Oldy Mafia (Game Over, who won?)

[CrashTextDummie]

Unlike chess, the game of mafia has a guaranteed-to-win opening strategy. And that's a D1 Glork wagon.

Vote: Glork

[CrashTextDummie]

HEY GUYS. I was going to suggest that we vote for the earliest join date. However Ythill you are lucky, because a Glork wagon is never a good idea. So,

Vote: CTD

.

I just had this conversation in a different game. You're wrong, but I forgive you.

More votes on Glork, please.

[CrashTextDummie]

Hi, I am a bad bandwagon.

CES gets scumpoints for giving me flashbacks to F2F-mafia already. Untrod Tripod earns my vote for feigned deliberation when it's clear he's just wagoning shamelessly.

unvote, vote: UT

PS: Shame on all of you for non-wagon on Glork. We're in for a painful game.

[CrashTextDummie]

Dear inHimshallibe,

I happen to quite like both my CES scumpoints and my Tripod vote. Would you please be so kind as to elaborate on why you find them disagreeable.

Kind regards,
CTD

[CrashTextDummie]

How is my shameless bandwagonning different from anyone else's? My "deliberation" was, surprise surprise, just a joke. Fr rls, yo. Your vote is ridiculous (moreso than mine!).

Didn't look like a joke to me. And might I just say that your rapidfire delivery of excuses is quite stunning. "Others are doing it as well" and "it was just a joke", two absolute staples. I'm impressed.

Your ridiculous - by your own admission - joke vote has made you a participant in a decidedly serious wagon, how do you feel about that?

[CrashTextDummie]

You understand that it's a "staple" because that's just how the early game goes, right? Anyway, the inconsistency in you calling me on it and not calling others on it is the real concern here.

I am

not

calling you on shameless wagoning. I am calling you on shameless wagoning while pretending it's not. The fact that you go "it was a joke! I really was just shamelessly wagoning" when caught doesn't help.

And thanks for sharing your real concern. Better to invent a reason for a vote after the fact than not have a reason at all, right?

[CrashTextDummie]

Hey Fritzler, is this going to be like that one game where you lazily parked your vote on me and proceeded to do jack shit in the productive department all game long?

[CrashTextDummie]

I'd comment on the "pressure-fueled failsauce", but I don't even know what it means.

[CrashTextDummie]

Also Ythill, I just looked at Ectomancer in ISO and I don't see it. Please show me.

[CrashTextDummie]

Pressure fueled == OMG, there's a wagon on me I better find something suspicious somewhere.

Very underhanded way to discredit an attack. Any argument made by a person being wagoned can be called "pressure fueled", it doesn't make the argument any worse.

Failsauce == UT was wagoning and his deliberation was a joke. Both obv.

I disagree.

I also disagree with CES that the Ecto-Ythill argument is boring. I think Ythill is coming out looking better and I'm a bit flabbergasted by some of the stuff Ecto is writing, namely that he thinks manufacturing a false dictonomy is in any way helpful to the town and that his actions in the very early game are supposedly already endgame motivated. I may be interested in voting him if the UT wagon doesn't pan out for some reason.

I called the CES scumpoints poor because you mentioned a mere soul channeling to some previous game, didn't expound upon it in any way, and also didn't vote him. If CES was really giving you feelings to another game he was scum, I'd say that's a pretty good reason for a D1 vote., but instead you voted for UT for his fake "deliberation."

I prefer in-game reasons to meta-reasons when voting, that includes D1. It's also too early to persecute CES for similarities to a past scum game because the sample size of his posts is still too small. I'll keep an eye on it.

"I'm torn between voting for chamber and CTD" - OK, if the post stopped here, you'd have a point. BUT:

".....hm..." - Alright, he's clearly not going to give us any thoughts, and is just going to pick someone to vote. Pretty shameless, imo.

I disagree. the "...hm..." in particular implies that he actually put some thought into the decision.

Just so we understand each other correctly, inHim, you think UT is town but you still think his behavior is pressure-worthy? I was slightly confused when you called him pressure-worthy only to look for a culprit on his wagon immediately afterwards.

Take it from my angle. If CTD is indeed scum, I'm saying his wagon fell apart due to his teammates successfully stirring up suspicion elsewhere. I wanted to make sure people remembered these moments in D1 if CTD was scum.

And who might these hypo-teammates be? My wagon was still 6 votes strong when you took yours off, It was still mostly intact when you called it "defused". This whole line of reasoning doesn't make much sense from your angle either.

Looks like UT has clammed up now that the spotlight is on him. Some more pressure might help.

[CrashTextDummie]

I had a biting comment of my own, but I'm holding my tongue.

To answer your question, Ectomancer:
No, I don't play with endgame in mind, certainly not on D1 of an 18 player game. That's dumb as hell. I have also been in relatively few endgame situations. Maybe there's a correlation. Think about it.

[CrashTextDummie]

Me posting something explicitly is not "underhanded". A wagon on you made you shift gears quickly from jokey to serious, and neither of the resulting attacks were compelling. Certainly worth mentioning. You claiming that the qualifier would apply to any attack made by a wagoned player is a convenient generalization that holds no weight here. It was not the fact that you were under pressure but, rather, that your scumhunting seemed to be motivated solely by that pressure.

The first major wagon of a game should be reason to shift gears from jokey to serious for everyone involved. Your allegation that I did so solely because I was the one being wagoned is entirely without basis. And of course my "convenient generalization" holds weight. No player that has been substantually wagoned can deny feeling at least some degree of pressure. I could call UT's next argument "pressure-fueled" and he would have no way to refute me. That's why it's an underhanded way to

discredit

an argument.

I don't know that this is indicitive of your alignment, but it speaks volumes about the reliability of your vote.

Case in point. Even though you are not attacking me openly (apparently, I'm behaviorally null but my wagon had merit?), you are using this fallacious argument to preemptively cast doubt on all my future votes. That's extreme prejudice

at best

.

