Mini 1752: Back to December (Game Over)

[Equinox]

Vote Count 1.02

Aj The Epic (2) - MattP, Alchemist21
Alchemist21 (2) - Aj The Epic, Raskolnikov
Elyse (2) - petroleumjelly, Supreme Overlord
Supreme Overlord (2) - OceanWind, Elyse

Not Voting (3) - curiouskarmadog, LlamaFluff, TKoE

With 11 votes in play, it will take 6 to lynch.

The deadline is Sunday, January 17, 2016, at 2:30 AM EST (UTC-5), which is in (expired on 2016-01-17 02:30:00).

Moderator Comments

There is no preferred method for voting as long as the vote is in some form of bold and the target is unambiguous.

[TKoE]

Uh Mod, you just posted the old vote count again?

[Aj The Epic]

None of the things he posted are even inherently scummy. The only legitimate argument for alchemist-scum is that he's trying to hard to look busy, but that could just be his nature. Everything Aj listed isn't alignment indicative.

Nothing individually has to be inherently scummy, but that's not to say that in total what he did was odd for town. Why not address Elyse first if there's no reasonable response you'd make that would anything he'd say to Elyse? The only way your response to Alchemist would affect Elyse's "you are framing Llama" vote is if you openly admitted to doing so. And the question of 'do you have any logic to back this up' is a stacked question meant to derail all chances of that wagon happening. Of course no one can manage to have the logic for a wagon this early, especially with Llamas not even posting. No initial wagon has sound logic, and he should know that.

Here's the thing: if alchemist is town, 11 explains what you're trying to do in full. The questions that could be asked is "Why not x person for the kill?" or Elyse's response of "You're framing". Either of these questions help draw the game out of RVS because now there's a counter accusation. Even a vote for llama in that situation is a better response unless he legitimately does not feel comfortable with your vote, in which case he should be voting for you. His question of "do you have any logic" is just counterproductive to your stated intention: Bringing the game out of rvs.

[MattP]

Counterproductive is not the same thing as scummy

You think he's scummy because he didn't appreciate the routes presented to get us out of RVS? Him engaging me about that concern technically begins moving us out of RVS. And even so, it's so not a big deal if we leave RVS on page one or page 3, you're acting like it's so scummy if someone is counterproductive and you're not even considering the thing we are talking about here is a silly wagon that gets us out of RVS. He wasn't being unproductive about something like setup or NK spec, or something actually that important

[MattP]

Anyway I want alchemist to respond in his own words rather than buddying me for a vote on Aj

[Alchemist21]

None of the things he posted are even inherently scummy. The only legitimate argument for alchemist-scum is that he's trying to hard to look busy, but that could just be his nature. Everything Aj listed isn't alignment indicative.

Nothing individually has to be inherently scummy, but that's not to say that in total what he did was odd for town. Why not address Elyse first if there's no reasonable response you'd make that would anything he'd say to Elyse? The only way your response to Alchemist would affect Elyse's "you are framing Llama" vote is if you openly admitted to doing so. And the question of 'do you have any logic to back this up' is a stacked question meant to derail all chances of that wagon happening. Of course no one can manage to have the logic for a wagon this early, especially with Llamas not even posting. No initial wagon has sound logic, and he should know that.

Here's the thing: if alchemist is town, 11 explains what you're trying to do in full. The questions that could be asked is "Why not x person for the kill?" or Elyse's response of "You're framing". Either of these questions help draw the game out of RVS because now there's a counter accusation. Even a vote for llama in that situation is a better response unless he legitimately does not feel comfortable with your vote, in which case he should be voting for you. His question of "do you have any logic" is just counterproductive to your stated intention: Bringing the game out of rvs.

I felt like finishing my interaction with Matt before addressing Elyse's post. Deal with it. Matt gave what I thought was a serious reason for his vote, as I can see a person believing that, and I wanted him to back it up.

My line of thinking was that for Llama to have been the likely enough goto NK that his survival meant he's scum, that would have to mean

A) Most or all of the playerlist knows Llama as a strong Town player.
B) Scum would have reason to believe that a Town Llama with that kind of reputation wouldn't be getting doc protection.

I was waiting for Matt to explain how his logic held up, and then I'd be able to better determine if it would be feasible given A and B.

I was trying to learn his thought process to try and read him. For things somewhat related to our interaction, I concluded he was Town. Now if you think my attempt at getting a read on another player is counterproductive, then you better tell me what you consider productive for a Town player.

