Mini 863 - Space Station Mafia: GAME OVER - EVERYONE'S DEAD

[charlatan]

/confirmed.

[charlatan]

Vote: Sposh

Because, well, I don't think I can outsmart Dexter.

[charlatan]

Vote: Sposh

Because, well, I don't think I can outsmart Dexter.

What makes you so sure you can outsmart either one?

Ha, well, I meant I was associating Sposh with Dexter. I'm rarely "so sure" about much of anything in this game.

Personally, I'm more interested in why an apparently innocent fellow such as Peabody annoys you.

I'm not really super pumped about sifting through anyone's personal dirty laundry, but people having history in games together can prove useful. Almaster, have you and Peabody played together often?

[charlatan]

Ha, well, I meant I was associating Sposh with Dexter. I'm rarely "so sure" about much of anything in this game.

I knew where you got the name from. The way that you phrased your (bs) reason, it sounded like you could outsmart Sposh. Hence the vote.

In that case, I'll strive to be clearer with attempts at cuteness that accompany my RVS votes in the future (probably).

On a more serious note, do you think Hoopla's confusing-but-excellent-random-voting-shake-the-boat technique (I'm hoping the name catches on) actually made her more likely to be scum, or did you see erratic play and decide it'd be a safe place to drop a vote?

More importantly:

Unvote.

Vote: Messiah

Why did you single me out when CooLDoG and CoCo did the exact same thing? As for why I didn't add to or question CoCo's post; there's not really anything to add other than the fact that I agree. Why would I question a comment that I agree with?

My problem with this is that CoCo didn't actually

say

much of anything with that post, nor did he vote. What you're "agreeing" with is the statement that "this stands out", which has almost zero content to it. I would expect to see some sort of question or accusation go along with this. It looks a bit like borrowing someone else's soft suspicion and running with it, getting called on it, and then backpedaling with 'oops, I mistook the definition of the word.'

For the record, I did not find the "apparently innocent" comment to be particularly suspicious.

Minor FoS: CooLDoG

for piling on, but I don't think early-game bandwagons are necessarily a bad thing.

[charlatan]

We're moving quickly now! Sorry if I wall up a bit, but I've got two pages to catch up on. I'll respond as I do.

Yes, I agree that it stood out; and I did ask a question to go along with it.

I don't consider you to have really asked a question. You did in a technical sense but were basically echoing the question that was already on the table from when NAW asked about it.

I wasn't backpedaling, I legitimately misinterpreted what milkshake meant due to the word having more than one common meaning. Is the sentence you put in apostrophes suppose to be some kind of paraphrase?

Yeah, I was basically paraphrasing, but you shouldn't take me too seriously when I do that. Basically I don't buy that you misinterpreted that post, because all definitions aside it seemed clear in context that milkshake wasn't even talking about in-game alignment. Saying "peabody annoys me" has nothing to do with whether or not he's scum and everything to do with his personality and/or playstyle, so "apparently innocent" doesn't even make sense if milkshake were talking about him being town-aligned versus him basically not seeming like a jerk.

------

Happy Birthday, NAW. By all means, play drunk. It works for Zorblag.

------

On a more serious note, do you think Hoopla's confusing-but-excellent-random-voting-shake-the-boat technique (I'm hoping the name catches on) actually made her more likely to be scum, or did you see erratic play and decide it'd be a safe place to drop a vote?

You said confusing right? Why would a town want confusion? I did not vote for her for either reason. I voted because she refuses in a silent kind of way, to not to answer my questions.

I don't think confusion helps the town, but I do think town are more open to seeing where strange play leads, whereas I would expect scum to vote based on it quickly. As for her dodging of questions, that's far more legit IMHO.

Why is everybody attacking Messiah, when CooLDoG did the exact same thing? He asked a question. Sposh started the bw on Messiah, because he did not ask a question, when he did. I hate it when people attack one person for a certain action, when other people do the exact same thing.

I wouldn't agree that CooLDoG did the same thing at all. The placement of prior votes does make a difference. He made an effort to explain his vote and said he wanted to see a bandwagon form for pressure. While saying you want pressure means your vote is useless for pressure, I think that's more ineffective play than it is scummy.

Minor FoS: CooLDoG

for piling on, but I don't think early-game bandwagons are necessarily a bad thing.

Why the FOS than?

It was too early to tell if this bandwagon was a bad one. Right now I don't think it is.

-------

I actually tried to decode Hoopla's message and failed (I suck at that anyways.) If it's one letter per word that must be quite the long message. I'm hesitant to believe that someone started the game with information that definitively pointed to Messiah as scum so early in the game. For now I'm gonna roll with it because I like the Messiah bandwagon right now, but I will not at all support a lynch without us knowing what this is all about. And a lot more discussion before that, even.

[charlatan]

Wait. So you agree with the bw on milkshake. If that is the case why didn't you pile on?

I don't agree with it. I also think it's scummy. However, I don't think it's going to end in a lynch and so it's proving useful for information purposes. I won't contribute my own vote, but I don't think it's going to hurt us in the end.

I find this paragraph scummy. You are hesitant to believe the reason the bw is there and yet you still want it to be around. Isn't this almost contradictory?

unvote
vote charlatan

No offense, but you should re-read the thread. Hoopla's "code" isn't the reason the bandwagon is there at all. It's a contributing factor, but Sposh and I both voted before Hoopla, for reasons stated in the thread. To reiterate, I thought Messiah's vote was easy and opportunistic.

------

Speaking of which, where is Messiah?

p.s. Also NAW, Peabody, and CoCo. I miss you guys!

------

njot convinced on messiah at all! I want to know the case on him before I vote. I am now really not liking hoopala because she ( I decided to look) has still yet to answer to how she has information. Most games have a doc, I have yet to play a game without some type of doc, this is lob's first game so I don't think he would try some un-orthodx setup. So I would see no harm in leting hoopala tell us what info she has, not her role just what info she has.

From my end, I placed my initial vote because I didn't like Messiah's vote. Whether Peabody is annoying or not is not the same question as whether or not he's scum, and the wording of milkshake's question about that was the basis for Messiah's vote. Also yours, though you expressed a desire to see a bandwagon form for information purposes, whereas Messiah backed off that vote in a hurry as soon as there was any pressure about it. Hoopla's apparent (ha ha) insider info has increased its strength.

While we're on the subject, however, I am not even convinced that Hoopla believes Messiah is scum.

Hoopla, in the event that you're not doing what I think you might be: is there room for error (or misinterpretation) with the information you have, or are you 100% certain?

[charlatan]

Unvote.

L-2 is better than L-1 at the moment.

AlmasterGM, care to elaborate on why you don't like CoCo or Peabody?

[charlatan]

Sorry for walling again, guys. I've only got net access a few hours a day this week, so I have to try and really be here with one post every few pages, which sucks. Soon it'll all be over and I'll be concise and frequent.

.
2/3 - I hate the "defensive" argument - it generally ends up indicting jumpy/newb townies way more than scum.

This I do agree with. Everyone can get defensive. It's a nulltell. I consider anyone using it as part of a case on someone to be making an anti-town argument. I don't see that that's happened yet, though.

-------

So how can you say that bw was scummy if you also say that the bw wasn't a bad one.

I feel like I said this already, but obviously I have not communicated clearly. "Bad" and "good" here are more complicated than you're apparently willing to admit. I'm defining "good" as something that will be ultimately beneficial to the town. It's not good that players place scummy votes, but from my point of view if there is no danger of a scummy bandwagon going to a lynch (and that one didn't have the votes) then it helps us gain valuable information, and thus in the end helps the town. So I'm not afraid to watch it continue for a bit, within bounds. Does that make sense to you?

------

He's right about one thing though. Hoopla shouldn't just leave us hanging! No one seems to have the guts to hammer, and scum aren't doing it (because they either don't want to lynch their scumbuddy, or don't want to get cought hammering town.)

I don't like this at all. It ignores another possibility completely -- that scum are already on the wagon and

can't

hammer. Three options here: 1) You're scum and you know that additional scum aren't on the wagon. 2) You're scum and there

are

scum on the wagon, but you don't want us to consider that. 3) You're a townie that had a momentary lapse in logic.

------

I've been put at L-1 and asked to claim because of Hoopla's code. Your and Sposh's "case" certainly weren't the driving factor. Neither of you have given convincing reasons as to why I would be a good lynch, even to the point of some parts of your cases being completely untrue and/or nonsensical.

I have not yet said that I think you're a good lynch for today. In fact, right now I don't think we've reached a point where we can call anyone a good lynch. If I did think you were a good lynch right now, I wouldn't have unvoted you. I'm not in a hurry. However, you have never really changed my mind that your vote was opportunistic and based on something that has nothing to do with the game (whether or not Peabody is "annoying"). It seemed like an easy way to run with CoCo's ball and still get that cozy first-on-the-bandwagon spot. That was more than enough for a vote two pages in, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I'm trying to look at the bandwagon from different angles, but you've mostly ignored the point I tried to make way back in the beginning. Mistaking the definition of a word is not a defense, because I'm not talking about that -- I'm talking about the fact that regardless of the definition of the word, they were not talking about in-game alignment but rather personality traits, and voting based on it was scummy and easy. Do you have an actual response to this, or will you just continue to say it's nonsense? (Hint: I consider an actual response pro-town and dismissive behavior anti-town.)

------

Hoopla: You ducked the end of my post 171.

[charlatan]

CoCo wasn't the first one to mention it and I wasn't the first one on the wagon, either.[/quote[

Yes, you're totally correct. It completely slipped my mind that NAW mentioned it

and

voted first. However, the reason I'm not concerned with NAW's post is that I considered it part of the RVS anyways.

Don't put words in my mouth, at no point have I said this point was nonsense. But yes, looking at it now I understand that it wasn't really game-related; at the time it stood out to me more than anything else that had been said all game, especially after he avoided answering NAW's question about it.