I've been skimming isos. Based on behavior alone...

Scumz == Mert, BBM, HH, Ecto
Null == IH, CTD, Glork, CES, Fritz, Chamber
Town == Yos, Shanba, Gurgi, UT, inHim, MBL

Please elaborate.

[CrashTextDummie]

False. He could point to his actual motivation, or expand upon the line of thinking that lead to his suspicions. Or any number of things to demonstrate that he was doing more than casting around for a scapegoat.

I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate that I was "casting around for a scapegoat". The burden of proof is on you.

Saying "case in point" doesn't make it so. I pointed out that your vote was crap for reasons specific to that vote, which has nothing to do with the future.

You pointed out that UT's alleged bandwagoning and joking was both obvious. it wasn't. Several people disagree with you. And you tried to specifically discredit my attack with your "pressure-fueled" rethoric.

And I'm sorry if I misred you, but "speaks volumes about the reliability of [my] vote" implied "future votes" to me. I don't see why you would call the "reliability" of that one vote into question.

Maybe later. Scumhunt moar.

Your list seems arbitrary. And I'm quite happy with my current level of scumhunting, thank you very much.

[CrashTextDummie]

Why do you think UT is town?

[CrashTextDummie]

UT, what's your opinion of Ectomancer/Ythill?

I have some more stuff I want to ask Ythill, but I gotta run.

[CrashTextDummie]

Why exactly did the UT wagon lose steam? His defense post is hardly convincing, seeing as it mainly consists of a wordy downplay of the case against him, and his current vote is horrible. His stated reasoning for voting Fritz is that he's "a more likely scum candidate than [me]", which is weak as hell considering everything else that's been going on and really unproductive considering that no one else is interested in Fritz. Why did he chose Fritz out of the people who "sheeped" me? Why not someone who already had votes (i.e. Mert)?

How does Ythill feel about this, seeing as we've had a discussion about proper conduct when being wagoned?

Also note that he continues being tight as a clam and seemingly uninterested in hunting scum. I've had an insanely busy week. What's your excuse, UT?

I'll reread the game tomorrow, comments on everything else to follow.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm asking you how you feel about his vote, his attack against Fritz and the general quality of his scumhunting.

[CrashTextDummie]

I reread the game.

UT remains the most likely scum candidate. People who defend him on the basis that "his wagon was based on nothing" need to reread. The "joke" was

not

the only thing he was accused of, as he insinuated in his defense post. His reaction to the initial accusation, the fact that he made up "inconsistencies" on my part in order to justify keeping his "joke" vote on and his subsequent clamming up are all indicative of him being scum. As does his terrible Fritzler vote and his subsequent admission that the Fritzler vote was terrible while simultaneously defending it. As does his claim that he's "tunneling" on his wagonners when he hasn't actually provided any differentiated analysis of his wagon. He claims that he was suspicious of Fritzler for pushing "super hard" for his lynch, yet he completely ignored Fritzler when he was doing the same to me. I don't buy anything he's selling. He's done nothing, nada, zilch of any worth whatsoever. And don't give me that "that's just UT for you" crap, Ythill.

Speaking of Ythill, large portions of his play are bothering me. This includes his conduct towards myself (including accusing me of "casting around for a scapegoat" without being able to back it up), his baseless defense of UT and outright refusal to explain said defense, his conduct towards Ectomancer (specifically his unvoting as soon as Ectowagon was beginning to pick up steam), his bet-proposal towards chamber and the surrounding exchange, the Shanba "slip", his recent Yos vote, his goading Ecto and UT into forming a "voting block", his asking to be wagoned and probably a few other things I can't remember offhand. There's hardly anything coming from him that makes sense to me from a protown perspective, and I felt on more than one occasion that he was manufacturing reasons to attack people. Would not be opposed to wagon.

I have a pretty good feeling that MBL is town (which I'm sure he won't shut up about until the end of the game now), and I have a growing feeling that Glork is not. His stance on MBL is crap and I think he knows it. The last game I've played in where these two players were on opposite sides, I managed to sniff out the scum based on their interactions. I think they're both likely to deliberately provoke the other by ways of attacks when scum based on their history. Besides, I still think a Glork wagon would do this town some good on principle. It's not too late.

I am witholding judgement on Ectomancer. I am notoriously bad at reading his type of player. The case against him has merrit (particularly as outlined by MBL), but his defense sounds genuine, if disguided. I'd vote him at deadline, but not under any other circumstance as things currently stand.

Shanba pinged on my scumdar, mostly for the sleep-deprieved post some people have praised as pro-town. His stance on both Glork and Yos was basically "they're not doing what I expect them to be doing, IGMEOT". I largely disagree with his push against inHim. Most everything else he's posted has been wishy-washy.

The last person I could be convinced to vote is Flameaxe. His only post of relevance that wasn't UT-wagon related is an incredibly vapid analysis post which inHim was right on the money to call out. He spent the rest of his time defending himself, and not in a way I found convincing.

Off the table for me today:
MBL, stark, inHim, Mert

Everyone not mentioned I don't currently lean either way on. Also, IH sucks.

Yos:
Could you please summarize your case against chamber in one paragraph?

I would like to see a push towards a lynch. If not UT, then one of (Ythill, Glork, Shanba, Flameaxe). Go go.

[CrashTextDummie]

Hello, new people! And to think I was just about to open betting on whether IH would get replaced before D1 is over...

DGB:
How much of a coincidence is it that your scumlist is almost identical to mine? And why does part of it disagree with Theorem 1?

Ythill:
I notice that you have all three of "our worst bandwagoners" at or near the top of your scumlist. That strikes me as kind of counter intuitive considering that you are lamenting a lack of bandwagons. And why are you voting Yos when two other people are at the top of your scumlist? I may have some more comments following your next posts. I do hope one of the specific behaviors you are going to adress is UTs.