[Aj The Epic]

You think he's scummy because he didn't appreciate the routes presented to get us out of RVS? Him engaging me about that concern technically begins moving us out of RVS. And even so, it's so not a big deal if we leave RVS on page one or page 3, you're acting like it's so scummy if someone is counterproductive and you're not even considering the thing we are talking about here is a silly wagon that gets us out of RVS. He wasn't being unproductive about something like setup or NK spec, or something actually that important

My general first objective in a game is to get out of RVS as soon as possible, not as policy but because I dislike RVS. I understand that it was a stupid wagon, but the entire premise from your end would be the wagon is justified for the responses you get. Alchemist took the route of asking questions that were counterproductive and that to me is an issue because I see no reason for why he wanted to be that way or what town-Alchemist gains by asking these questions. And our priorities must be out of sync because I really don't consider setup spec that important, and your 'silly RVS wagon' WAS based on NK spec.

I felt like finishing my interaction with Matt before addressing Elyse's post. Deal with it. Matt gave what I thought was a serious reason for his vote, as I can see a person believing that, and I wanted him to back it up.

My line of thinking was that for Llama to have been the likely enough goto NK that his survival meant he's scum, that would have to mean

A) Most or all of the playerlist knows Llama as a strong Town player.
B) Scum would have reason to believe that a Town Llama with that kind of reputation wouldn't be getting doc protection.

I was waiting for Matt to explain how his logic held up, and then I'd be able to better determine if it would be feasible given A and B.

I was trying to learn his thought process to try and read him. For things somewhat related to our interaction, I concluded he was Town. Now if you think my attempt at getting a read on another player is counterproductive, then you better tell me what you consider productive for a Town player.

This player list is good enough to skip RVS, right?

I think his entire intention was summed up right here, well before you started asking him questions.

But my question to you then is do you see A or B as a reasonable reason to start a wagon or enough for suspicion of Llama to be scum? Neither of these options in my eyes are enough to show Llama has any more chance of anyone else to be scum simply out of Wifom and the arguments aren't a real reason. I get the feeling, however, that you assume either A or B COULD suggest Llama as scum. But on the next page, you stated that anyone agreeing with the wagon would be possible scum.

I think I'm done with Matt for now. I want to address this post:

Orrrrrrrrr

You specifically didn't kill Llama so you could use that excuse to vote him

VOTE: MattP

Elyse, scum trying to frame someone with the NK usually aren't going to push the logic themselves. They wait for Town to pick up on it and then agree with the Townie who says it. If I thought anyone was trying to frame Llama, I'd probably wait to see who agreed with the first one to post the logic.

GIVEN YOUR PREMISE, aren't you saying that there are conditions for you to agree with that wagon?

However, the first issue here is your premise doesn't include yourself: You state you're trying to learn Matt's thought process, suggesting you haven't played with him or at least not much. Then isn't the first question null and void (have you played with everyone on this list)? Did you think anything of the RVS statement?

[Alchemist21]

I think if it could be shown that A and B were reasonably possible, then I could see the case for Llama scum. When he said "good enough to skip RVS" it made me think his vote wasn't RVS. And you need to stop twisting my words around - I asked how many he had played with before, not have you played with everyone before. If he had played with a vast majority of the playerlist it would have lended more credibility to assumption A.

[curiouskarmadog]

So I have found myself without a computer. Which means most of my posting for the next week (or two) will be short as I am doing this by phone. I have not read yet will do so later tonight.

[curiouskarmadog]

Just eye balling this page. Lots of long posts for day 3, this should be interesting

[curiouskarmadog]

I mean page 3

[Aj The Epic]

I think if it could be shown that A and B were reasonably possible, then I could see the case for Llama scum. When he said "good enough to skip RVS" it made me think his vote wasn't RVS. And you need to stop twisting my words around - I asked how many he had played with before, not have you played with everyone before. If he had played with a vast majority of the playerlist it would have lended more credibility to assumption A.

Forgive me for construing that, then. This still doesn't answer my question about the contradiction between your response to Elyse and the conditions that you would accept it possible Llama could be scum.

[Alchemist21]

I think if it could be shown that A and B were reasonably possible, then I could see the case for Llama scum. When he said "good enough to skip RVS" it made me think his vote wasn't RVS. And you need to stop twisting my words around - I asked how many he had played with before, not have you played with everyone before. If he had played with a vast majority of the playerlist it would have lended more credibility to assumption A.

Forgive me for construing that, then. This still doesn't answer my question about the contradiction between your response to Elyse and the conditions that you would accept it possible Llama could be scum.

My response to Elyse was that if Llama was being framed by the NK, then Matt wouldn't be scum since he was hard pushing the logic. Whenever scum want to frame someone, they aren't the first to suggest why the framed person is scum because it calls attention and blame to them when the framed flips Town.