Re: "nonsense", I'm referring to this quote:

Neither of you have given convincing reasons as to why I would be a good lynch, even to the point of some parts of your cases being completely untrue and/or nonsensical.

Which parts are completely untrue and nonsensical, to clarify for me? Honestly, I don't even consider myself to be pushing a case on you at all, but you make reference to one, so can you also summarize for me what you think my (and Sposh's, if it helps you) case is? I voted you solely for the shady vote and am now considering the validity of Hoopla's claim in regards to re-applying my vote to you.

...So you think me and hiphop have been hardcore bussing eachother? Thats, uh, interesting..

How's it interesting? Scum bussing each other Day 1 is perfectly plausible.

[charlatan]

Okay, getting some much stronger town reads on a few people, and a few better scum reads.

Honestly, I don't even consider myself to be pushing a case on you at all, but you make reference to one, so can you also summarize for me what you think my (and Sposh's, if it helps you) case is?

-Jumping on(Parroting?) CoCo(NAW?)
-Scummy/easy vote on something that was likely not even game-related.
-Backpedaling

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, that's basically it. However, with Hoopla's admission that she was lying, the jig is up. I wanted to see some pressure applied, too. I think you're probably a townie. If not, you're good at keeping your cool under the spotlight. Either way, I'm moving on from this, unless you'd like to revisit it at another time.

------

I believe it was VPbaltar who told me that if a town has bad case on an individual, than it is the town's civil duty to tear the case to pieces.

The problem with this statement is that you didn't tear anything to pieces. All you've really done it taken seemingly random potshots at several different players in an unfocused, wild manner that doesn't seem to have any advantages from a town perspective. If I misunderstand your strategy, please educate me, but it does seem more likely that you're making shallow and frantic accusations all over the place to see what sticks. Your insistence that Messiah is not scum is particularly damning, regardless of her alignment. Here are the possibilities I see:

1) You're both scum. You wanted to derail your scumbuddy's wagon.

2) You're scum, she's not. You wanted to derail it to buddy up OR didn't want to be on a wagon that you knew would end in a townie lynch.

3) You're not scum and you don't know her alignment. You truly do not find anything she's done this entire game remotely worth investigation or pressure, though you've attacked other players for atom-thin reasons throughout Day 1.

I find the first two possibilities more likely.

I did not point out these issues with your play when you were attacking me because I wanted to see how easily you'd drop your "case" on me if I neglected to imply that I think you're anything other than a townie. The fact that your mind is changed so easily tells me you're not thinking through your accusations.

------

I like Milkshake for a scumbuddy right now. Reading him/her in isolation, they basically have done nothing today but go with the flow and call for full disclosure from Hoopla. The rest of Milkshake's energy has been devoted to a strangely amicable debate with HipHop, which I'd encourage everyone to read in isolation. It appears to be an argument on the surface, but neither makes any indication of suspicion about the other or casts votes. It looks like distancing without the risk.

------

I'm inclined to believe that Hoopla is not gambiting scum at the moment, but I'll be watching closely in the upcoming days. Lying (even if you call it a gambit) is still lying, and this move would make sense from a scum perspective as well as town perspective.

------

In conclusion:

Vote: HipHop

[charlatan]

Oh, and another point about Milkshake I forgot before:

I think Messiah and hiphop are scum buddies *shrug*.

I think they're probably sticking to the Messiah vote after all this time in hopes that the Little Bandwagon That Could still runs up a townie lynch, but tossing hiphop into the mix for a little bit of added distance.

[charlatan]

My bad, sorry Messiah. I saw the female in the avatar and missed the icon. I'm pretty bad with keeping genders straight because, like Lady GaGa, I am both male and female simultaneously.

(Not really.)

[charlatan]

Your insistence that Messiah is not scum is particularly damning.

Must I spell it out for you. Not once did I ever say Messiah is not scum, nor I did I say he was town. That is just ruining my name. Not just in this game, but in the world, when somebody makes an accusation that isn't true, even if it is proven to be false, everybody still has the doubt that it is. Do not put words in my mouth. I did say that the case against him was based on lies. Don't make accusations that are untrue.

I'm referring to you saying he was "not even mildly suspicious". Even if we agree not to split hairs over syntax, the rest of my argument stands.

[charlatan]

I'm referring to you saying he was "not even mildly suspicious". Even if we agree not to split hairs over syntax, the rest of my argument stands.

There is no rest. You attack my style, which I dare you to look at any of my games, besides the first one (I didn't own a computer then), and you will find it is the same, so I don't know how I am scum now.

What I said about your buddy behavior with Messiah has nothing to do with play style. It's true that you could be a frustrated townie who's out of the loop, but scum seems more likely.

Also, if this is how you play regardless of alignment, you should consider a different tactic.

And you say well soandso and I can be scum, which basically can be said about everybody.

You can say it about anyone, but it won't make equal amounts of sense. And you and milkshake makes plenty of sense to me right now.

"not even mildly suspicious"- which basically says he is as suspicious as anybody else.

That one's totally off in left field. If you believed that everyone else is also "not even mildly" suspicious, you wouldn't have called the actions of anyone else scummy (you have) and you wouldn't have cast any votes (you have). I would be incorrect in saying this only in the event that you did not mean it a single time when you pointed out allegedly scummy behavior in others this game. Is that the case?

To me, hiphop has said and done some scummy things, but I can't support a lynch on him yet because i feel that both AGM and Empking are clearly more deserving of a lynch today.

How are they clearly more deserving? Fill me in on how you read them, please.

[charlatan]

NAW: Your AGM analysis is persuasive. I'll have to re-read him in isolation. (Shouldn't take long.)

If you're unfamiliar with Empking, though, I suggest you read up on his meta a little. He's always "minimalist", as it were.

[charlatan]

@charlatan
It's fine if he is a minimalist, but not giving clear reasons doesn't help us out. If he has info/speculations, I don't see how keeping it to himself help us out at all.

No, it doesn't help us at all. I don't think it's pro-town behavior, but my point is that he does it as scum or town, unfortunately, so I'd be hesitant to vote based on that alone (and am pointing it out because I think everyone should consider it).

By the way, if you don't buy my Messiah/hiphop thing (best I got at the moment), I'll be happy to switch to the other half of that. (And vote hiphop)

You should vote where you feel your vote is best served. Offering to switch your vote to the bandwagon I'm on does nothing to make me less suspicious of you. I get the feeling you're trying hard to fly under the radar (down to not really responding to my accusation with anything except the assertion that people are mean these days).

-------

At this point in time, I'd support a lynch of hiphop, AGM, or milkshake, though milkshake less so than the other two. Re-reading AGM doesn't help him much, and I always get a scumdar ping from players who expend lots of energy going after lurkers early in the game. I don't think it can safely be considered a scumtell to lurk at this time, but I do think it's an easy place for scum to try and run up wagons.

I'm going to stick with my hiphop vote at the moment, but I'm on the fence between hiphop and AGM now.

[charlatan]

Responding to questions and accusations is pro-town, but posting content only when under fire is not.

[charlatan]

Well my vote isn't serving at all if it's all lonely! But if we lynch messiah, and he flips scum, it's almost like we know hiphop is scum for free (in my opinion.)

The reverse is not true... hence my messiah vote.

Hm, can you explain to me how, in your opinion, Messiah-scum equals hiphop-scum, but and why the opposite is not true? If you feel you've already explained it clearly before, please humor me and summarize it once more.

[charlatan]

EBWOP: There was an extra "but" in that post that does not belong there. Oops.

[charlatan]

@AlmasterGm- I think about it differently. Shades of innocent.

Then you both think of it the same way. It's the same spectrum, guilty to innocent, and even if you see things as "shades of innocent" then you necessarily see some as less innocent (therefore more guilty) than others. You've not only not countered AGM, but you've essentially contradicted your statement from before.

[charlatan]

Then you both think of it the same way. It's the same spectrum, guilty to innocent, and even if you see things as "shades of innocent" then you necessarily see some as less innocent (therefore more guilty) than others. You've not only not countered AGM, but you've essentially contradicted your statement from before.

How?

Before, you said that "guilty" is an absolute term, a black/white sort of thing. Like if someone's guilty, they're guilty, no shades of it. However, what we're talking about is

perceived

guiltiness, and so if you believe that someone can be less innocent or more innocent than someone else, then that also means they can be more/less guilty (it's the same thing).

[charlatan]

Also milkshake, are you miscounting again? He's at L-2. You can't hammer right now.

[charlatan]

Well, for what it's worth I'd expect that scum would be awfully hesitant to hop on the end of a bandwagon that's going to lynch a scumbuddy on Day 1 if there's any chance it might derail. It's got to be quite the blow to morality. Though, on the flipside, it might be that they are already on board and that's why the bandwagon has grown so quickly. I'm feeling good with where my vote's at right now, though.

[charlatan]

Err, blow to morale, I meant.

[charlatan]

L-1 is not actually a big scary thing unless you make it one. Someone quickhammering before a claim would be extremely suspicious.

[charlatan]

Whoooo yeah we got that scum! *dances*

The no kill is incredibly odd. Either we've got a town RB or a town Doc, I think. Question: would it be advisable for them to claim with their night action so we can automatically get rid of another scum?

No. That's not a good suggestion at all. Run the possibilities through your heard and tell me you don't see why that's a bad idea. What if there's a doc? How does that help us catch scum? I don't think you thought the question through, which bothers me a little.

------

Okay, on to general observations. I would expect that scum wouldn't want to vote as a block on Day 1, and I'd also think that they would not want to lose hiphop if there was a chance of avoiding it. So, everyone who avoided the hiphop wagon without strong reasons for doing so's scum-stock will go up in my book though, granted, not much. I'm going to have to re-read Day 1 with fresh eyes now, though.

