Mini 673 - Game Over!

[MadCrawdad]

Hey everyone, I'm replacing Tomato.

---------

Hi all


Had a lot ready to say about the fuzzylightning issue but I guess that's not very relevant anymore... Guess I already have to come up with a new theory

Strife, if you wouldn't mind just touching on the highlights of your fuzzylightning theory... It might prove helpful.

Looking at the post history of the flipped scum, these were they two most interesting posts:

To FaerieLord

Tomatos post 154 and 155 are good posts... how can you see that as lurker prodding?

pickemgenius - Your explanation on the fuzzy vote is lacking, and outside of that you said that it's still the best wagon without explaining why (is it still just that one post?). In addition, no explanations on why the hasdgfas wagon is the second best.

umm p sure the reasoning is there. the scot wagon is ridiculous and im indifferent atm about the has wagon.... the has wagon is second best because:

there are/were 3 wagons, fuzzy,scot, has. I dislike the scot wagon right now, and there is at least a little bit of legitimacy on the has wagon....

I think the comment that looks most like defending a scum-partner would be Simp's defense on Tomato. Not sure if I'm comfortable interpreting peg's quoted post, but it's certainly interesting.

Obviously these comments interest me, as Tomato was my predecessor, but Strife, why, if Tomato and Simpor were scumbuddies, do you think that Simpor would bother to defend Tomato when there was no real pressure on Tomato in the first place?

And what's so interesting about the PEG/Tomato exchange that you posted? Especially since you say that you're not comforatable interpreting it.

Let's say you did feel comfortable, how would you interpet it? Just wondering, because I seriously don't get it...

[MadCrawdad]

@ Stark

Stark, you were the the one who pushed the hardest for fuzzy's lynch on Day 1. Apparently you really thought he was scum...fine.

A couple of your exchanges with Simenon really stood out to me, though:

So scot is scum because he has a bad argument?

Read 151 over. Stop pulling a Designer Mafia.

So he's scum because you just spun a fancy little nature of argument dialectic?

Scot wagon is unfounded.

Why are you opposed to fuzzy?

I still don't see has-reasoning.

In my mind, the only scum I see is fuzzy.

In the post above, you mention that the only scum you see is fuzzy, and you don't see any reason for Sim to be voting Has...

1. Cow should know better than to bring up "the random voting stage", something that doesn't really exist except in the minds of newer players. This comment just seems really forced.
2. Scot's response to this was absolutely right. "are you lazy or just unobservant" was a really snide and unnecessary comment.

3. This is a terrible defense. Pointing out players who are more useless than you does not lessen the burden on you.

4.

1. Tomato is posting enough content given the circumstances.
2. In an attack, I find it more townie to omit an admission of guilt.

Maybe "silly" wasn't right. But something was off about it.

My views on the post haven't changed.

Basically, all has has (hahahaha pun) does this game is demand other players contribute and question why their are votes on him. The fact that he only does the former is the reason for the latter. It's certainly the reason for my vote.

1. Those are all pretty hardcore legit. Do these make him scum, though?

2. Are you atleast 80% confident in Has being scum? If you are, I'll be content to lynch fuzzy tomorrow and switch wagons.

Now in this exchange (above), Sim gives reasons as to why he thinks Has could be scum. You don't necessarily agree that Sim's reasons make Has scummy, though.

The interesting part here, is even though you don't necessarily buy that Has is scum, that if Sim gives you the green-light you'd be willing to hop off of fuzzy (who you've been riding hard all day) and jump onto Has.

Hah, I was right about fuzzy. Maybe not scum, but still anti-town. Winner.


Sim, I am not sure that you're town, but I will 1000% trust you at this point. Do you think sharing your insights into the setup will benefit the town?

Now most recently, you state that you don't necessarily trust Sim as town... Yet, on Day 1 you were willing to jump off of someone that you felt really good about being scum (fuzzy) onto someone you didn't feel so good about (Has) if Simenon gave you the okay to do so. This seems really strange, seeing that you don't even have a good feeling about Sim being town.

What gives?

[MadCrawdad]

This is my new reverse tunnel vision strategy. That's all I can say.

Oh. Okay. Thanks.

Vote: stark

[MadCrawdad]

Here...

