Oldy Mafia (Game Over, who won?)

[Mert]

Sup?

Vote: CES

[Mert]

I can get behind that.

Unvote, Vote: Glork

[Mert]

Not really feeling the CTD wagon if I'm honest. Ythill, you worried that you've got a serial lurker for a scumbuddy or something? I don't really buy your "let's not lynch lurkers because they'll be replaced by unbads" argument - as Yos says, it's pretty much always proper protown play to pressure lurkers into posting.

Since you've made a bit of a "thing" about how you had an actual reason to believe Chamber was scum which was subsequently taken away from you, one assumes you have a similar feeling about Ectomancer, hence your current vote. Am I correct or have you reverted back to voting arbitrarily?

[Mert]

Unvote, Vote: Untrod Tripod

[Mert]

Mert not feeling the CTD wagon, but it was a little early to be not feeling it. After two early votehops (ces, glork) draws attention to Ythill's possible protection of lurkerscumpartner but doesnt switch his vote to Ythill. Moderately scummy. His vote on Tripod is a bit better, if wagony. Eye on Mert.

I don't see why it's too early - while I am certainly an advocate of a good wagon on Day One, when presented with one I still think it's generally a good play to re-examine the player and draw a conclusion. The Glorkwagon is an exception here, simply because it was entirely arbitrary and clearly designed to get the game moving more than anything else but the CTD wagon was being presented almost as though it was the first with some merit. I disagreed that it had merit.

The Tripod vote

was

a little wagony if you want to call it that but, unlike CTD's, it was one which I felt had some reasoning to support it that I agreed with. I strongly disliked the way he presented CTD's points as simply "how the early game goes" and attempted to deflect attention back by calling it inconsistent. Beyond the early pseudo-jokey wagonning, his only contribution thus far has been to repeatedly say it was all a joke in a number of different ways. While it's hardly the kind of watertight case you'd want to lynch somebody over at this early stage, I felt it was easily enough to earn my first proper vote of Day One.

[Mert]

I'm posting this in all of my games - over the past few days I've had something of a family emergency that has severely limited my online time. While I've generally kept up-to-date with all my games by reading on my iPhone, I've not had the chance to post. Fortunately the issue has now been somewhat resolved so I'm currently in the process of getting caught up and writing posts etc. Apologies for my brief absence but, unfortunately, it was unavoidable and I'm now back and in the swing of things. Thanks.

[Mert]

Okay, here are my thoughts from my last content post onward. I'm writing this stream of consciousness style as I read through the game so apologies in advance if I ask or state something which was later addressed. So:

Ecto [174]: Not really fond of this post - seems pretty clear to me what MBL was getting at and this looks like a case of stalling for time with a bit of a deflection.

Ythill [180]: Not entirely sure I'd call it "elaborate groundwork" - stripped down the argument was "pressure lurkers" vs Ythill's "don't pressure lurkers, some of our replacements are good people". It did initially strike me as a possible "welp, my scumbuddy might be a lurker" but my comment on that matter was meant a little offhandedly anyway. This isn't a bad post but it's not a huge tick in the Ythilltown box either.

inHim [183]: Apparently I have a disregard for finger pointing and name calling and this is a cause for concern. I'm not really sure I understand what this part of his post is getting at - sounds flippant and jokey but if I've missed something that is genuinely meant to be directed at me, please say so.

Chamber [192]: Seems to be pushing for the UTwagon after it's already begun subsiding and I'm not entirely sure why. Noting this for later reference more than anything.

Ecto [207]: "My reply is because I'm not" - effectively says he's not contributing simply because he's not contributing. I know this came in an "I'm away for a bit" post so could be null due simply to being rushed but it's noteworthy all the same.

Ythill [208]: Not sure how the two lines he quoted from Glork are mutually exclusive and I'm a little concerned about the way they are presented as such.

--> sidenote: where's CES been in all this? Not seen many posts from him yet after a good couple of pages of content.

Ecto [215]: While Stark did kinda suggest he was stupid, I'm not sure his post was as "full of adhom" as was claimed. Another example of highlighting a reason to deflect whilst not answering the content part.

--> Hmmm, lack of content from IH as well.

Shanba [241]: Not feeling Ectowagon. Not really sure why or how he could not at least think Ecto warrants a further probing.

Shanba [248]: Ah okay, there's the answer.

Ecto [254]: Still stalling for some reason. From his post about reads I got the feeling he was basically saying "I don't use 'when player X says A he is likely scum' type stuff" which is fine but I dislike the way he still hasn't addressed the core issue of who he suspects and why. He's made a lot of posts by this point and ignored the question being asked of him by numerous people.

Chamber/Ythill big back-and-forth... thing. I'm not really sure this is beneficial content from either player, really. Don't know why he thinks Ythill's [267] was "classic scum post" but it mainly seems like fluff regardless.

Yos [286]: I agree with what he says about Chamber regarding the "fishing for a reaction" thing - I don't see how choosing not to reply is not, in itself, a reaction that can be looked into anyway.

CES [294]: Agreed - for what it's worth, I also would have said no to the stupid bet thing whatever my alignment and whatever the situation. Not going to consider Chamber saying no to the bet thing as a tell either way.

UT [298]: Was wondering when he'd show up - he got terribly quiet for a while after his wagon subsided, though that could just be holiday-related. Starts off by saying his Fritz vote was a bunch of crap but then goes on to defend his Fritz vote in some depth, which strikes me as very odd.

General thoughts? Mainly null on the majority of people - Glork, Yos and, to a lesser extent, CDB seem pretty town to me right now. Lack of any kind of read on Fritz but that's exactly what I expected anyway - typical post to say I'll want to hear more out of him as the game goes on which I'm sure has been said a million times on this site by now.

As for the scum, right now I'm going to

Unvote, Vote: Ectomancer

, though I'm still keeping an eye on UT. Ythill and Chamber (no particular order) are people I want to go back and re-read first, as each of those two has had some weird moments in my initial readthrough so I want to poke them a little more thoroughly. Possibly MBL and Flameaxe after that, mainly for gut-related reasons. And yeah, IH needs to post, as though that's of any surprise to anybody at all.

Back and getting on top of things again now so fire away with any questions you have for me or anything I've missed that you wanted me to address while I was away.

[Mert]

This is exactly the response I would expect from Ecto as town. He gets angry. I still think inHim/chamber is the way to go.

First time I ever played with Ecto was in a Newbie. I had him (correctly) pegged as scum right from the start of day one. He got angry then just like he is now and, as a result, managed to convince the rest of the town I was wrong and led them into a scum victory. Not saying it means he's scum in this game because of that specific reason but I don't share your confidence in it meaning he's protown either.

[Mert]

I can do but not until later - it'll take forever to find it on the phone I'm using but I can dig it up when I get home, sure.

inHim - yes it was probably a little redundant to say I don't buy it given the fact I was voting but I was referring entirely toward that line of argument and it seemed a more complete statement. Perhaps a better way of wording it would be to simply point out that the "tell" was itself redundant?