-----

My current preference is a policy lynch on Empking or CoCo. I think we can afford it.

I am not totally unopposed to this, but by my watch it's a little too early to go on a lurker hunt. We're more likely to hit town than scum, and if we have the lynch to spend now, we'll probably have it to spend up the road, too. Since we nailed scum on Day 1, I feel confident we can do better for ourselves than a flip of the coin with two lurkers at the moment.

------

I need to re-read and rethink my list, because AGM hammered quickly. This doesn't clear him, but I just don't think how him doing this would have helped scum.

Any time a scum lynch is inevitable and they can get away with it, it's in their best interest to hammer quickly to limit discussion and maybe gain townie cred, in my opinion.

Also the thought of a SK is little in my mind, and the thought of a doc is high.

SK? Please explain, because I don't see where you'd get that at all.

[charlatan]

@charlatan
I'm saying that there is pretty much no chance of their being a serial killer in this game. We probably would have a kill if there was.

Oh, sorry, I think I misinterpreted the comment. I took it to mean you were thinking about it a little, as in you had a bit of a suspicion there was one. Thanks for clarifying.

[charlatan]

Indeed. That's why we definitely don't want anyone claiming right now, though I am inclined to think it's unlikely that scum no-killed last night after losing a person.

And here's the thing. I'm not sure I should even point this out, but did anyone else notice hiphop's lack of an actual role? This is what we got upon the reveal:

hiphop (lynched Day One)

-

MAFIA

This suggests to me that they're all the same role, which almost certainly means they're all goons (in other words, no scum roleblocker.) Not that we should ignore the possibility of one, but it's surely worth noting.

[charlatan]

I'd totally be down with a CoCo vote. He needs to either die or post and then die, like, NOW.

This is completely asinine.

You've been gunning for CoCo and Peabody since Day 1, and in both cases it seems to be for personal reasons relating to other games. I have seen little to no evidence to indicate that you have even given any consideration to their alignment. You seem to actually believe that you have made cases against them, based on this quote:

I don't see how you can criticize me not liking Peabody and CoCo given that I've made legitimate arguments against them and they are both scummy.

But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)

On Day 1 I was content to mostly ignore this stuff because I was hoping you'd get over it, but so far you haven't.

[charlatan]

But, really you haven't. Your entire case is your post nine (in isolation), which is hard to take seriously for a variety of reasons (which I would be happy to explain if I must.)

Please do explain.

Sure. I'll do a rundown of your mentions of both of them up until the point you claimed you had made a case against them.

Post 3: Self-proclaimed non-random vote on Peabody because he "annoys you."
Post 4: An affirmation that you are voting him for personal reasons.
Post 5: Saying you'd kill Peabody with DK powers for mispelling your name if you could.
Post 6: Saying you "don't like" Peabody and CoCo. Because we hadn't figured that out.
Post 8: Jumping on the Messiah bandwagon and prematurely asking for a claim, though reiterating once again that you don't like them.

Up until that point, your attacks on them were 100% personal in nature. You'd established from the get-go that you want them dead.

Post 9 is bigger. The whole of your CoCo case in this post is that he's lurking and that he did something in a previous game that "annoyed you." If you want to lynch him because he's lurking, okay, that has its merits and is not a problem. Pretending that there's more to your case than that, however, is nonsense.

Your Peabody case is essentially that you did not like that he thought hiphop's erratic, jumpy, and defensive behavior was scummy (which, by the way, several us did, and we were right). The other main point was his unexplained CooLDoG vote (which was definitely anti-town), but he

did

deliver the promised explanation when he caught up, in my mind making that a moot point.

From minute 1 you were gunning at these guys, though you took a break to jump on the Messiah bandwagon when it started picking up steam (with no explanation except that you believed Hoopla) and again on the tail end of the hiphop bandwagon after a lengthy theory debate.

Keep in mind, I think a lurker lynch is a viable option for us. Pushing a lurker lynch is not scummy. Pushing a lurker lynch and pretending it's something else, however, is.

In case you're wondering why I'm bothering to spend so many words on this, I think your voting history is suspect given the day's flip. Messiah became a very convenient vote when Hoopla gambited, and you followed the leader without even bothering to give any reasons of your own. When hiphop started to come under fire, you gave a vague "liking hiphop less and less by the post" (perhaps laying the groundwork for a later accusation without actually explaining anything?) then eventually argued with him about theory for a bit before hammering. A hammer does not impress me. It was obvious where the bandwagon was headed, and for someone who will vote based on so little and claim it's a solid case, I found it odd that you would scuffle with hiphop so much (easily the most active period of Day 1 for you) without casting a vote until the last possible minute.

Vote: AlmasterGM

[charlatan]

I don't see why my idea was so bad! I mean, sure, we'd have a townie roleblocker or doctor out in the open, but we'd also be down one more scum. Surely that's worth something, right?

We wouldn't necessarily be down one scum at all! For instance, if there was a doctor AND a roleblocker, the roleblocker might block a townie but we'd still have no night kill. The scum could also choose to no kill in order to try and draw out a claim (and possible frame a townie, too). There are a bunch of different situations in which we could have no kill without a claim pointing to scum.

I think it's extremely suspicious that you are pushing for it, really. If you were scum that purposely chose a no-kill, this would be exactly what you want.

[charlatan]

On page 14: Very little scumhunting.

[charlatan]

Empking, you reckon I could get you to give us a little info on where your suspicions lie? I get Messiah for the hiphop connection. Who else do you have your eye on?

Just give us more to work with than a sentence here or there.

[charlatan]

The whole of my response to your response can be summed up with a response to one question:

Once again, when I have ever pretended my votes were more than they were? I've made it very clear up front what my intentions are.

You've pretended that you actually considered the game and made a case on them, but there's everything to suggest you haven't. For instance, you've explicitly stated that CoCo is scum. You're really, seriously, 100% sure a person is scum because they pissed you off in another game and are lurking? Does this happen to you every game? Next game, will you vote for me this one?

The problem is, all you're doing is dragging some childish, petty grudge from previous games into this one. You're not scumhunting. You're trying to settle a score.

Now, the hilarity of this is that

your attacks on CoCo and Peabody have almost nothing to do with why I think you're scummy

. I think it's early for a lurker lynch, but who knows, hitting scum there is possible. I think your behavior towards them is anti-town and obnoxious, but not necessarily a scumtell. The bigger issue for me is your voting record, which you did not have much of an answer to. To recap, you jumped on the very convenient Messiah wagon despite being oh-so-sure that CoCo was scum and then, the big one, you refused to vote hiphop until the last possible second despite the fact that, in every other case so far, it has taken virtually (or literally) nothing to for you to vote someone.

Oh, also, you only post more than a sentence when someone's on your case. If nobody accused you of anything, you'd probably lurk along with the rest of them.

[charlatan]

Bussing seems to be the scumtell of the month. Why do people not look at those NOT on the wagon after a scum lynch?

I'm fine with that. However, I'd like to see an actual case be made on one of those people as opposed to "policy lynch!" Go for it. I believe you've got it in you.

-----

When have I ever pretended anything? I've been 100% clear about my biases.

Mostly when you say things like:

I don't see how you can criticize me not liking Peabody and CoCo given that I've made legitimate arguments against them and they are both scummy.

My point is that you had not made legitimate arguments and you had not shown them to be scummy. If you want us to go along with you, prove your points instead of repeating ad nauseum that you don't like them.

Yeah, because there was SO MUCH scumhunting going on in the first four pages.

We're now on page 15, so you're welcome to start.

The only thing left you can harp on is my hiphop vote, which basically means you're saying "hammering scum is a scumtell." This makes no sense whatsoever.

No, hammering scum is a nulltell. A scumtell would be voting for weak, weak reasons repeatedly, then holding off on the one vote that matters until the very last possible second. It just looks like scum was backed into a corner and decided you'd cut your losses.

I don't like this post at all.

Unvote: Vote: Sposh.

I guess you're just trying to keep up your streak of not explaining anything? What don't you like about the post, aside from the fact that he points to you in it?

------

Sposh: Were you going to vote?

You didn't have my eye Day 1, but reading you in isolation Day 2 is rather damning. Your first post was celebrating the lynch flip and then saying we've either got a town RB or a doc (conveniently ignoring the possibility of scum no-lynching to draw out a claim or setting up a fakeclaim, or of someone being a commuter or something, however unlikely that may be), and then fishing for a power role claim after that.

[charlatan]

Messiah; He's certainly scummy but not the scummiest.

Who's the scummiest?

------

I don't know what a commuter is I just didn't see why the mafia would have not shot anyone if they could have especially when they lost someone day one!

I've explained this. It would be a gutsy move on the part of scum, but they could no-kill and then potentially set up a mislynch or let one occur naturally. There are also lots of ways we could've dodged the night kill without a doc or roleblocker or scum choosing a no-kill, though they are all less likely. The most likely explanation IS that we have a doc or roleblocker that chose well, but it would be a bad idea to out them now, especially as it's only Day 2 and they very well may mess up scum again. It's scummy to insist that we out our power roles.

------

I'm liking Hoopla's take on Empking. Coupled with the lurking, it's a pretty strong case for a lynch.

------

I also support Messiah's case on AlmasterGM in addition to my own. He's my top lynch candidate at the moment, but I'd also go for Empking or Sposh at this time. New blood replacing CoCo and/or NAW might change my take on this, but right now I'm feeling pretty strongly that all three are good chances to hit scum.

[charlatan]

Char: Messiah, barely.

Char; Hoopla's case is clearly a lie since it was refuted even by the quotes he himself provided. Why do you think its a good case?

How do the quotes provided refute it?