[CrashTextDummie]

While I'm at it.

Unvote, Vote: Ythill

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm curious, how fast can we get a DGB wagon off the ground? Her entire last page was plain terrible. I've played in lots of games in recent memory where she was scum and this feels

very

much like it.

unvote, vote: DGB

The alternative is we put Ectomancer at L-1, he continues to refuse to claim and someone drops the hammer because principles blabla. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear, but I don't think it's good town play.

[CrashTextDummie]

Both the inHim and the MBL wagon are terrible. Get a grip, people.

CDB, DGB, Shanba, Glork, Flameaxe, Ythill. At least half those people are scum. Take your pick.

I'm in no position to take the initiative on this, as I'm very strapped for time until the end of the week.

unvote, vote: Ythill

I will be able to check in before deadline hits. I will support wagons on any of the aformentioned people over any current wagon.

[CrashTextDummie]

Tomorrow, someone's gonna have to explain to me why we didn't lynch UT/CDB scum.

I do

not

think Mert is a good lynch. But at least it's a better lynch than MBL and inHim and nolynch sucks even more.

unvote, vote: Mert

[CrashTextDummie]

L-3 by my count.

[CrashTextDummie]

CDB, DGB, Shanba, Glork, Flameaxe, Ythill. At least half those people are scum. Take your pick.

I'm online and willing to switch to any of the above if enough people are here.

[CrashTextDummie]

Mert is at L-1 now.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'd gladly lynch you instead, Flameaxe. Your lament is hollow, the time for good ideas passed a while ago.

[CrashTextDummie]

A little more than 1 hour left. Probably not enough.

[CrashTextDummie]

5 minutes left. If neither Flameaxe nor chamber hammers, I'm gonna rage.

[CrashTextDummie]

Yes, you should, MBL.

I agree that Mert is probably town, but a lynch is better than no lynch.

[CrashTextDummie]

Welcome, Porochaz!

vote: Porochaz

[CrashTextDummie]

I've been trying for an hour now to collect my thoughts and post an analysis, but I keep changing my mind as I write it and it's just not coming out well, so I'll sleep over it. I should have lots of time from now until Christmas, so expect daily posts from me.

I'll give you the cliffnotes:
CDB is still scum.
Porochaz's entry into the game was underwhelming, but the case against him is probably not strong enough to maintain my vote.
First impression of Ythill's analysis good, second impression not so good.
For the most part, DGB looks like bullshitting scum, but she does raise a good point or two and I haven't seen her play town in ages.
Glork remains highly suspect.
I don't remember why I found Shanba scummy.
Disliked chamber's refusal to hammer Mert.
Still not interested in an inHim lynch.

I'll expand on all of that tomorrow.

[CrashTextDummie]

Well, obviously I shouldn't make promisses I can't keep.

First order of business:
I strongly dislike the building Shanba-wagon. It feels scum-fueled to me.

Second order of business:
There is no SK. There is no second scum group. When did people stop reading their win conditions? Speculation and accusations that go against mod-confirmed fact are a waste of time and a distraction.

Third order of business:
I'm getting annoyed with people who treat suspicion of CDB as just "lurkerhunting" (Lord Gurgi, I'm looking at you). Reasons to suspect CDB:
UT reacted badly to getting accused (this is the whole joke/no joke business, which in the context of his posts is

not

null or even town), tried to substantiate his bandwagon vote on me by retroactively outfitting it with terrible reasoning, did

zero

scumhunting, clammed up ultra-tightly once he came under pressure, came back with a weak, lazy vote and ultimately selectively replaced out of the game. His predecessor CDB has contributed a pretty insubstantial initial analysis and his vote to the Mert-wagon and

nothing else

in the 2+ weeks he's been here. Scumhunting effort = zero. Even if for some reason you don't find any of this the least bit suspicious, I can't believe you are completely okay with letting him slide like this. Lord knows most wagons that have been actively pursued in this game so far have been worse than your typical lurker wagon.

Speaking of, I just Control F'ed through Yos' ISO, and he doesn't have a single mention of CDB. I didn't Control F UT because of impracticability, but I don't remember Yos ever commenting on him either (he left him off a list of suspicion towards the end of D1 at least). What's up with that? Considering his stance on lurking, I find this uncharacteristic of Yos. I haven't payed too much attention to him, but this is worth looking into.

---------

From where I'm standing, DGB is using her patented formula for replacing into a game as scum:
1. Devise arbitrary method of applying "scumpoints" to players
2. Ignore said scumpoints and just go after anyone that seems lynchable
3. Make arbitrary changes to original method of applying scumpoints when feasible

Her "scumputer" posts are obviously not worth a damn. Case in point: Shanba has a pretty average score, and she still calls him scum. Here's some of the scum fuel I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Why isn't DGB voting Shanba despite unanbiguously stating that he is scum? She prefers to hold on to a CES vote that isn't going anywhere over supporting a semi-strong wagon she believes in, in a game that is hurting like hell for a good wagon. Yeah right. This is textbook behavior for her as far as I'm concerned.

The only thing that makes me waver slightly on her is that she

has

made a decent point or two, particularly re: Ythill. But it's not enough to offset the rest of her usuall BS. Strong contender for scum.

----------

Initially, I quite liked Ythill's big VC analysis post. In hindsight, it's probably because I liked 3 out of 4 of his suggested scumteam. It's unfortunate that he proceeded to vote the one person I disagreed with on his list. it's even more unfortunate that he used severe crap-logic to justify that vote. I counted a grand total of two points he brought up against inHim, one of which was "he's the most likely scum out of the people who were wagoned at the time". That's a fallacious argument if I've ever seen one. Even if, from Ythill's alleged point of view, inHim was the

least likely to be town

out of that list of 4, that doesn't make him more likely to be scum than anyone else in the game. That's just elementary. Upon rereading his analysis more closely, I came to the conclusion that it doesn't make much sense to me on the whole.