Mod, please prod IH & FaerieLord. Thanks.

done

[MadCrawdad]

Also, I just looked it up, and IH posted quite frequently since his last post in this game. He was definately active throughout the site, and he was around before the deadline.

@scotmany

Based on this post above, I took a look at IH's activity between his 9/29 post: 'Will make significant post later' and the 10/6 deadline. During that period he had one insubstantial post in another game (in which he's also being replaced). Everything else by him has been posted in the General Discussion forum...it's probably safe to say that he's bailed on all of his current games.

Having played another game with IH (in which he was a townie who disappeared for REALLY long periods before finally being replaced) I'm not inclined to lynch IH for lurking, as in my experience, that's all he does. Not saying that makes him innocent, just that it's probably not the damning evidence you were hoping for.

What I do find interesting, though, is WHEN you posted the info about IH:


In the exchange with Lord Gurgi below, you claim that Gurgi's refusal to answer your question (due to your seemingly weak case) reinforces your thoughts that Gurgi is likely scum.

Yo. Reread. Scum is fuzzylightning and Simenon. I'll start with Simenon.

Vote: Simenon

.

Mind explaining why?

Meh. Your vote is on me because IH needed replacing, and because he never explained a vote. I don't need to give you anything. Try again when you have some decent reasoning behind yours.

You refusing to explain your vote only gives me more confidence in mine.

Only 6 minutes later you take it upon yourself to do a little digging to try to bolster your case on IH/Gurgi and post this:

Also, I just looked it up, and IH posted quite frequently since his last post in this game. He was definately active throughout the site, and he was around before the deadline.

So, to clarify, Gurgi's refusal to answer your question made you think even more that he's scum, but it did get you to work harder to get you to try to give decent reasons for your vote.

So my question is if Gurgi's refusal was such an obvious scum move, why does it look like you started working so quickly to bolster your case on IH/Gurgi after Gurgi pointed out that it was lacking?

[MadCrawdad]

Regardless this does not change the fact that Gurgi basically refused to explain his vote. When someone asks you to do something, you do it unless you have a good reason not to. Saying you didn't give good reasons for a vote so I won't even explain mine is not a good reason.

The point is, that although you call his move scummy, it seems to have inspired to do some work rather quickly. For disagreeing with him, it looks like you may have been trying to indulge him afterall.

[MadCrawdad]

In addition to Gurgi not giving a reason for his vote, neither has Flameaxe (unless Scot's sexuality really could really have a correlation with his role assignment).

In looking back through all of Flameaxe's posts, I tend to agree with Sim that Flameaxe has been somewhat of a non-entity this game.

@Gurgi & Flameaxe

With a deadline approaching, reasons for your votes would probably be helpful now. Mind sharing?

[MadCrawdad]

Simenon, as you already voted for Flameaxe (claiming that he needed to be pressured) I kind of was expecting you to post a case against him when you returned. Instead you did a pbp on IH/Gurgi.

Does the fact that Gurgi voted for you now make him scummier, in your opinion, than Flameaxe?

[MadCrawdad]

It's time for a list. Or rather, a set of lists. You may call it a list of lists if you are so inclined.

Not Scummy

scotmany12
Simenon
hasdgfas
stark
Tomato/MadCrawdad

Scummy

Haterade/Strife220
IH/Lord Gurgi

Cardboard Cutout

Flameaxe

Feel free to abuse me and demand that I elaborate.

Darox, please elaborate...at least on those you placed under Scummy. Also can you explain whether Flamaxe's 'Cardboard Cutout' status puts him on the Not Scummy or Scummy list.

Mod: please prod Flameaxe.

Thanks.

done

[MadCrawdad]

bump.

I'm down for a has lynch or a crawdad lynch, but those are just intuition.

I would love to hear some other thoughts.

Intuition is great, but I'd like to hear some of your thoughts... Pretty sure that there havent' been any on Day 2, at all. Asking to hear other's thoughts and not giving any of your own seems pretty scummy to me.

Even if you don't have thoughts, some questions would be helpful.

----------

Gurgi, these next posts of yours interest me. Apparently after claiming Simenon was the scummiest, with a little pushing you've jumped onto me, based on Tomato not voting. Almost looks like, with Stark mentioning my name, you might be looking to make any move just to deflect attention from yourself.