The case makes perfect sense to me. Messiah was, as I've stated before, a perfectly safe place to rest a vote based on very little. I'm not convinced of the Messiah/hiphop bussing theory, as I suspect hiphop could've buddied up with any townie that had the spotlight on them.

Saying "Never furthered the wagon" when he knows for a fact I did even though I wasn't on the wagon at the time of the lynch.

How did you further the wagon?

[charlatan]

This is getting more interesting. I'm pretty much where I was last time I checked in. Thoughts on recent developments:

The idea that Hoopla derailed the hiphop wagon doesn't really hold water, since Hoopla's gambit was instrumental in pushing him over the line from "kinda sketchy" to "very sketchy", and his response to the gambit was, at least for me, the final nail in the coffin. I suspect I'm not alone in this. He was tossing accusations left and right for thin reasons (except for the Messiah semi-protection), but the fakeclaim outed him pretty thoroughly. As scum, he could be 100% sure that Hoopla was pulling something if Messiah is town and know he'd be proven right sooner or later, which would be reason to jump at Hoopla with a vote before learning more (which he did). This scenario makes the most sense to me, and also contributes to my thinking that Messiah is probably town. Empking's assertion that he contributed to the bandwagon by mostly avoiding it and that Hoopla derailed it by fueling it is not a good thing.

hmmmm..... AMG is at l-2 never notted that, maybe we should take some action on him,

So, I'd be willing to vote Empking over most people, but Almaster is not to be ignored. He's at L-2 now and, rather than defending himself anymore, has "conceded" the two cases against him and dropped off the radar. This makes me think that the he believes the new Empking/Hoopla argument (which is overshadowing him now) will draw attention away and he can skate on. Townies should never ignore or "concede" points raised against them; if nothing else it denies us the discussion, which we always need. I'm not satisfied that my vote has run its course yet.

[charlatan]

I looked back and I can't find him jumping on Hoopla with a vote about the Messiah situation, so I'm not sure what you're thinking here. Overall you are working toward the same thing that Messiah was just saying earlier...

I think I wasn't clear. I wasn't talking just about the encrypted quote. I'm referring to when she voted erratically a few times in a row (including for a player who isn't in the game) and he jumped on the opportunity to stick a vote there immediately (without even explaining why he thought her voting was worthy of a vote). After this she said she had information incriminating Messiah, and hiphop stuck to his guns vs. Hoopla for several posts before voting elsewhere.

This can be interpreted as him sticking up for a scum buddy or buddying up to town by not going with the Messiah wagon, but with the post-flip knowledge of his alignment both of these options really only make sense in the context of him knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) that Hoopla was making something up.

To distill it all to a single point: Hoopla's Day 1 play magnified hiphop's scummy behavior by a large amount and does not at all seem to me to have been an attempt to derail that bandwagon.

------

Almaster and Empking I wouldn't mind being lynched. The thing about Almaster is he is playing just like his meta. He was town in the game I played with him, and he still did one-liners. Everyone tended to see him as scummy. As for Empking, I am not liking the way he is pushing his cases.

To clarify, I am not voting him for one-liners. I am not sure who is.

------

Note this fun part of the anti-Sposh case where Almaster indicts himself:

8) Votes for me based on something that I've been doing for the entire game because it suddenly affects him.

The "something" is voting without explanation, which Almaster confirms he's been doing all game. I consider this a scumtell, if I haven't mentioned it by now.

------

That said, Almaster's case on Sposh is interesting. He's basically correct about a lot of things, and Sposh's Day 2 play has been questionable. Even the fact that Sposh has just corrected Almaster's quoting repeatedly is a little suspicious in my opinion, since Almaster posted a correction already and this would suggest that Sposh isn't reading the game (at least not closely.)

This is probably a ditch effort to deflect attention elsewhere when he's close to a lynch, and the claim does nothing for me, but since I also find Sposh scummy I'm in a bit of a predicament in that I don't think now is a logical time for Almaster to try and run a bus over a scumbuddy. I guess I'm bogging myself down in WIFOM in that case, as my gut says he wouldn't do this but that instinct would be helpful if they

were

buddies. I'll have to watch Sposh more closely in addition to rereading.

[charlatan]

Nobody's suggesting your a bad person. I'm sure you're a very nice person.

[charlatan]

you're/your.

Ick.

[charlatan]

More votes on Sposh, please. His responses to my case are awful.

Care to back this up with facts?

Your responses were, indeed, not good. For instance:

1) hiphop said a lot of things and talked to and about a lot of people. There is one person, however, he avoided talking to and about - Sposh. He only responds Sposh twice, and both posts about extremely trivial matters, almost as if the conversation was forced.

I cannot help what hiphop does. How is that my fault??

This implies that we shouldn't be examining connections between players because one person's actions/attitude towards are "not the fault" of the other, which is silly. Of course we're going to look at who confirmed scum protected, attacked, or ignored.

Your responses to most of his other points along the lines of "hiphop said that, not me" (irrelevant, since Almaster corrected the quotes) or "I'm just asking questions", which is not a defense. If you ask scummy questions, you're scummy.

Another player is also responding poorly to the vote against him:

ebwop: last line should read: So for the LAST time why are you voting me, and as a command or I WILL vote post your case in your VERY NEXT post.

CooLDoG, what about his posts are you not considering an answer? From where I'm sitting, he seems to have answered your questions, and you seem to just be repeating them again and again, albeit talking like an action hero more and more with each post.

[charlatan]

So I could vote for you for be "just scummy" char? And one point is never good for me. The reason why I don't vote him already is because with me on board agm is at l-2, thus I don't want to let him get of scot free. I would really like a role claim without giving the scum a chance to hammer by going to l-1.

He already roleclaimed. He claimed vanilla townie.

Empking is not voting you for "being scummy". He's said the following things about you:

1) Not scumhunting
2) Ignoring questions
3) Not reading the thread
4) Potential scumbuddies with Hoopla
5) Hypocritical vote (saying Empking didn't vote two days when you hadn't voted in three)
6) Refusing to respond to the case and instead writing it off as OMGUS

How do you figure that's not a case? Did you just not read it? And how did you miss that Almaster claimed? Are you even paying attention at all?

[charlatan]

Once again CooLDoG somehow forgets we already saw Almaster claim.

Hoopla's insistence that CooLDoG not push for an Almaster claim means we can add her to the list of people probably not paying attention to the game.

[charlatan]

Welcome, Howard. Glad to see you jumping right in!

Eh, sorry. I have been reading, but I have been more focused on my other game to be honest. I missed his claim.

This bothers me, since his claim was mentioned in about five other posts. It's ironic that you'd push for a lurker lynch on a person who is significantly more involved than you today.

This game is stagnating - we have votes all over the place, and nobody seems to be interested in budging. Those who are not feeling fully confident about their current votes should make better use of them.

I, for one, got inactive over the weekend because I was doing shots with rockstars and hitting on girls dressed as witches. I believe it was an appropriate use of time. But you're right, actually.

I do think Sposh is looking worse by the post, but I'm conflicted. I can see a lot of these things as genuine newbie play rather than scum mistakes. The insults contribute to this on a gut level; I feel that newbie players that know their innocence but can't defend it well yet tend to get more frustrated when they're accused. It's just conjecture, but I think newbie scum are less apt to take it personally since they know that they are what they're being accused of.

We are not lynching Al just because he claimed Vanilla.

Well, OK but actually that's a perfectly legitimate reason.

When the majority of the players in the game are likely to be vanilla, how is it legitimate in and of itself? Is there a particular reason you don't believe it, or is it policy?

And why should we be banding mes? just a ???? Will be gone this after noon.

In answer to your "????" as I said right away today, it's the hiphop link (also I can see her play coming from scum- I'm not saying she's a bad player, just could very well be mafia.)[/quote]

The case isn't there, as evidenced by your rather singular interest in the matter. In my opinion, the most damning aspect of Messiah's play today has been that there's so little of it, as if he's afraid to open his mouth now while he knows he's not being scrutinized as heavily.

However, I also think the Messiah case is very thin and find it suspicious to stick a vote there for so long. It makes one look like they're doing something when they're not.

-------

I'm looking forward to reading Peabody's case, and will probably re-evaluate my vote in the next 24 hours or so. For the record, I consider promising substantial posts that never come to be a scumtell.

[charlatan]

@empking, you got the rolefish part right, and because I didn't like my vote on someother player at the time, and just unvoteing looks bad.

Why so worried about "looking bad"? This sentence indicates that you placed a vote you didn't mean to simply avoid suspicion, which is definitely suspicious.

236, is wring because if I didn't want my "buddy" lynched then I woulld have gine with the other and voted hoopla.

WIFOM.

I'm feeling good with the resolution of the AGM bandwagon for now. I certainly meant the accusations I leveled against him, but something about his responses has pushed him closer to my good graces again. When accepting the likelihood of a lynch, he got his opinions out there and left some parting words for the town to digest the next day, which is certainly pro-town. I'm still going to watch him, but for now I'm going to

unvote

.

Vote: CooLDoG

.

Sposh doesn't look good either, but like I said, I still thin there's room for townie there. This is mostly for CooLDoG's interactions with Empking, his failure to read the thread, and for placing votes in an attempt to "look good" as opposed to actual scumhunting.

[charlatan]

I certainly wouldn't peg him as likely town, but I don't think CD is very scummy. Remember that even if he annoys you, that doesn't make him scum.

I vote for a deadline

if that's how we should do it

I don't really like this. We're making progress.

This seems like asking for an excuse to abandon your Messiah tunnel vision later without having to commit, instead blaming it on the deadline.

[charlatan]

I don't really like this. We're making progress.

This seems like asking for an excuse to abandon your Messiah tunnel vision later without having to commit, instead blaming it on the deadline.

...What, charlatan, you don't want a deadline? Deadlines are ubiquitously used to make the game go forward. Forget being pro-town, a deadline is pro-game.

