If we lynch you there are two possibilities. A) You are anti-town, your partner is in the clear. B) You are townie, and Hewitt is either or.

Compare that to RBT. A) She is anti-town, and that explains her apparent (although non-concrete) desire to hit m/m groups. B) She is town, and that apparent desire is weird, but gives us no motives.

---

Actually I think given the above I switch my stance. If RBT is town, I can't see her having that desire. I know she is saying she doesn't, but given what Farside suggested, I think it is probably likely. Plus she would have a good motive to want to blanket lynch a m or m group if she has the opposite anti-town alignment.

Also, the m/m groups should have slightly less chances to be scum due to being invalid for two of the positions, and possibly 3 of the 4 if their partner got one. I know it isn't a blanket card that should save them. But pure statistics should suggest that a given m/m would be less likely scum than any other person.

So I guess I changed my mind. But I still am looking at you. You have been fairly unproductive today (pot calling kettle black I am sure, but my concern stands)

Unvote
Vote RBT

[hewitt]

*Sighs* Okay well I reread the entire game and it actually was a lot more interesting than it was when I was just stopping in and checking new posts. It might've helped that I actually read through all the little walls of text. From about the quarter point of the game until up to a little after halfway I had the feeling that I was going to be voting Electric Badger after I was finished. I kept getting the sense that all he was doing was stirring the pot but not in a way that I feel to be pro-town.

My read is that Scien's first post indicates he understood the case was weak/vague/what-have-you, which is why he didn't pursue it. Farside, other than not specifically stating it was weak what did he say that indicated to you he believed it was a strong case?

However, I do agree that his choice of a random vote rather than pursuing a weak case is questionable and anti-town. Scien comes across as deliberately obtuse in avoiding addressing that issue:

What is the townie benefit of aggressively pushing a weak case?

...rather than RVS? I think it's obvious. So why did you choose as you did, Scien?

Even though he's posting his opinion in the argument it's so neutral that neither side can attack him for it. However, he then goes on to provoke a response from Scien that will clearly result in an attack on Scien from farside.

Hmm.

Later in the game, yes, pushing hard on weak evidence is a scum tell. As a first post, having ANY evidence is great - the goal is to get out of RVS as soon as possible. Refusing to put pressure on other players out of fear of being attacked comes across as very anti-town: it reflects the scum motive of being more concerned about staying alive than finding villains.

I'll have to ponder this. Either a bad play as over-conservative town or a tipped hand as a villain. For the moment I like my vote as it is until I hear an explanation from Nik.

Then just sits back and gets himself out of the argument.

In my last game town lost to a trio of lurker-scum. Another game we were both involved in is now over 5 months long because of lurkers and inactives. So I'm getting kind of touchy about the subject and starting to lean towards the Lynch All Lurkers mentality.

Also, my vote on Maemuki wasn't serious, provided no pressure so was unproductive, and although her wagon wasn't in much danger of an accidental lynch I didn't feel comfortable letting my vote sit there when I logged off.

Nikanor was the first person on the list that hadn't yet posted (and the first one period) and I didn't see any other appealing wagon. So it was a little arbitrary (in selection) and a lot policy (as to why).

I just feel like this was all very fake. Very fake reasoning and an easy way out. Look here, this last game I was screwed by lurkers so in this game I'm not going to let that happen. You don't carry over previous games into the next one and the little emotional appeal with being touchy over lurkers just feels fake to me.

Other examples of stirring the pot then backing himself out.

Why does it seem that everybody is justifying everything with, "It doesn't matter since you were nowhere close to lynch"? A vote is a signifier of intent to lynch.

Are you saying we shouldn't vote at all until we're positive who is scum? What's your opinion on the use of a vote for pressure?

What's your take on Nikanor? Farside? Scien?

I see you posted several times elsewhere yesterday. Why not here?

first comment: Basically it's day 1. Not many talked so far. You had a RVS vote but change to a vote on someone who had not said a word that day.
I do not understand why you would change from a RVS to a non talker so early in the game.

Isn't this - voting for a weak reason rather than a random one - exactly what you've been attacking Scien for NOT doing?

I've mentioned my reasons for the switch, but to specify even more:

I agreed with this at first - farside is too experienced to be so stressed by a minor issue on the first day. However, some background research revealed a rather...frustrating-ish...argument with some...interesting fellows...in the Open Queue, where she mods (it's removed now). I'm forming doubts about farside, but I'm inclined to dismiss this particular tell.

Lurker lynching is typically scum driven hence my questioning of your vote. Although after you had a point you made on Nikor. I still want to ask why the change of heart from RVS to lurker voting.
Now that is more clear as to a deffinate is more of a what changed your mind but looking in whole at your reasoning is not my questioning.

Again, not trying to lynch a lurker, trying to send a message I won't tolerate it. If you feel that's scummy, fair 'nuff. I need to re-read if that motivation coincides with your questions.

What changed my mind was simply that I didn't want to leave my vote on Maemuki when I logged off (it wasn't accomplishing anything and the wagon was large - and seemed destined to get larger - for RVS). I didn't see any non-random reasons to vote those posting, so I went after someone not. I still can't quite fathom how the switch wasn't acceptably justified when my preceding vote was for a cookie.