In general, I think it's pro-town to be open-minded and to seek a fresh perspective, as Ythill apparently did here. He also went to quite a lot of effort, as he has been in general, which wouldn't really be necessary for a scum in his shoes. But the fact that his fresh perspective somehow ended up supporting his old view in the

one

area where it actually matters, his inHim-vote, and in a contrieved manner no less, is concerning.

I want to reread Ythill because I feel a bit of a disconnect between his play D1 and D2 (his complete U-turn on CDB, for example, is striking), and analogously my reads of him are somewhat conflicting. I

do

find myself more interested in his case against Yos than I was before. Not the best candidate for scum, but certainly an interesting one.

------------

My suspicion of Glork is less substantial, and I don't feel like coming up with a case against him right now. My general feeling is that his reads are

way

off and that he's pushing crap wagons for crap reasons. The MBL wagon was crap, the Shanba wagon is crap. Comparisons to Sly Cooper don't apply: In that game, he just started uncharacteristically passive and people were suspicious of him because he wasn't leading the town in usual Glork fashion. I'm probably not gonna push his lynch today, but please keep an eye on him.

-----------

In hindsight, I don't find Flameaxe's behavior at deadline all that telling either way. I do have carryover suspicions from his limp analysis D1 and associated weak scumhunting, and I do think Porochaz' entry has been less than inspiring. But he's not my strongest suspect, and he's not my preferred lynch at the moment.

-----------

Just a small note on chamber, as I haven't payed much attention to him in general. I find it odd for him to make a scene of not hammering considering this post, in which he hastens everyone to vote either MBL or inHim lest they be "effectively voting no lynch". It seems disingenuous to me considering he had no qualms effectively voting no lynch himself just half a day later. May be worth looking into, particularly in light of his Shanba vote.

---------

Hi Ether.

unvote, vote: DGB

Seems more likely to get fast results than a CDB vote.

PPE: a lot of new posts while I was writing. They weren't considered for this analysis.

[CrashTextDummie]

You keep saying that "Ecto wasn't acting scummy", but one of the biggest scum tells I always look for is "who isn't really scumhunting", and that's especially true on day 1.

In light of your complete ignorance of all things CDB, this rings pretty hollow. It looks to me like you apply this "biggest scum tell you always look for" quite selectively.

[CrashTextDummie]

I certainly agree with the pressure on CDB, he's a pretty bad lurker right now and we need to hear more from him.

If you agree with the pressure, why aren't you supporting it? Why have you ignored the player slot all game long? This looks like an unusual blind spot, to say the very least.

I'm having the opposite reaction to these last couple pages than inHim, at least when it comes to Yos.

---------

Please take note of how DGB completely and utterly ignored everything I said about her. She even ommitted me from her "scumputer doubter" list, even though I've made my stance on it very, very clear. If we're not lynching CDB for whatever reason today, it's gotta be her.

---------

CDB is stalling, IMO. He obviously had the 5 minutes to at least acknowledge the fact that he's in lynching range. Let's see if he finds the time for a claim at least.

unvote, vote: CDB

If this wagon falls appart because CDB is on indefinite V/LA, I swear I'm gonna rage.

[CrashTextDummie]

By the way, DGB, I'm afraid to pose the obvious question, but why did you claim vig completely unprovoked?

[CrashTextDummie]

Answering questions for others is a big no-no, inHim.

[CrashTextDummie]

I am not

quite

asking "why didn't you attack him earlier", I am asking "why did you completely block out his very existence all game long until specifically asked about it, even in posts where you listed and commented on the vast majority of players in the game, when he clearly fits your scum-profile as outlined by yourself when justifying your attack against a town player, both when CDB/UT was first wagoned, wagoned for a second time and during the substantial time inbetween where he was lurking and not scumhunting."

[CrashTextDummie]

Answering questions for others is a big no-no, inHim.

Oh, so you were laying a trap?

Sorry.

No, I was not laying a trap. I really wanted to know why she is doing what she is doing, whatever that may be. I really don't see why you feel qualified to answer this for her, nor do I see why the fact that I don't want to hear the answer from you makes you think that I was laying a trap.

Gurgi, the talk about sarcasm is befuddling me. Please point out where you were doing "more or less the same thing".

[CrashTextDummie]

Gurgi, if you mean this:

She's DGB, whatchuwant?

I consider this a non-answer. It's lazy and gives DGB too much slack, but I don't see it as a serious attempt to answer my question, unlike what inHim did.

[CrashTextDummie]

Oy Yos, this was directed at you:

I am not

quite

asking "why didn't you attack him earlier", I am asking "why did you completely block out his very existence all game long until specifically asked about it, even in posts where you listed and commented on the vast majority of players in the game, when he clearly fits your scum-profile as outlined by yourself when justifying your attack against a town player, both when CDB/UT was first wagoned, wagoned for a second time and during the substantial time inbetween where he was lurking and not scumhunting."

[CrashTextDummie]

I certainly agree with the pressure on CDB, he's a pretty bad lurker right now and we need to hear more from him.

I am supporting it. That's what i was doing in that line you just quoted

If you're asking "why didn't I attack him earlier"; meh, the early wagon on UT seemed a bit weak, he CDB already had plenty of pressure on him, and I had better targets.

In this case, yes, my read on CDB is null at the moment, and has been for most of the game. I have no interest in defending a lurker here, but so far his behavior does seem more consistent with "low activity person who's probably going to get replaced (of either alignment)" then with "scum deliberately flying under the radar for tactical reasons".

These three statements don't add up.

[CrashTextDummie]

Yes, they do. If someone is null and lurking, the town should apply pressure on them until they post more, and only consider lynching him as a last resort, and then only if they don't have a better suspect. If someone is scummy and lurking, then the town should just lynch him. In this case, I think CDB is null and lurking, so I want the town to apply pressure to CDB until he posts more, which is exactly what I said in all three of those posts.