As for "abandoning my Messiah tunnel vision without having to commit." First, I think you have a case of the buzzwords. Second, Messiah is the best lynch. CD, maybe Sposh, and quite possibly you are others that are OK but much more random.

"Tunnel vision" is not a meaningless buzzword when you have pretty much spent the vast majority of today repeating "Messiah's the best lynch because of Hiphop not attacking him" ad nauseum without actually attempting to further your case (or comment on others, really) at all.

A deadline is fine but irrelevant. The game is moving forward. We are placing votes and have not dead-ended discussion. I'm asserting a hypothetical situation in which you stick to your lonely Messiah vote until a deadline and then jump on a convenient wagon with a "welp, since we're at the deadline, I'll get on X bandwagon".

[charlatan]

"Tunnel vision" is not a meaningless buzzword when you have pretty much spent the vast majority of today repeating "Messiah's the best lynch because of Hiphop not attacking him" ad nauseum without actually attempting to further your case (or comment on others, really) at all.

I suggest you read my multiple explanations of why I want to do a Messiah lynch. "Tunnel Vision"

is

actually a bad buzzword when it is used to say: "Because you are sticking to your argument I am going to say it is wrong," which doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense. I'm not saying your case is wrong. I'm saying it hasn't been made, as evidenced by the fact that nobody else is voting there. The kicker is that you seem mostly content with that, occasionally piping up with an 'I still want to lynch Messiah' kind of post but not trying to pressure Messiah or get others to understand what you seem so sure of.

I'm just trying to understand how, in your point of view, sticking your vote without participating in other cases is a pro-town mode of action. I'm trying to reconcile your play yesterday with your play today. (For example, 53 content-filled posts yesterday, not at all the same level of involvement today.)

In your opinion, how have you helped the town today? Maybe an example of scumhunting?

And one more question: If Hoopla had attempted to run up that bandwagon on another random player, do you think Hiphop would have behaved differently? (Spoiler: I think it had nothing to do with Messiah at all.)

I greatly prefer my reasons for wanting to do a Messiah lynch over "He's a bad player I hate him let's lynch him," which is unfortunately what I see people doing constantly not just in this game but everywhere on this site.

That's more interesting. Can you give some examples of votes in this game that have been made on the basis of "hating" someone?

[charlatan]

I'm saying it hasn't been made

I'm afraid I'll simply have to direct your attension to the multiple times that I have explained why Messiah is extremely likely scum. It's a pretty simple "case" but, really, that's a virtue.

A case is meaningless if you're the only one that buys into it. That's my entire point. "Read what I wrote before" (which you have now said multiple times) does nothing to increase the likelihood of a Messiah bandwagon. Do you honestly believe I haven't read those posts, or are you just being condescending? It's one or the other.

You're doing nothing to sway anyone, which is

not

what I expect to see from a townie who actually truly believes that they know who to lynch.

Sorry you don't like my play today, but I believe that your opinion there is much more rooted in your disagreement with my Messiah case than anything else at all.

I don't "like" or "dislike" anything in particular. I am pointing out a perceived discrepancy.

Examples of silly accusations of WIFOM, rolefishing, etc. include many posts by CooLDoG... but let's just say that I would be happy if I never saw people using words and phrases like WIFOM, Tunnel Vision, rolefishing, blah blah blah, again. Not that I have problems with the underlying concepts in most cases, but people would gain so much from actually typing out the reason why what someone is doing means that they are part of the informed minority trying to get the town killed!

Sometimes it's nice to not have to over explain things, but if that's your preference:

Your

tunnel vision

apparent desire to focus only on Messiah is detrimental to the town in that there are more players than you and Messiah in the game, and holding a vote somewhere where a lynch is unlikely to happen is, at best, throwing away your vote. It is almost non-participatory to largely ignore other cases in the game. Furthermore, it is a fine scum tactic to manufacture a strong but unpopular conviction that one player is scum in order to avoid the suspicion of participating in townie bandwagons while giving the appearance of doing otherwise.

But really, all this because I think it's a bit sketchy to call for a deadline instead of giving real comments on the larger bandwagons is telling in and of itself.

[charlatan]

I really don't understand your conviction that voting for a deadline as the mod said we could is scummy. Honestly, even just from the perspective of us being part of the same game, that's low and unhelpful.

I never said voting for a deadline is scummy. That would be absurd. I think it's slightly suspicious to chime in with a post about having deadlines instead of, say, saying something that will actually affect what's happening in the game.

Regardless, I mostly wanted to get you to comment even just a little more on other wagons. The entire problem with your Messiah theory (and the reason I have not spent much energy discussing it) is this:

3. hiphop scum, messiah town: hiphop knew that messiah was town, and yet decided to defend her just in case the wagon went all the way to a lynch, even though jumping on was low risk because of the Hoopla thing and because many other people were. Extremely unlikely.

You say "extremely unlikely", I say "extremely likely." Staying off of the easy bandwagon that was based largely on what he would have known was a lie from Hoopla was an easy, easy way to get townie points.

[charlatan]

Right, that would be the other side of the issue. But in order for that to start to make sense, he would have had to think that the wagon was going all the way to a lynch, which I at least saw pretty clearly it wasn't.

Not really. I'm trying to look at it from hiphop's point of view, not what you would do if you were in that situation.

If he knew Hoopla was lying, he would've known that she'd almost certainly have to come clean that day whether it was going to lynch or not, and hiphop made a habit of arguing for over-cautious voting -- things like saying an errant bandwagon could lead to a scum victory, talking about a lack of concrete evidence on Day 1 -- a lot of which he knew he was going to be proven at least partially right about when the wagon derailed. What's more, it helps setup Hoopla as a potential lynch, makes a buddy of Messiah, and he gets the townie cred for staying off the wagon. It doesn't have to go to a lynch to be a questionable wagon as long as it comes out that the wagon was built on a lie, which it was always going to.

Also, even if it did go all the way to a lynch, hopping on a bandwagon, townie or not, that's based on claimed role information isn't scummy at all even if it lynches a town player, since you get free scum from the person with the claimed role information (Hoopla) and a 1-for-1 townie/scum trade is great.

That's pretty simplistic. What if the wagon had gone to lynch without Hoopla revealing her gambit? What if she were as sure as you are that Messiah was scum and decided to roll the dice? What if, what if?

Just because something is safe and/or easy for scum to do doesn't necessarily make it a good play for them. Also, I don't think that was a safe wagon to vote on at all, since it was almost certainly going to turn out to be BS from the start.

hiphop voted or FoS'd every single non-lurker player in the game except for two, if I recall: Messiah and yourself. Just sayin'.

[charlatan]

Hm, so you're arguing that hiphop knew that Messiah was gambitting, instead thinking she had true role information on scum, or had false role information on town. I guess I'm starting to see how him thinking any of those three could be the case, although it is weird how they all are supposed to explain the same behavior.

I think he thought the same thing more than one of us did, which is that she didn't have any information at all and that, in time, it would become public knowledge, and that he could use that to his advantage. For most of us, whether Hoopla was lying or not was an educated guess. For hiphop, it would've been obvious.

And even if he did, that certainly doesn't clear Messiah! You're not saying it does, are you? It just brings her back to the neutral territory (and the possibility of him not know slides her slightly toward scummy territory again.

No, nothing clears Messiah. Messiah is by no means the most pro-town player in this game. But how anyone can be so sure about Messiah (who is barely even present in the game) is scum is beyond me, as is why that person would not pursue other avenues of investigation as well in light of the fact that there is no Messiah bandwagon at this time.

[charlatan]

@charlatan: In 436 you found Sposh a bit scummy. How would you feel about moving to vote him?

I am not interested in doing that at this time, though it could change. I do still think he's scummy, but as I said before, I am less confident there than with others.

[charlatan]

Is the day over??

What? Really?

[charlatan]

Sorry for my absence, guys, I've allowed myself to disconnect from this game a bit in the last few days.

I don't really get the looker/Empking exchange over bandwagon math right now. I'm going to re-read it to see where the disagreement lies, but a lot of people are juggling votes between the main bandwagons right now. I don't like looker's unexplained unvote and switch to Sposh, but looker hasn't been here long enough to really make much of an impression on me either way yet.

We should be lynching someone NOT on hiphop's lynch, and Empking is by far and away the most obvious connection. I'm just going to keep repeating myself until people show up. This isn't fun. Are you all having fun?

I agree that we need to make some compromises, and we do have multiple okay options. I'm not ready to vote Sposh yet, for my part. I do think he's been scummy at several points, but I still think he's just as likely newbie town. CooLDoG is not getting a free pass from me, but since I consider them both about equally scummy at this point, I'm ready to vote for the one that wasn't on hiphop's bandwagon.

I'll

Unvote

,

Vote: Empking

[charlatan]

Oh, and Empking: you didn't claim at L-1 before. A big reason for this vote is that I'd like to see that claim.

[charlatan]

Unvote

.

In light of this development, I'm still happy with my prior CooLDoG vote, which is compounded by his recent disappearance (Sposh is guilty of this too.)

Vote: CooLDoG

.

I'm going to re-read and think about looker's posts thus far, but I don't know if there's enough there for me to feel great about a lynch yet, especially due to replacing a semi-lurker whose early game play I felt was pretty pro-town. And while not being on the hiphop bandwagon counts for something, it is not the huge tell to me that it is to some of us.

[charlatan]

Sorry for getting back to the game late, everyone. My birthday was this weekend, so I was a bit distracted.

I'm probably going to double post, firstly dealing with Looker and then addressing other concerns in the second post (not sure how long I have before I need to run off for the evening, and I don't want to get any more behind.)

On top of that, the three main suspects yesterday were CoolDog, Sposh, and Empking, and now the other two are dead. Maybe Almaster's Mafia, I don't know.