At any rate, you've voted for me. Fine. What puzzles me, though, is the major disconnect between the two posts I've shown below. In the first you vote for me, in the second you kind of pull me in to seemingly back up your argument. If you really thought I was scum, would that be a wise thing to do? If scum, I could have just been spewing dog crap, right?

Seems to me that even though you want to, you can't have it both ways... saying 'Madcrawdad is scum,' and following it up with 'even Madcrawdad agrees...' makes you appear to be really hopping around now.

FOS: Gurgi

Hascow is criticising me for being general, strife is criticising me in general terms. Do I have that right?

In other news, I'll move my vote, to MadCrawdad, for Tomato not voting at the end of day one.

Unvote; Vote: MadCrawdad

. To cut off questions at the nub, it's a scumtell that I like.

I'm sorry Scot, but I'm explaining the truth, not what may or may not sound good to you. That's why I didn't explain to you.

MadCrawdad seems to understand what I mean by you scrambling to make an argument

.

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad, I don't see how being suspicious of you precludes me from agreeing with you.

Re-read your post.... you said that I agree with you (not the other way around). Maybe minor wording, but looks like you were pulling me in to back you up... kind of strange, especially if you really think I'm scum. Don't you think?

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad, I don't see how being suspicious of you precludes me from agreeing with you.

Re-read your post.... you said that I agree with you (not the other way around). Maybe minor wording, but looks like you were pulling me in to back you up... kind of strange, especially if you really think I'm scum. Don't you think?

Agreeing works both ways, I'm not going to get into a grammar war here, point is we agreed, but once again, agreeing and suspicion are not mutually exclusive.

I assume that stark is going somewhere with all this.

You said that I'm scum. You accused Scot of scrambling to make an argument. You then said that I agreed with Scot scrambling to make an argument. Regardless of what I said or agreed with, if I'm scum, why would you use anything I've said or done to back you up?

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad, I don't see how being suspicious of you precludes me from agreeing with you.

Re-read your post.... you said that I agree with you (not the other way around). Maybe minor wording, but looks like you were pulling me in to back you up... kind of strange, especially if you really think I'm scum. Don't you think?

Agreeing works both ways, I'm not going to get into a grammar war here, point is we agreed, but once again, agreeing and suspicion are not mutually exclusive.

I assume that stark is going somewhere with all this.

You said that I'm scum. You accused Scot of scrambling to make an argument. You then said that I agreed with Scot scrambling to make an argument. Regardless of what I said or agreed with, if I'm scum, why would you use anything I've said or done to back you up?

Sigh. Just because I suspect you, doesn't mean you can't understand my point of view. I've said this before.

Pretty sure it goes without saying that scum lies, and eveyone who plays the game knows it. If you think someone is scum, you don't start pulling their posts (even those you might agree with) to help bolster your own arguments against another player.

Keep playing like you don't see the real issue here, Gurgi, but something definitely seems off.

[MadCrawdad]

Stark, you've gone from being willing to lynch hasdgfas (which assumes you didn't really believe him to be cop) to now asking his advice (as the cop) and looking to follow it. You accuse hascow of not making firm decisions, but you're all over the place. So far today you've shown inconsistency and wishy-washiness. I feel pretty good with my vote on you at the moment.

bump.

I'm down for a has lynch or a crawdad lynch, but those are just intuition.

I would love to hear some other thoughts.

Oh, stark. Why congratulate yourself on scumhunting and finding a survivor at the beginning of day 2?

Because I'm awesome.

I really want to hear from Sim.

But since he's not here, it seems to me, Has, that Gurgi is your strongest suspect. Would you want to lynch him today, and investigate someone else tomorrow, or lynch someone else today, and investigate him tonight?

The former would be my preference. I'd prefer to lynch strife, because I get a large gut feeling of him being scum in many of his posts. I've mentioned some of them.

About how much, percentage wise, are you sure that Gurgi is scum in speculation?

if I had to give a number, 30%

30? That's it?

Laame. You're the cop, you're supposed to make firm decisions.

Oh well.