Nope, still doesn't add up.

You keep saying that "Ecto wasn't acting scummy", but one of the biggest scum tells I always look for is "who isn't really scumhunting", and that's especially true on day 1.

In light of your complete ignorance of all things CDB, this rings pretty hollow. It looks to me like you apply this "biggest scum tell you always look for" quite selectively.

I certainly agree with the pressure on CDB, he's a pretty bad lurker right now and we need to hear more from him.

This post does in no way, shape or form translate to a null read on CDB. I accuse you of applying double standards, and your reaction is

not

to clear up why you've treated the lack of scumhunting from these players differently (or even confirm that you do, in fact, have a different read on CDB, i.e. null, than you did on Ecto), but actually implies that you do hold him to the same standard and just failed to communicate as much.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm getting strong DGB-Yos scumpair vibes. Ever since attention has shifted to him, she's been

really

adamant that CDB not be let off the hook, whereas she seemed to be very willing to throw her vote around. She started the game having a town read on him for no stated reasoning, and he scored very low on her scumputer, and the only issue she previously had with him was that she thought he was being bussed (also see this post.

Contrast this with her latest post:

I'm saying it's not likely that Yos is being bus'ed, because he's a worthwhile buddy, and that the wagon on him is prob town.

Not only does she

not

think he is being bussed, she also declares his wagon prob town under the assumption that he is scum. This is very close to slip-territory, IMO.

Of the pair, I'm more sure about DGB, who

still

is completely ignoring me, including my direct query, but Yos is looking like a decent bet as well. I'm not buying his indignation upon being attacked.

This also makes CDB less likely to be scum in my mind, and the same is true of Glork to some extent.

[CrashTextDummie]

In light of new developments, I don't think a CDB lynch is paramount anymore.

unvote, vote: Yos

PS: I don't condone the vigging of Shanba under any circumstances.

[CrashTextDummie]

Dum dedee dum dum, I'm not counterclaimed (mind you, vig counterclaims are usually settled with

night fire

).

And that's all you have to say.

[CrashTextDummie]

In light of new developments, I don't think a CDB lynch is paramount anymore.

unvote, vote: Yos

PS: I don't condone the vigging of Shanba under any circumstances.

And that's all you have to say?


What recent developments? What in your worldview has changed?

I had this to say. Also a bunch of stuff that immediately preceeded your expressed willingness to lynch Yos. You

are

reading along, right?

Crash. I know you were in both i10 and that /invitational. No chance you've got a meta on Huck?

I am notoriously bad at reading him and don't have a working meta.

-CTD is voting me because he thinks I'm scum with CDB, just because I didn't lurker hunt him. He claims this is inconsistant with my other play, which dosn't make sense because I haven't lurker hunted anyone this game. Again, this is just a horriblebad reason to vote someone. And now, he dosn't even seem to think CDB is scum anymore, but still suspect me, for no good reason.

This is a complete distortion of my case against you.

1. My case against you has nothing to do with a lack of lurker hunting. It has a lot to do with applying scum tells selectively (in this case: lack of scumhunting,

not

lurking) and an internally inconsistent reaction when questioned about it. UT/CDB has been one of the main focal points during various stages of the game, which magnifies your ignorance of him (and lends weight to Ythill's argument that you've been ignoring wagons).
2. My suspicion of you has never been dependent of CDB's alignement. It still isn't.

[CrashTextDummie]

Picking up on something MBL brought up:

Glork, why weren't you active around deadline on D1, when you were evidently present?

[CrashTextDummie]

Also, in case there is a quicklynch, CES is scum. Please remember that and kill him good and dead.

Says the claimed vig.

[CrashTextDummie]

Yos, why is DGB obvtown?

[CrashTextDummie]

Someone who is here and isn't scumhunting is a completly different scumtell then someone who is lurking.

You also ignored him when he

was

around and not scumhunting. And just because someone starts to lurk,

in reaction to being pressured

no less, his previous transgressions don't get washed away. UT was active for a while, and he didn't scumhunt.

Also, you still haven't explained how "applying scum tells selectively" is a scum tell. It seems fairly obvious that applying scum tells selectivly, and combing them with meta, situational stuff, gut, ect is something every pro-town person should always do.

Applying scum tells selectively as done by you is a scum tell because it suggests fabricated reads and a lack of pro-town perspective. It suggests that scum tells only get applied when it suits your purposes, not when they naturally come to you when analysing the game.

That don't make any sense. The only way, the ONLY way, you could possibly think that "applying scum tells selectively" is a tell is if you think I'm ignoring them when someone you think is my scumbuddy is doing them. "Person A is attacking X for not scumhunting but isn't attacking person Y for not scumhunting" can be a rational reason to accuse person A and person Y of being scum together, but if that's not what you're saying, then nothing you've said has made any sense at all.

See above. When you apply scum tells selectively, it tells me first and foremost that you're not looking at the game with the open mind of a townie. This is independant of CDB's alignment. That you'd do it intentionally with the purpose of not directing traffic towards a buddy didn't really cross my mind. This tell is behavioral, not situational.

By the way, I'd appreciate an answer to this:

Yos, why is DGB obvtown?

Thank you.

[CrashTextDummie]

I was at work. I wasn't here. MBL is dead wrong. MBL is spewing nonsense and obviously you can't be arsed to check his facts, CTD.

Hypocrite. That's two posts in a row directed towards me where

you

didn't check your facts and you have the gall to accuse me of the same when my facts have indeed been thouroughly checked. (a generious) 9 hours before our deadline is "around deadline" in my book.