From my point of view, that does nothing to increase the likelihood of Empking being scum. In your opinion, what does hyposcum Empking gain by eliminating both of yesterday's vote magnets?

D1 doesn't vote; D2 lynches CoolDog; D3, tries to lynch me - come on, now, Empking's obvscum. I seriously believe there's a safeclaim going on somewhere.

Day 1, agreed, does not help him. Day 2, several of us (myself included) voted CooLDoG. Is there a particular reason you think his vote on CooLDoG was questionable? What makes him more likely to be scummy for it than simply wrong? Your Day 3 point is useless; we don't know your alignment.

My main issue is that even if you're a vanilla townie and got your role PM after it was de-flavored, it should have been fairly obvious from the reactions to Empking's claim that his pre-de-flavoring flavor (wtf) was legit. I obviously cannot disprove safeclaims being a possibility, but my instinct is to think that this is not the kind of game we would be likely to see them in.

Two quick observations: (I can go into detail if you would like)

Please do.

1) NAW's blatent avoidance of the hiphop wagon. I noted this quote earlier in the game.

What quote?

Charlatan: Can I get your opinions on Looker? Does she need to die?

I don't know yet. It's a possibility, but I am leaning towards no, or at the very least "not yet". For one, she just became a very easy lynch target, and my experience has been that the easy lynch is too often the wrong lynch (even in this game.)

@Howard: Are you saying that when you got your role you received the original flavor as well?

[charlatan]

Almaster: Your last post was completely confusing to me. I cannot follow what your numbered statements are supposed to be responses to. I eagerly await sober clarification, but in the meantime, I am curious about your vote:

1) Lurking - No. See Peabody for an example of actual lurking.

4) Didn't mention NAW lurking - and you didn't mention Peabody's lurking. So what?

Is this vote based on lurking, or is there more to it? There are better reasons to vote Peabody today than lurking, especially since nobody is lurking too badly in this game anymore.

I agree with HowardRoark's 681. I'm happy to revisit this avenue of investigation as well, in part as a result of yesterday's flavor situation. I find it very odd, for instance, that you would hammer based on a plain vanilla townie claim when you claimed in exactly the same fashion (minus the "ice cream" part.) You said it "did not occur to you" to include your previous flavor when you claimed, but were happy to "verify it" (in a way, kind of artificially claiming it after the fact) for Looker. If you had said you thought it game-breaking or kind of uncool to include your old flavor, I could have gotten behind that. Because, in all honesty, I found it to be both of those things (nothing personal, Empking) -- but you didn't. I find it unlikely that you would just forget something that could very easily confirm you to other vanilla townies.

Vote: AlmasterGM

--

@Hoopla: Why ask me specifically, as opposed to anyone else?

--

@milkshake: Why no vote? And can you explain your Peabody case?

--

@Looker: I forgot one other thing. You were bringing up safeclaims at the end of yesterday, too, but at the time seemed to find milkshake more likely to be scum than Empking, at least as evidenced by your vote. (Alternately, you may have found milkshake more viable since the Empking wagon had just been deflated.) Was it only CooLDoG's flip that caused you to reverse your stance?

[charlatan]

A Looker claim would probably help clarify. She is probably the right choice, but I don't like that she jumped to L-1 in a page, even despite the extremely dubious stance towards Empking and Milkshake. Her reply in 706 only makes it worse -- for the most part she ignored the points I raised, and then there's this:

I knew one of them was Milk's partner, I just didn't know which.

So if she's still working from the assumption that Milkshake is scum, she should absolutely be voting Milkshake rather than taking a 50/50 on Empking or Almaster, the two possible partners in her hypothetical situation. Barring real fireworks in the next little bit, I too will be fine hammering her. But we've seen wackiness in this game in terms of role PMs, and we have no reason to rush.

@Almaster: in the meantime, no response to the points I've raised?

[charlatan]

milkshake seems totally correct. Lobstermania has said replacements did not receive information that Howard explicitly claims to have had, twice invoking that information as a basis for his vote on Looker.

Unvote

Vote: HowardRoark

[charlatan]

O, how clever.

vote milkshake

Can you explain? If you think something is self-evident, humor me, because I don't get it.

[charlatan]

I believe a vote from me on Almaster would be succumbing to the WIFOM of Empking's death and feel more confident voting Milkshake than anyone else at the moment. My apologies for

appearing

self-sufficient.

How does Empking's death have anything to do with Almaster and WIFOM? I just assumed they'd kill a confirmed.

Looker: Stop voting confirmed town, it isn't helpful.

vote: peabody

Criticize Looker, unexplained vote on Peabody? What is with you guys and bizarre votes you don't bother to explain today?

By the way:

Vote: Looker

for still having a weird attitude re: confirmed players and trying to keep them viable lynches this close to the endgame.

[charlatan]

@charlatan: Why do you consider Peabody a bizarre vote? What do you make of Looker knowing the VT role name was "Town"?

I don't think the Peabody vote was bizarre. I think it's bizarre to not explain it at all and to only bother mentioning someone unrelated in your post.

I also think anyone reading the game would know that the VT role name is "Town", since it was revealed as early as CooLDoG's flip.

[charlatan]

Does this incriminate Looker?

I wouldn't think so. The mod confirmed that Looker didn't receive the flavored role PM.

When did that happen? When did the mod confirm anything related to Looker at all? Last I checked the mod only confirmed anything related to Howard. Looker claimed just "Town", which anyone could do since it's right here in the thread, and is now spending most of her time trying to get people to vote for confirmed townies, which is probably something scum needs to do to still have a shot in this game.

[charlatan]

It would be really nice to hear from Milkshake and Almastar, wouldn't it guys?

Yes.

I have a strong town read on Messiah I have no desire to articulate too heavily on.

That's funny, because I've got Messiah as more likely scum since he's essentially a non-contributor that has not furthered cases on anyone thus far. He just chimes in with a rather meaningless question or comment every once in a while.

Looker's more recent play is not convincing me at all that I should be voting elsewhere and, in fact, is only further convincing me that's where I'd like my vote to stay. Her most recent vote reason was the simple "D1 Bus", which is not at all a reason in and of itself, seeing as others also voted for hiphop that are still alive, and Hoopla in particular was instrumental in his eventual lynch, so at the very least a little detail is needed.

On the subject of Peabody, however, his unvote at the end of the day before is a far better reason to suspect him, and I'm surprised we let it drop at the end of the day. I like a lot of his play this game, actually, and he has mostly not caught my eye, but the unvote, re-vote seemed vaguely tacked on, designed to gain townie points for being extra cautious.

Hoopla has largely gotten a free pass, mostly due to the fact that Day 1 her gambit was helpful to the town. Since then she has, for the most part, only chimed in to try and play town leader -- and has consistently helped steer lynches towards townie deaths. At this point, I'm much less inclined to believe that's a coincidence. Her very casual "clearing" of Messiah is problematic: saying she's got a very strong read that she doesn't feel like explaining is a good way to protect a scum buddy or to buddy up to a townie. Now that we're getting into a smaller pool of players, it's time to take a closer look at individuals.

I still consider milkshake basically confirmed, but I'd be happier if he were playing the game. Almaster I'm less convinced of than before upon further reflection, but I'm not sure -- I really don't like that now that the voting attention is elsewhere, he's dropped off the map.

[charlatan]

I've got Messiah as more likely scum since he's essentially a non-contributor that has not furthered cases on anyone thus far. He just chimes in with a rather meaningless question or comment every once in a while.

That's such a blatant mischaracterization of my play that I don't know what to say. If you're referring simply to today, then perhaps you're correct; I've been waiting for Milkshake and Almastar for the more part.

No, I mostly mean that (though the caustic phrasing was primarily to get you to respond.) Not so much in the beginning, but you have become less and less a presence that is doing something throughout the game. However, I have gotten the feeling throughout the game that there's a critical disconnect between the questions you ask (and asking questions is the easiest way to appear pro-town) and the cases you eventually post -- you do not seem to draw conclusions from the questions you ask and I wonder, then, what their purpose is.

I am sure you disagree with me, which is fine. I'll put this question to you: can you provide examples of situations where you have made a persuasive argument against another player that

has not

already been mentioned by another player in the game?

[charlatan]

I do believe that we need to figure this whole lynch thing out, though, so I'll try and start it this way. Does anyone have anybody that they'd like to nominate for the lynch? If so, throw it out and then we can discuss whether or not it'd be a good choice for the town and why.

I nominate Looker.

Messiah, I have to go to lunch right now, but after that I'll write a post on why your last post is wrong. Get pumped up, it's gonna be neat!

[charlatan]

We decided Looker never recieved the original PM, right? So this statement...

No, we never "decided" anything. Looker claimed to have a conversation with the mod that was never confirmed in any way, then went on about how scum were supplied with fake claims. I guess the assumption that she would like us to make is that a replacement would not have received the initial flavor as a part of their fake claim, even though not knowing the initial flavor would out them as scum instead of confirm them as town. Am I really the only one for whom this is a problem? And why are you comfortable dismissing it as a "silly oversight"? Do you do that with other scummy behaviors too?

But I'd be willing to vote either. I've learned my lesson about support for a Messiah wagon, though.

I know I've harassed you about that at different points in the game, but now that I'm working from a process of elimination I'd be much more willing to vote Messiah.

Now, the promised Messiah part of the post:

The first thing that comes to mind is my original case on AlmastarGM, found here. I'm fairly certain that the majority of the thoughts expressed in that post were original at the time.

I don't see it as original content. Here's the opening paragraph:

NAW's post 268 rather accurately expresses some of the suspicions I've had for a while. Specifically how it feels like AlmasterGM is just trying to get any kind of lynch he can while contributing nothing.(I'll elaborate further in my own words if anyone wants me to.)