So assuming you're telling the truth, which at this point I'm happy to go along with, it means that the following players are confirmed town:

Hascow
MD
stark

Which means everyone else is suspect.

I admit that I have not completely investigated the Gurgi wagon, so that's my next task, at which point I'll draw a conclusion.

But if we're not doing Gurgi today, I am totally down for a Darox lynch, for non-participation.

[MadCrawdad]

Gurgi is right, Crawdad is wrong in the petty debate above. Crawdad's argument is effectively "scum are incapable of telling the truth," which is obviously false.

That's an over-simplification of the argument. My point is that if you think that someone is scum, why would you assume that they would be truthful when pointing out potentially scummy behavior in others? Chances are that if scum, they'd be looking to get someone wrongfully lynched.

So, it strikes me as odd that one would bring suspected scum's comments in as an argument against another player, when such comments would likely have been generated to wrongfully cast suspicion on the third party, in the first place.

[MadCrawdad]

Looks like Gurgi's at -1...

Gurgi, it looks like you'll probably be the one. Anything you'd like to say?

[MadCrawdad]

Any thoughts, Hascow? If there's any truth to Gurgi's claim, and he's lynched, you'd likely be killed tonight (assuming your truthfulness regarding your role).

[MadCrawdad]

The "BBM is a Slow Reader...Still..." Vote Count

Gurgi (4): (strife220, scotmany12, Simenon, hasdgfas)
scotmany12 (1): (BBM)
stark (1): (MadCrawdad)
MadCrawdad (1): (Lord Gurgi)

Not Voting (2): (stark, Darox)

9 alive, 5 to lynch

Deadline on Nov. 3rd
8:00 EST

Mod, I am assuming the deadline is in the PM, and not in the AM... can you please confirm? Thanks.

Yes, PM is correct. Sorry about that.

[MadCrawdad]

I actually plan to post sometime in the near future when my schedule allows.

So Darox, according to your sig, you were offering your services as a replacement in multiple games. You did so knowing that you'd have a busy schedule, and therefore be unable to participate?

[MadCrawdad]

Less than half an hour til deadline and the place is empty. Lots of folks seem to have been watching lately, but not talking and trying to help work things through...

I hate to lynch on a doc claim, but we need a lynch.

unvote, vote: gurgi

This only puts gurgi at -1, so we still may end up with no lynch

[MadCrawdad]

@ scot

Scot, you were talking and going after Gurgi alot early in the day, but once things seemed to get rolling on him you kind of clammed up. Alot transpired between the time you stopped talking and Gurgi was lynched. Clearly you were watching (but not talking) as I remember you correcting a mod vote count later in the day. Why'd you get so quiet?

@darox

So darox, that's your contribution for the day? You post maybe once, refuse to clarify or answer questions and then dive in for the hammer right before the wire. Almost looks like you were waiting to make it for Gurgi to get to -1 before diving in for the kill, don't you think?

@ stark

So stark, who is scum?

[MadCrawdad]

I can see several reasons:

- someone decided not to kill / missed the deadline
- multiple hits on the same person
- someone's role only allowed them a single kill


It might be helpful to know who night killed scum on night 1 (simpor & pickemgenius) to help eliminate them as scum.

[MadCrawdad]

Mod, please prod Flameaxe & Darox. Thanks.

done, and this is the FINAL warning for flameaxe. one more prod=replace.

[MadCrawdad]

I don't see how a vig (or whatever) coming out before mass-claim is useful to town.


I got Stark and Simenon mixed up yesterday it seems - for some reason I thought Stark was the one who said he had 'figured the game out.' Certainly need to give them game a quick re-read before I get a new top suspect.

Strife, how did you come to the conclusion that you got stark and Sim mixed up if you didn't re-read already? I must've missed where someone brought it to your attention.

[MadCrawdad]

Here's what bugs me about your analysis of the players, Darox... the fact that Sim is on it. I assume this was to show us how hard you really were working on Day 2, even though most of us assumed that your cardboard cutout was standing next to that of Flameaxe.

So you've decided to include Simenon in your analysis (as you claim to have started it on Day 2). Fine. Then where the heck is Gurgi on that list? He was one of your suspects, so it would seem to me that you'd likely pull together information on him first.