Do you know scien to be innocent? Are you saying that my reasons forl attacking scien lacked merit?

He currently reads to me as town who made a bad play out of fear of risking himself. I think your reasoning had merit - I mentioned that before - but was the opposite of your comments to me, and this self-conflict is what I'm questioning. I think your investigation into Scien was out of proportion to the read, but that may have just been your way of forcing the game out of RVS. I also didn't agree with any of your insistence that he didn't initially find it a weak argument and I'm not sure why you kept forcing that issue.

But then Fuzzyman started posting. And by God I'm almost completely baffled at his choice of words, what order he decides to put them in, etc. Everything he says just feels so off-color and not anything resembling pro-town. Here’s some posts of his that don’t sit right with me at all for various reasons.

First he starts the game by posting questions and comments that are not even close to being informative.

Why does it seem that everybody is justifying everything with, "It doesn't matter since you were nowhere close to lynch"? A vote is a signifier of intent to lynch.

I agree with ODDin that the Farside/Scien skirmish was a lot about nothing. Nikanor has my empathy for being attacked for lurking.

What would you have done in farside's shoes?

(Fuzzyman) Joins with Nik in blowing a vote out of proportion

Where? Farside's vote? When I said the argument was a lot about nothing, I meant it referring to # of pages, words, etc., not the severity of the accusations, which was indeed little.

playing up the victim card

Only so far as my post could be considered buddying with Nikanor. Having empathy isn't a plea for sympathy.

excuses his own silence at the same time

I've not dismissed any shots at my inactivity. What are you talking about?

attempts to stifle a townie's only weapon

I have no interest in this; I only want for it to be used wisely.

and excuses mislynching on principle.

No, I said that my principle dictated that one should only vote for those whom they would be comfortable lynching.

FoS are, as a whole, entirely pointless.

Yeah. No intention to lynch means no pressure. Asking questions is better.

Is there anybody out there that disagrees with this?

Okay would you go out and ask if anybody disagrees with that statement? That doesn’t even make sense to me it’s not even relevant to the game it’s a theory argument and a complete distraction. I don’t understand why any town player would try to start that type of argument.

unvote; Vote Fuzzyman

I haven't been satisfied with your additions to discussion.

Satisfied with Yami's?

What’s with the deflection? Not only does Fuzzyman not answer the question but he goes and deflects it onto a player who can’t really defend themselves because clearly they’re lurking.

I feel that the Scien point I brought up in 168 was the most important one that you haven't answered. That's why I mentioned it. And to be quite honest, I feel somewhat inclined to go ahead and vote you if you don't care to do so.

So you’re going to vote someone for not answering your question? That is not a valid reason to vote somebody at all.

Arg. It's starting to seem like I'm not allowed to agree with others, lest I be accused of buddying. It happens every game. I guess that I'm not allowed to use the same excuse for my inactivity that others are using, that others are doing it worse, or that'll be buddying too.

I think that there was a consistent tendecy in farside during her debate with Scien to answer only parts of things directed at her. Instances of this include her only responding to the last paragraph of post 139, and picking just the last two sentences of 146 to give immediate response to.

When you acknowledge that someone has made comments regarding you, which farside does when she responds to at least a portion of a post, but only respond to parts of it, trying to keep attention away from the others, it is scummy.

I bet that since I'm leading in votes right now, this'll be an OMGUS, too.

Vote: farside22

That is SUCH an appeal to emotion it’s absolutely ridiculous. “I’m not allowed to agree with others, lest I be accused of buddying. It happens every game. I guess that I’m not allowed to use the same excuse for my inactivity that others are using”. I hopefully don’t even have to explain how gross of an appeal to emotion that is.

Or maybe it can be more buddying with ODDin, because he's incidentally voting for her too.

No town person would say shit like this. It’s beating somebody else to an argument that they would have against you and it’s WAY too over-defensive. Defending yourself from possibly forthcoming attacks is not something a town player does. It’s what scum does to cover their bases.

If you claim that I'm going AtE, what emotion is it I'm appealing to?

…Joking right?

Then allow me to expand that question to everybody:

Who is your deadline vote?

NO town player would ask that question.

The question would be “Who is your deadline vote and why?”

Vote: Fuzzyman

[hewitt]

And there was a question in there that was supposed to read- Okay WHY would you go out and ask if anybody disagrees with that statement?

Forgot the word why apparently in the original post.

[ODDin]

You would prefer to have a no-lynch?

From your post, I've understood

you

wanted a no-lynch.

Allow me to quote that post:

Who is your deadline vote?

Anybody to impede a no-lynch. Seriously.

That is, you want to lynch people who want to impede a no-lynch. Which, the way I understand it, means you do want a no-lynch.

So, if you want a no-lynch, please explain why.
If you don't want a no-lynch, than please explain what that post mean, and say whom you're intending to vote (and why).

[Fuzzyman]

I think the post means that she would vote for anybody as an alternative to not lynching, but don't take my word for it.

Response to hewitt is almost done.