Yes, at the time I made my post in the other game, my vote was on one of the leading vote-getters in this game, and Mert only had two votes on him. I probably *could* have made an "I'm at work and will not be around for deadline" post, but to be completely frank, that never crossed my mind at all. I figured one of {MBL, inHim} would be lynched, and at the time I was hoping it'd've been you.

I get being strapped for time but "say nothing and hope for the best" is pretty far removed from what I'd call a pro-town stance less than 12 hours removed from a deadline, with no wagon near completion. I want to say I'm surprised you'd admit to as much, but then again, I suppose it's the least damaging thing you

can

plead in this situation. Needless to say, this is incredibly weak, and not just because your name is Glork.

[CrashTextDummie]

inHim's play the last couple of pages looks protown. His associations with known scums does not look protown. I'm actually quite conflicted right now.

What "known scums" are you talking about? Are you sure you're part of the uninformed majority here?

I still think inHim is more likely town than scum. The fake-claim shenanigans are certainly not kosher, but he's not playing it the way I'd expect scum to play it.

Yos has done nothing to improve my opinion of him, and he's definitely a better lynch than inHim.

[CrashTextDummie]

Have you read anything I've posted? Jesus, CTD.

It's a straightforward question. What "known scums" are you talking about?

[CrashTextDummie]

Happy new year, everyone.

My addition of CTD probably looks bizarre, but it's because he is playing bizarrely. His questioning of whether I "know" who the scums are, just because I referred to Yosscum and Shanscum as "known scum" doesn't really make any sense. I bluntly and factually state that people are scum all the time... I'd say easily in 80% of the games I play. CTD knows this, and I know he knows this, so I'm trying to figure out what in Glork's name has caused him that *this* time is different. IIRC, he had some suspicions of me during D1, so I'm wondering if it's a case of confirmation bias, but I'd really like an explanation on this one and tbh, I've been pretty underwhelmed by CTD's play thus far.

The term "known scum" is very clearly defined as "players who have cardflipped scum". There are none in this game so far. I took issue with your statement because in my mind, it's not the same as bluntly and factually stating that someone is scum (i.e. "you are scum"). It's, at the very least, a distortion of the facts, particularly when the scumminess of your supposed "known scum" is in dispute (we may agree on Yos, but I vehemently disagree with you on Shanba). Furthermore, I took issue because "association with known scum" is a tell that carries a considerable amount of weight. You using it here fallaciously, to weakly support the inHim wagon in a way that keeps your hands clean if he's lynched as town and gives you an opening of attack against your "known scum" if he's lynched as scum rubs me the wrong way.

As for my "bizarre" question: I don't actually think that you'd make a slip of this magnitude, but I reserve the right to call and question you on your bullshit, thank you very much. There is no known scum except to the scum. It's a perfectly valid question to ask.

I think your overreaction to this is hilarious. Last I knew, you had no reason to suspect me, and now I've made it into your top three. Please explain how bizarre = scum in this case. At least you've been pretty consistent about the being underwhelmed with my play part. You've called me terrible and lazy, and yet your attack against Yos is piggybacking off my argument and you've admitted yourself that the laziness-accusation was uncalled for. Your entire conduct towards me is way, way below par.

CTD, you're voting Yos and think inHim is likely town. You've given nearly no defense of inHim in the past three weeks other than "he's not playing this the way scum would." You think DGB is more likely scum than Yos. You think they're a likely scumpair together. You're not making the case, and you seem to be satisfied with the clock running out on inHim instead of pushing Yos by rereading him and making a more solid case. Why?

Short answer: Lack of time.
Long answer:
1. I have resigned myself to let the DGB thing play out. I don't think she's played anything like a vig, even a gambity one, but a good night's sleep should bring some clarity.
2. You should know my meta. I don't spend my time defending people unless I'm absoutely convinced of their innocence or I think their lynch puts the town in immediate jeopardy of losing. I fight undesireable wagons by pushing stronger ones. I've done plenty of leg work on the Yos wagon, I think it's stronger than the inHim wagon, but I doubt I could have shifted momentum. If I had the time, I probably would have tried to start a new one, likely on Glork.
3. I won't exactly shed a tear if inHim is lynched. His recent antics (the nurse-claim, the vote-hopping) have been unsavory, and while I still think he's more likely town than scum, I wouldn't bet on it anymore. His wagon is a lot more solid than the Mert-wagon was, at least, and should give us plenty to work with in any case.

[CrashTextDummie]

CDB, Porochaz, Glork. That's he people I'm willing to go for today.

vote Porochaz

I'll have a look at HackerHuck, I might be interested. I also have a feeling that chamber should be re-evalued in light of recent deaths.

[CrashTextDummie]

I find it

very hard

to believe that you thought I was the vig.

[CrashTextDummie]

I have received a prod. I guess now would be as good a time as any to let you know that I have a boatload of exams this week, and very limited time for mafia. I will try to produce something in spite of it, but no promisses.

[CrashTextDummie]

Hi, I am counterclaiming Glork. I am a [limited]-shot cop and have an innocent result on Shanba.

unvote, vote: Glork

[CrashTextDummie]

Actually, screw the [limited], that doesn't work so well in a counterclaim situation. My ability is one-shot, I used it on N1.

[CrashTextDummie]

It's clear to me that Glork is scum. The fact that he didn't even comment on my counterclaim, or the implications thereof for the set-up speaks volumes.

I don't think Patrick would put a full cop and a 1-shot cop in the game. Ythill being 2-shot further strengthens this opinion. I sure as hell don't think he'd put a 1-shot cop and a naive/insane cop in the game, as that combo might be even worse than a couple of vanillas for the town. I have no idea where people (i.e. Ether) are getting this idea from.

Lynching him is the only play for today. Even if, for whatever asinine reason, you think this game has two cops, it's paramount to make sure. I'm not willing to accept any process of elimination as long as people are presumed innocent on Glork's word alone. Ythill's VCA is growing in merit in my estimation as we get more flips, but it's not solid enough yet.