Apparently knowing that your time was limited, it would make sense to me that you would pull together cases on your suspects before wasting time and effort to say why you thought others were NOT scummy.

Logically you would want to give reasons to lynch your suspects first. So once again, where the heck is Gurgi on that list?

Also, you think Stark is a man of the people? Stark did nothing at all yesterday...didn't even vote. Then comes back and says that Sim was his biggest suspect on Day 2. Funny...he never mentioned it before.

I don't know Stark's role, but the fact that you find him so pro-town is a little off-putting.

FOS: Darox

[MadCrawdad]

Any opinions from your read Leaves?

Not much ideas. If I speak now I'll just be repeating what people have said before.

Also I haven't understood whether there are two scumgroups or one scumgroup and a sk. Could anyone give me an explanation for this?

hp [leaves], I don't really mind if you're repeating what others are saying. Unfortunately your predecessor wasn't very involved for the past two days... Even if you're just repeating what others say, it will help give us a feel for where you stand on anything. Thanks.

[MadCrawdad]

Actually I did it in the order listed on the front page.

I had gotten up to strife by the end of day 2 (Yeah yeah, I'm a terrible procrastinator) and decided there was no point in removing what I had already written on Sim.

There's a pretty good reason for removing what you had written on Sim....he was dead. Much had transpired between the time you had started your analysis and Day 2 ended, so it would make sense that you would UPDATE your analysis accordingly.

Based on what you're saying, you decided not to revise any of your thoughts based on the later part of Day 2...otherwise you would have included analysis on the most current information available for ALL living players.

So given that some of your analysis is apparently just 'old' crap, what's the point? Seriously. By putting out just any old crap, it sure looks like you're just trying to prove to people that even though you're not posting, you're actually doing something.

[MadCrawdad]

I don't think you're getting it.

Since I had already written stuff on Sim, I saw no reason to delete it. I figured there was no point in not sharing what my thoughts on sim were when I had already written them.

I'm not sure how you can think the section on Sim, which you call "'old' crap" (In scare quotes no less) makes the rest of the evaluation irrelevant.

Maybe not irrelevant, but not current... apparently you claim to have finished your analysis (through Simenon) sometime earlier on Day 2. So anything on Flameaxe or Scot would not include any of your observations from later in day 2, right?

[MadCrawdad]

Hello...

Hello...

Hello...

Hey, there's an echo in here.

[MadCrawdad]

On a side-note, I don't see Crawdad's argument against Darox. Doing it in order on the first page makes sense, and I don't see much motivation for scum to do ... whatever you're accusing him of doing.

So someone says that they have limited time and no time to post, but it makes sense to write up analyses on those you think are innocent? Wrong. You analyze and post info on those that you think are scum, and get that information out there, if you want to help the town...

[MadCrawdad]

Mod, please prod Stark, scot, and Leeves. Thanks.

done

[MadCrawdad]

MC:

Who's more likely to be scum?

Darox or Strife?

Hard to say at this point... you mention their popularity, but they're the only other two posting in this game, and happen to be popular with each other.

There's a deadline in 3 days, and half the town hasn't even posted anything on Day 3. Keep going with those rereads, and just post when you get a chance, so we can all just guess away on the day of the deadline.

[MadCrawdad]

Fine by me...

[MadCrawdad]

Fine by me too even though I don't have much to claim.

Well, it looks like you just did

[MadCrawdad]

So you're willing to put someone at -1 and not give a reason? Right. You don't have a couple of spare minutes to even just give a hint? Right.

I believe that deadline is tomorrow, and you're not sure when when you'll actually be able to give a reason. Okay then...

[MadCrawdad]

Strife, that puts you at -1... Anything you want to say?

[MadCrawdad]

He is actually at lynch -2. And yes, I am. I was busy finishing up a paper yesterday, and I thought the deadline was monday for some reason. It simply means I have to post something today instead.

In looking at the most current vote count below, he was already at -2. Your vote puts him at -1.

Vote Count

strife220 (1): (Darox)

Not Voting (5): (stark, strife220, scotmany, [hp]leaves, MadCrawdad)

5 alive, 3 to lynch

Deadline is Nov. 22nd
I'm willing to extend the deadline if activity keeps up

this was a mod mistake it should be 6 alive 4 to lynch