Plus, if A and B were shown to be true, then assumption B (the lack of Doc protection) would mean the optimal play for scum would just kill Llama anyway rather than risk giving him a Day to work things out. A and B being true would point to Llama being more likely scum, and a scumbuddy pointing this out on the first page wouldn't make sense.

In any scenario, I see reasons that would make Matt Town, and Elyse's reason for voting him is something I strongly disagree with.

[curiouskarmadog]

vote MattP

Marq dead? Matt votes Llama (because he should have been killed?).

Marq had your number in the last game we played together....possibly scared for a repeat.

[MattP]

vote MattP

Marq dead? Matt votes Llama (because he should have been killed?).

Marq had your number in the last game we played together....possibly scared for a repeat.

Uh what? My number?

[curiouskarmadog]

what EXACTLY do you not "understand" about my post?

[MattP]

I think I like explicitly stated the part I didnt understand

"understand"

""UnDeRsTaNd"

[Elyse]

It means that Marquis read you correctly last game. I'm guessing you were scum and he caught you.

[MattP]

When I'm scum I don't say anything because I'm scared shitless. Look up my meta of the last year. It's not WIFOMy, it's like an actual serious phobia, I wouldn't be posting content if I were scum

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

What prompted

you

to sign up for this game?

I recently died in my other game. I prefer Normal games. I like Equinox. I like LlamaFluff.

2.)

Since I did not like Elyse's first post ("Poor Marquis"), I decided to check up on her use of the phrase "poor [player]" in case it was a thing she often says when players die. It is not, unless she varies her phrasing. I found two other instances, though:

~

a.)

Mini #1584, Elyse is Werewolf, taunting protown player in endgame ("Poor Aneninen").
~

b.)

Mini #1596, Elyse is Mafia, taunting protown player in midgame ("Poor thing, sorry you got caught").

I would guess Elyse has a habit of taunting / antagonizing players as scum (and here, it could be a "nyah-nyah, I killed you"). If anything, I like her first post less after looking into it.

3.)

Elyse, please explain why Supreme Overlord's Post #33 'rubbed you the wrong way'?

4.)

MattP, you posted plenty of 'content' at the beginning of Prozac's Basic Theme 4: Murder in Marlowe, which is the game I assume curiouskarmadog was referencing. In that game you replaced in as scum, you were lynched Day One, and Marquis was voting for you. On a quick skim, it looks like you posted a good deal at the start and eventually fell behind -- meaning that if this is a meta we can apply to you, it can really only be done after the test of time.

You made this argument at least once before as Town in a Blitz Game (Blitz 8.9), but you did so on Page 47. Why are you trying to make a similar argument here on Page 3?

[Elyse]

I said poor marquis because I have a history of playing with him and wanted to play with him in this game. I was actually sad he died N1.

I didn't like SO's post because the question he asked Llama was pointless. It makes it look like he's being inquisitive and scumhunting when he's not.

[Elyse]

Also just curious how did you search through all my posts for the word poor?

[TKoE]

When I'm scum I don't say anything because I'm scared shitless. Look up my meta of the last year. It's not WIFOMy, it's like an actual serious phobia, I wouldn't be posting content if I were scum

Seems legit, guess he's totally Town guys! Pack it up!

2.)

Since I did not like Elyse's first post ("Poor Marquis"), I decided to check up on her use of the phrase "poor [player]" in case it was a thing she often says when players die. It is not, unless she varies her phrasing. I found two other instances, though:

~

a.)

Mini #1584, Elyse is Werewolf, taunting protown player in endgame ("Poor Aneninen").
~

b.)

Mini #1596, Elyse is Mafia, taunting protown player in midgame ("Poor thing, sorry you got caught").

I would guess Elyse has a habit of taunting / antagonizing players as scum (and here, it could be a "nyah-nyah, I killed you"). If anything, I like her first post less after looking into it.

Interesting, I highly doubt they'd be silly enough to leave such a blatant Scumtell on page 1, however, it might be worth keeping an eye on old Elyse.

[Elyse]

When I'm scum I don't say anything because I'm scared shitless. Look up my meta of the last year. It's not WIFOMy, it's like an actual serious phobia, I wouldn't be posting content if I were scum

I don't like this either. You seem too defensive.

[MattP]

You made this argument at least once before as Town in a Blitz Game (Blitz 8.9), but you did so on Page 47. Why are you trying to make a similar argument here on Page 3?

This is a silly logical point. Why should I say it on page 47 and not on page 3?