No need for further explanation here.

As for the rest of the post in question, basically the entirety of your problem was that Almaster was continually voting players without giving reasoning at all or supplying really poor reasoning. (If you find this summary unfair or misleading, by all means, let's discuss it.)

Posts in which this is in some way pointed out before yours: 36, 53, 109, 111, 114, 173, 184, 190, 219, 225.

[charlatan]

I do find your summary quite unfair, actually. This part of the case was much more important to me at the time:

... This pattern of never giving even the slightest reasoning as to why he suspects someone becomes much scummier once you realize that he hasn't even backed up his suspicions with a vote, and, in fact, he opted to keep his vote on me even after his only reason for voting me was revealed to be a lie.

So, out of three or four paragraphs of content, the piece of original digging you did was that he hadn't backed up his reasonless accusations with a vote, and that he hadn't moved his vote off of you. There are problems with this, from where I stand.

Firstly, it ignores the fact that CoCo and Peabody were not the only people he went after on Day 1. He had actual debates with you and hiphop, even providing real reasons for his votes. The fact that he was making baseless accusations elsewhere does not invalidate his vote on you.

Secondly, he did vote Peabody in the beginning. It cannot be dismissed as an RVS vote that he stuck to because a) he made it clear he was serious and b) an RVS vote has about as much meaning as repeatedly saying someone is scum without providing evidence.

charlatan, did you read the post where I quoted the mod confirming that Looker hadn't received the flavored role pm?

You quoted this:

Note: Replacements did not receive the original role titles, nor were they informed about them.

Yes, I read it. Questions to you, in response:

1) Has the issue of flavor role titles been a general concern in this game that applies to more than one player? Something the mod might want to clarify for everyone regardless of the alignment of specific players?
2) Has there been more than one replacement in this game?
2.5) Is Looker specifically mentioned in that quote?
3) Would scum have received the original role titles?

(These are real questions I would like you to answer.)

[charlatan]

He might have had actual debates with hiphop, but he certainly didn't with me. His vote on me was simply because of Hoopla's gambit.

The point is, he supplied a reason for that vote. Whether that's a scummy reason or not is another matter (for the record, I think it is), but other players also voted for that reason (milkshake comes to mind.)

I have one question for you: What is misleading or left to interpretation in the following two statements?

1.) "The replacements(HowardRoark and Looker) did not receive the flavored role PMs."
2.) "Actually, HowardRoark did."

Looker claimed vanilla without flavor and this was not being bought by the town. She then suggested that there must be some sort of mod mistake for her to not have the role PM that all the other townies had and said she'd be talking to the mod. Then the mod said that HowardRoark (confirmed town) got the role PM and implied that Looker did not. I don't really see how this makes her more likely to be town at all, since all we know is that A) the confirmed townie replacement DID have flavor and b) she does not, for whatever reason.

What I do know, however, is that it's in scum's best interest to keep the idea of confirmed townies not being confirmed on the table or, failing that, to have scum falsely considered confirmed. Is one or both of those happening? Obviously I cannot say for sure, but I hardly think it's in the town's best interest to consider Looker confirmed when there is room for interpretation there and when there really wasn't for the other three.

[charlatan]

I don't really see how this makes her more likely to be town at all

There may have been some kind of misconception here; I wasn't trying to use this as a reason for Looker to be confirmed town. I agree that it most likely isn't alignment indicative at all.

Then what is the point you're trying to make? Because it seems like that's exactly what you're shooting for.

[charlatan]

Arg, I hit submit before I meant to. I'm the king of multi-posting in this game.

@Messiah: I am not here to dredge up a case from page 10 and try to argue every point against it. If you made the original point that he voted you too long, then that's swell, but one original point in a big case does not a heavy duty scumhunter make. I still say you've been going with the flow. It may be a matter of opinion that nobody shares with me, but I can read the pages leading up to any of your big case posts and feel those posts rising safely from the general tides of public opinion rather than making your own way at all.

[charlatan]

My point was that we shouldn't find Looker suspicious for not having received her flavored role pm while HowardRoark did.

Okay, well, neat point. I'm not voting her solely because she didn't. I'm voting her primarily because she's working hard to keep confirmed townies on the table.

Right, well, I'm certainly not claiming to have been the greatest scumhunter this game, but the insinuation that I've just gone along with popular opinion is simply incorrect.

If you could show that to me beyond "I raised an original point against Almaster on page 10", you might change my thinking, but you haven't, so you're still one of my top suspects.

[charlatan]

It's best if you try to run up a vote on someone for reasons other than fuzzy logic about psychology, like evidence. Vote analysis certainly has its place, but so far you're doin' it wrong. This can be manipulated any way you see fit, which bothers me a bit.

For instance, if you're playing a probability game, why not shoot for either Looker or Messiah, since by your guess there's a 50/50 of hitting scum there? Or a 100%, since you said you pretty much accept Messiah as town?
You expect others to follow you to a 25% lynch but paint it as an equally good choice for two reasons:

1) Because you dismiss yourself as an option (no more free passes.)
2) Because Peabody is the first on the hiphop wagon. (This means nothing, which I can explain in full if you're curious.)

[charlatan]

EBWOP: Not the first on the wagon, but early on it.

[charlatan]

And Peabody, if you're going to claim, it'd better not be "plain old vanilla ice cream."

For the record, I agree with this statement more than I've agreed with anything anyone has said yet this game.

[charlatan]

What evidence do you find in games of mafia? Every scumtell you've ever used is based on guess work to some degree, and a leap of logic about psychology. I'm trying to articulate a gut read I have on you which I'm finding hard to do. It is a combination of process of elimination and wagon positions.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is something specific. For instance, borrowing your same math, I can suggest that the most likely possibility is that the remaining scum are you and Messiah, saying obviously I'm not scum and I have a strong town read on Looker that I don't want to explain. See how easy that is? Note: I don't really think that's the case; what I'm saying is that you seem to be basing a case on something that points to multiple outcomes and choosing one arbitrarily. If I am, in fact, lynched because everyone is content to follow you, remind me to revisit this in the post-game because it's kind of a neat theory discussion.

I see hiphop either being bussed by one or two scum, with a 75/25 preference for one. I know you think I am manipulating data to fit my suspicions, but I feel very confident about this, and am probably failing to explain my methods properly (I want to try again soon). I find it difficult to comprehend any scum teams without you on it, sorry. =/

I do agree to some extent, at least on the most basic level. The difference is, I see the team as mostly likely Looker + yourself, Peabody, or Almaster in roughly that order, though I'm having a hard time with scum #2. You jump a few scum points in this, not because you're accusing me (frankly, it hasn't been done enough this game), but because you're selective with what your theory points to. For instance, everything about your own analysis points to Looker as the most logical lynch (and I assume you think Looker and I are the most logical scum partners), but you're trying to derail that bandwagon to lynch elsewhere.

[charlatan]

I get your point about taking myself out of suspicion - but I am not going to suspect myself. Others can do that.

I wonder if they will. And perhaps now is a good time for you to share why Messiah is town? I know you didn't want to tell us before, but it's important for me to develop my read on you.

Whoever's wagon I'm trying to derail (if I'm scum), why wouldn't I just hammer Looker or Peabody? I've expressed enough suspicion on each of them to get away with it.

I don't actually think that's true. Besides, the game's not over yet. Asking "if I were scum why wouldn't I be doing this thing? Since I'm not, I'm town" is pretty much WIFOM.

[charlatan]

Did you inadvertently leave me off of this list, or has something changed since post 799?

You are one of my top picks in that I firmly believe either you or Looker to be scum. However, of the two of you, I find her more likely. The fact that I have been grilling you extra hard lately is not indicative of how highly I suspect you -- rather, I wanted to see more reactions from your corner and did as I always do in that situation.

[charlatan]

Do you believe Looker and Messiah can be scum together?

Yes, but it seems very unlikely that they'd vote the way they would have had to on Day 1 for that to be the case. I find Looker very scummy and Messiah slightly scummy independently of each other, but as a pair they simply don't make much sense.

[charlatan]

What about them both being town?

More plausible, but still unlikely. Earlier in the game, I did not care much either way, but with a smaller pool I take the probabilities a tad more seriously. I find that arguments based on numbers tend to be an easy way to muddy the waters. But really, at the end of the day, I find Looker the most scummy -- being in the minority that did not vote hiphop is only icing on the cake.

I don't know if it helps, but the way that you guys are explaining teams seems off to me, or, rather, I have a different opinion. If there were scum teams I'd expect them to be Looker & Milkshake, Almaster & Peabody, and Messiah & Charlatan. I can't see where I ever interacted or collaborated with Milkshake in a way that would imply any affiliation whatsoever. Not to induce WIFOM, I just don't see it.

Sentence 2: Looker and Milkshake are one of your three viable scum teams.
Sentence 3: You don't see how Looker and Milkshake could be a scum team.

Do I misunderstand, or is this quote really self-contradictory? Also, what are you basing these on?

[charlatan]

RE: RE: RE: Clear & Concise Posts - No, I checked, I

don't

have to. "It is simply preferred".

Why wouldn't you want people to understand you? It's pro-town. (I'll bet I know the answer.)

[charlatan]

Weekend's over; just caught up.

I agree with Hoopla's suggestion. The doc's identity is our number one secret at the moment, and since he hasn't claimed already it's unlikely that he has multiple confirmed townies that would greatly improve our situation. Remember that the doc has saved twice now, so there's a chance they have two confirmed, but probably not.

As for this:

So if that's the case, how are we going to procede with organizing a lynch as normal.

I think we're capable of talking out who we'd most like to see lynched. If we need a more organized system, we can always use FoS's and try to keep an FoS count ourselves.