My play may have been mediocre, MBL, but my scumhunting sure as hell hasn't been. Glork is scum and so are CDB and Porochaz in all likelihood. If necessary to ensure his lynch, I'm gonna use my still limited time to build a case against Glork based on his scummy play, because there's that as well, in copious amounts.

[CrashTextDummie]

I think you're overstating a bit there. You did mention that those were your top three suspects at the start of today, but you haven't presented any evidence to support your beliefs re: Porochaz and CDB.

I've tried my damnedest to get CDB lynched at various points in the game. I've admittedly lost sight of Porochaz during D2, which probably had to do with his utter lack of contribution. I might do a case on them, but it's not a priority. Glork is the one who needs lynching.

Some of your arguments are patently ridiculous, MBL:

But once again, it's easy for scum to toss their scumpartners in a bag with a few townies and then not really push the scum aggressively. I am not saying I think you're defScum here, I'm just saying that your play hasn't utterly convinced me that you're town and I'd like to see your recent thought processes on CDB and Porochaz.

What's the point of this hypothetical? What you're saying is that my three top suspects coming up scum, including the guy I freaking counterclaimed, could still be a dastardly bus because I haven't "utterly convinced" you with my play. I'm having a really hard time taking you seriously. This goes for the whole "Glork and CTD could both be fakeclaming scum" line of thinking.

Granted there's not much to work with in either case, but I'm interested to hear more specifically about how you differentiate CDB/Poro's play from CES's, Gurgi's, Ether's, Huck's, Shanba's and chamber's. (I suppose you can scratch Shanba considering you're claiming a result.)

You forgot yourself on that list.

Why do you think Glork claimed when he did?

I'll adress this in a minute.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm having serious issues with HackerHuck's logic.

I don't think that Glork is the obvious play for today. Although he has been slow to address the concerns around his claim, we're probably looking at three other people who are scum.

First of all, you haven't acknowledged in the slightest so far the fact that he has been counterclaimed. Secondly, what you're saying here basically is "even if Glork is counterclaimed scum, I'd rather take a stab at one of his buddies".

With the certainty of sanity (although GF could be an issue), we'll put ourselves in a pretty good place to as long as we avoid lynching the claimants and those claimed as investigation targets.

And then you go and propose process of elimination. How likely do you find the possibility that scum-Glork would claim innocents on two townies?

I also don't see what the scum motivation for making that claim would be. He wasn't under any serious lynch threat and he didn't know that Ythill ran out of shots.

He clearly felt himself under threat of being vigged. This argument makes zero sense. That he didn't know that Ythill ran out of shots is

precisely

why he'd feel inclined to claim.

I don't really see him taking the risk of the claim when a mislynch and a bad vig would mostly put the game away for them.

Apart from the fact that a mislynch and a bad vig won't put the game away for scum, that would be added incentive to claim. Note the necessity of a bad vig for this to work out.

I would also expect a fake-claim to have a guilty in there to improve the chances of getting a mislynch.

It would have also improved his chances of getting vigged in the face.

Besides, the cop issue should be sorted out on its own within the next couple of days.

Unless we don't have a couple of days. If we lynch wrong today, we are in lylo.

[CrashTextDummie]

Some general notes on Glork's cop crumbs and his claimed targets:
Glork has played a very self-conscious game, as evidenced by his Sly Cooper argument. He knew he was playing weakly on D1 and anticipated catching flak for it. I find it very likely that he'd come up with counter measures overnight and start planting crumbs as scum. He pulled the trigger immediately as soon as it was clear that the vig was coming after him.

That he would target his main suspect on N1 and someone he found tough to figure out on N2 is completely backwards. Early on you can afford using investigations to get a beat on people but after 2 mislynches and a misvig, you try your damndest to secure a scumlynch and either confirming or eliminating your biggest suspect sure is more conductive to that than taking a shot in the dark. We are one mislynched removed from lylo. I would have investigated Glork tonight in a heartbeat if I had the chance.

[CrashTextDummie]

Ythill, there is no doubt in my mind that Glork is lying. If anything, me being one-shot is enhancing my belief, not diminishing. So is you being two-shot. From a set-up design point of view, it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm looking at this enitrely reasonably. The rest of the scum is gonna be a lot easier to figure out once Glork is confirmed as the scumbag he is.

[CrashTextDummie]

Which is precisely why we lynch someone who is likely scum whether or not Glork is telling the truth.

We lynch Glork today and he comes up town:
We are in lylo, but we have a number of confirmed innocents to work with.

We mislynch someone else:
We are in lylo and a)have to figure out if the scum left Glork alive to win via his mislynch b)have to figure out whether his claimed guilty or innocent result is truthful c)still have no idea whether his claimed innocents really are innocent.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm not concerned about mislynching either, as long as it's Glork. If I was told only one of CDB/Porochaz was scum, I'd have to flip a coin.

I'm not quite sure why you'd prefer a scum-dictated gamble over a play that allows a more informed decision tomorrow.

[CrashTextDummie]

Can we lynch Glork yet?

I understand the reasoning for no-lynch, but Glork is very obviously scum and letting him invent another investigation isn't gonna lead anywhere.

Consequently, I think mass-claim can wait until tomorrow, but I'm not exactly opposed to doing it today. Ythill's order is spot on.

[CrashTextDummie]

But it's still all good because you feel better afterwards.

Personally, I'm just waiting for Glork to die.

[CrashTextDummie]

I think it's kind of endearing how Ether is keeping up her defense of Glork for consistency's sake, even though it must be clear to her by now that she's gonna look like the biggest fool tomorrow.

Ether: "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

[CrashTextDummie]

Oy chamber, please vote Glork so Ythill can drop the hammer. Deadline hits in 24 hours give or take a few and I sincerely doubt Glork is gonna give us anything to work with, seeing as he's spent all his time so far on faulty hypotheticals in a vain effort to save his hide.

[CrashTextDummie]

I have a huge problem with chamber's vote. Not once has he mentioned being suspicious of Porochaz today. He's mentioned several times how he could go for a Glork lynch. And now he votes Porochaz while still claiming to be more suspicious of Glork. It makes no sense to me at all.

Let me be perfectly clear about this:
I am not convinced that Porochaz is scum. I would rather lynch CDB out of the two. Glork is scum. He has been countered, he has slipped big time and he has been flailing ever since he has been countered (when he wasn't on V/LA, that is). The Porochaz wagon is therefore bullshit. Please act accordingly.

[CrashTextDummie]

MBL, do you think Glork slipped, yes or no.

[CrashTextDummie]

Actually, this goes to anyone not currently voting Glork:

Do you think a cop would have made this post. I will quote it because it's so delicious:

Could not disagree with No-Lynch more. If I'm the scum and we no-lynch, I kill Ythill, and we're in the same position, less one un-countered Vigilante.


Confirm Vote: CES

He does not want to get another investigation in. His reasoning is specifically geared towards him being scum, not town ("if I'm scum, you gain nothing by no-lynching"). This post completely betrays his cop claim in any way imaginable.

If you are currently not voting Glork, I want you to state in no uncertain terms why you don't think this is damning.

[CrashTextDummie]

And why do you assume a roleblocker, Ether?

[CrashTextDummie]

I think Glork is more likely scum than Prozac based on play alone. BUUUUT the people on the glork wagon make me :/

Unvote Vote prozac

for now.

What about the people on the Glork wagon keeps you from joining? They're exactly the same people as two days ago when you last stated a willingness to join.

Adding a roleblocker is pretty standard.

I'm gonna need to see statistics to back this up. While roleblocker may be one of the more common scum power roles, I seriously doubt any given game of mafia is more likely to have one than not.

[CrashTextDummie]

Also, Ether:

If you are currently not voting Glork, I want you to state

in no uncertain terms

why you don't think this is damning.

[CrashTextDummie]

Hey Ether, be honest now. At what point did you get that sinking feeling when you realized that one of your key reads was wrong?

vote: CDB

[CrashTextDummie]

Hi, I was prodded. Busy, busy, will post again within 24 hours.

[CrashTextDummie]

My appologies. Since I'm not long for this world, I'm gonna do a proper reread on everyone. Before I do that though, I want to collect my thoughts and give you an idea of where I stand based on memory.

- Shanba is confirmed town, end of story. There's no godfather in a game with just a one-shot cop. Paricularly not in this game; I'm pretty sure I have an idea about Patrick's design philosophy, and this ain't it.

- I think Ether is town as well. I can emphasise with her dilemma on Glork, I think she made the decision that he was town when she replaced in and based her whole play around that one read. I've done it before as town and got burned as well. I think her play is consistent with how I felt back then.

- Next on the list of people I feel good about is CES, although it comes with a caveat. Ever since my claim, he's been on the right side of every argument. This includes everything concerning the claims, the no lynch question (which Gurgi for some reason still hasn't gotten over) and a bunch of others I probably don't remember. This makes him stand out as very pro-town, the caveat being that all those stances where also pretty obvious ones to take for anyone with an understanding of game theory and therefore easy to fake. It's not a big concern, mind you, just the reason I wouldn't bet (a lot) on him being town yet.

- I wish these three people could come to a consensus with me on who to lynch other than HackerHuck. I feel uncomfortable about his wagon and I don't really remember the case against him, which indicates to me that it wasn't very strong. I think that Glork was heavily bussed and wouldn't be surprised if all three buddies voted him. And even if one didn't, HackerHuck isn't the likeliest candidate to me (hint: chamber).

- Speaking of, there's at least one scum in the group of {MBL, chamber, Gurgi}. MBL I need to investigate in my reread because in my memory, he was uncharacteristically uncritical of Glork's crap case on him, has avoided taking stances and there's some other instances in his play that rubbed me the wrong way. Chamber's play yesterday was atrocious and I've been meaning to give him another look ever since Yos came up town. I am very disappointed that he got replaced, as it relieves his player spot of a lot of deserved scrutiny. Gurgi I feel has been very under radar for a while now, and I'm tired of both his useless game theory disagreements and his stance on lynching lurkers.

- Being the master of the segue, I want to stress that we have to deal with CDB and Porochaz at some point, and it would be vastly preferrable to do it while we're not in lylo. I'm convinced that one of them is scum, but I have doubts that they both are. CDB just reads scum to me in everything he does. His analysis today was so obviously tailored to his conclusions (not the other way around, as it should be) it hurts. I don't think his vote today is well reasoned (and part of why I'm not comfortable with a Huck lynch) and I don't know why he's still alive. I'm gonna have a hard time reading him fairly on my reread, but I'll try. Porochaz I feel less strongly about (I've had him on the radar at various points in the game, but never as strongly as CDB), but the fact that his wagon yesterday was very likely strongly town-driven makes me open to seeing him as scum today as well. Let's please lynch one of those two people today.

[CrashTextDummie]

I agree with MBL. Please don't lynch Hacker Huck.

I will be here all of tomorrow, reading this game, Ether.

[CrashTextDummie]

Nicely wrapped up. CES was on the ball from Glork's claim forward. The scum lurked themselves into defeat.

I'll have some showboating later.

[CrashTextDummie]

Lemme test that, MBL.

CDB, Porochaz, Glork. That's he people I'm willing to go for today.

vote Porochaz

Eh, both ways are fun. :p

Ether, I went over this with MBL back when I was alive, I'm happy with my scumhunting, but my play stunk pretty badly the longer it went on. I didn't have the necessary time and my inability to get any of the obvious scum lynched (even Glork's wagon didn't happen without all his team throwing him under the bus... lol) took its toll on my motivation.