In this spirit, it might be good to have everyone list their top two so we've got them on record as a starting place. For me, that's Messiah and Hoopla, though unfortunately the theory I'm working with to reach this conclusion presupposes that one of them is scum and one is town, but not both -- so that's tricky. I can (and will be happy to) explain this, but I'd like to see everyone else's starting scum picks before doing so.

[charlatan]

At this point I'm going to remove all the possibilites involving Hoopla, the one person I have a solid town read on. My town read on her is mainly gut, but I place a lot of faith in my gut town reads.

I have a strong town read on Messiah I have no desire to articulate too heavily on.

That's two players who have decided that the other is town and removing them from the endgame equation, neither of whom has expressed interest in explaining their reads to the town, though making a strong case for an unconfirmed player as town would certainly help us out. I've even asked Hoopla explicitly to share details:

And perhaps now is a good time for you to share why Messiah is town? I know you didn't want to tell us before, but it's important for me to develop my read on you.

Fun fact: Request was denied.

I could be wrong about what I said before, and they may both be scum, but I still think it's possible that one is town and the other is scum buddying up.

Aside from that, though, is that this scum team would explain the one thing that stands out to me the most about charlatan's play this game, which is the way he switched wagons from Almaster to CooLDoG.

What about "the way" in which I switched stands out to you? Did my interaction with CooLDoG seem contrived or false in some way? Did you not believe my reasoning for abandoning the Almaster wagon?

@Almaster: You've posted since my last post. Who are your preferred two or three? If you don't know yet, that's fair, I'd just like to see where everyone's at.

My next post will be more on why at least one of the Hoopla/Messiah pair is most likely to be scum, but I've got to go for a while.

[charlatan]

What about "the way" in which I switched stands out to you?

The reason you gave for unvoting Almaster, which I believe came down to him finally contributing in a pro-town way. Unless the purpose of your vote was to get him to start contributing(I don't believe it was, correct me if I'm wrong), suddenly turning your play around by contributing and acting pro-town when put under pressure shouldn't be a town tell at all, as I believe you yourself have said on multiple occasions.

This is not exactly accurate. I did not remove my vote as a function of him suddenly doing something worthwhile. I'm sure you've noticed by now that my general modus operandi is that when I want a better feel on a player I kick up some dust with them and examine their reactions. Ultimately, Almaster's reactions pushed me away from wanting to see him swing, at least over CooLDoG, and his reaction when he was in immediate danger of being lynched sealed the deal for me. I wanted to see him under pressure, and when I had, I no longer had a reason to be pushing that bandwagon. Ironic that you do not see the merit in gaining town reads this way.

[charlatan]

Ironic that you do not see the merit in gaining town reads this way.

Is it? Because I don't recall saying anything about the way you go about getting better reads. Regardless..

I say it's ironic for two reasons. Firstly, that I've done this to you and did not get a town vibe. Secondly, that you're comfortable quantifying your own town reads without even attempting to explain them beyond "gut feeling" this late in the game.

I'm not sure which part of that is confusing you. His response felt genuine and tipped me in the direction of an unvote. Nowhere did I say it was the entire reason for it. What's more, I probably should not have to explicitly spell out for you when I'm attacking someone for the purpose of pressure -- saying "just kidding, just want to see how you'd respond" neuters the whole approach.

Ultimately, Almaster's reactions pushed me away from wanting to see him swing, at least over CooLDoG

Care to expound on that at all?

Again, which part confuses you? His reactions to his bandwagon made me feel he was more likely to be town than before the bandwagon. Meanwhile, as the Almaster bandwagon evolved, CooLDoG caught my eye increasingly more.

What's more, an added bonus to trying to run up a bandwagon on Almaster was that I viewed him an easy target, someone who (if town) scum were very likely to try and guide a mislynch towards. In the event that I got a town read on Almaster, I was curious as to who would jump on that bandwagon earliest. (p.s. - It was you.)

Mmm valid point, I can understand why this looks odd, but my town read isn't as strong as before now due to Looker's town flip. You'll remember some of reasoning was based believing both scum didn't bus.

I suppose it's easy to abandon a position when you refused to give reasoning for it in the first place.

Actually, if Messiah is town (granted, I do not think he is), your insistence on the idea that scum did not bus day 1 would be very helpful to hypo-scum Hoopla.

[charlatan]

Right now I'm thinking we should have a psuedo-massclaim today. Only the doctor should not claim - maybe we can do it like: not town powerrole other than doctor/town powerrole other than doctor. Thoughts on this? Every bit of information is vital now, because we

have

to lynch correctly.

Oh, and unless I confused about what you're suggesting, this would out the doctor in the event that there is only a doctor, which is a high possibility.

[charlatan]

I could be wrong about what I said before, and they may both be scum, but I still think it's possible that one is town and the other is scum buddying up.

As I said, yes. Especially given that the entire game you've been pretty vocal about the idea that we should be looking off of hiphop's wagon for scum, but Messiah seems to be the one exception to that rule, still never explained.

[charlatan]

Oh no, I think I just misread it. That seems like a fine idea.

[charlatan]

Hm, I'd be happy to, if the majority of players would like me to go first and think we should do this at all. Personally, I think it would be more interesting to see you go first, since it may shed some light on why you won't answer questions about Messiah. (You can count this as me asking again, I guess; maybe fifth time's the charm.)

[charlatan]

I'm not sure which part of that is confusing you.

I'm not confused, I

understand

what you're saying. I just don't see how what you're saying now matches up with what you said before at all.

That is pretty much the definition of not understanding. Which is also a synonym for being confused. I can't explain it any more simply than I already have, nor do I really care to. As long as townies see where I'm coming from, you can reach for weak reasons all day, for all I care.

[charlatan]

Roger that. I am not a town powerrole other than doctor.

[charlatan]

Who's next?

Since nobody seems to be jumping at the bit (worth noting), why not you? I believe I can more or less prove that you are scum pending the outcome of this semi-massclaim, but if you go last you also have the luxury of tailoring a fakeclaim to the claims of others. Since you're here paying attention while the others are absent, why not go ahead?

[charlatan]

If it's true we have two mislynches and aren't actually in lylo right now.

That would be excellent, and your setup speculation certainly makes sense, though I don't know. I am not a theory master. (In case you didn't notice, I didn't even know that 'popcorn from there' referred to an actual method of claiming.) I guess my point is that regardless of whether or not this is true, everyone should still operate under the assumption that there are two in terms of votes to avoid quickhammering.

I've been pondering the reason why I haven't been nightkilled so far, because I feel like I've been quite pro-town - and my theory is because I'd almost entirely wrote off Messiah from my list of candidates. It sounds wifomy, but I think him keeping me alive was his away to subliminally exert his influence if he knew I'd continue organising lynches and being wrong.

Actually, WIFOMy or not, I thought about this, too. There's nothing illogical about trying to endgame with people who are less likely to suspect you. In my experience, it's not uncommon.

----

Hoopla, important question time. I think it's fair to say (correct me if you disagree) that a huge part of your strategy this game has been to aim for scum off of hiphop's Day 1 bandwagon. If hiphop had flipped town rather than scum, would this have changed your approach? If so, how? If not, why not?

[charlatan]

The thing about this game is though, bussing hiphop (if there is only 2 scum)

does not

have a viable risk/reward scenario, as on Day 1 hiphop's partner does not know if there is an SK or even another scum team. While bussing in a vanilla 2:10 set-up does make sense, scum had no way of knowing it, and gambling on this issue is nonsensicle and

does not

improve their win condition by damaging it.

I'm actually a bit surprised at how much this answer sways me. You've repeatedly stated that we should be lynching off of that Day 1 wagon, and seemed to place a lot of stock in it. My concern is that, in the event that you're scum who voted hiphop, that's a very safe way to direct attention elsewhere. The more people that have died off of that wagon (now everyone except Messiah), the more I have found it plausible that all of the scum (whether it's just one or two, which I thought was more likely until you posted the thread about 10:2 setups) had been on the original wagon.

So, in a lot of games you see people try to narrow the pool of suspects by limiting their votes to people on or off certain wagons (usually Day 1 wagons), because typically you won't see all scum vote as a block. However, that is exactly what you did as scum in Mini 865, (all scum on the wagon Day 1) in which you guys steamrolled the town in three days. Seems a perfectly viable option for scum to vote as a block these days since, as you said, scum will use town expectations against them. I also believe you're perfectly capable of pulling that sort of thing off, and it made sense to think you might think to do so as scum this time around.

However, as you say, that would be a huge gamble when you don't know whether there's another scum group, a serial killer, etc. The interaction between you and Messiah does still bother me a great deal, and I am still pretty convinced that scum can be found between the two of you.

[charlatan]

I don't see how I am a logical choice for hiphop's buddy. Bussing him so hard would be a ridiculous gamble to take - I would almost certainly lose the game if there was an SK or another scum group, which is probably more likely than 2:10 vanilla. It's just a stupid risk that only benefits me in one scenario out of three.

That is largely my point -- I have been thinking of a 3 person scumteam as well, so I'm also re-evaluating. I'd still like to hear your thoughts on Messiah as town in a hypothetical 3-scum setup.

[charlatan]

I agree that a Messiah lynch is probably the right choice. I'm also uninterested in a Peabody lynch, and Hoopla and Almaster fall behind Messiah considerably. Still, I'd like to read Hoopla's response, see Messiah get up in the mix a bit more, etc.

Messiah, what about Almaster's hammer was suspicious?

[charlatan]

My thoughts on this was based on his reaction to wagon - and the way hiphop reacted too. A part of it was also that I doubted that the two players central to the gambit could be scum. Confirmation bias then kicked in, which is something I've been trying to fix in my town game.

I expected somewhat more, since you were so hesitant to expound upon your read (three sentences doesn't seem that time consuming.) But it's sound logic and not really a concern for me; I agree that Messiah is the right lynch and think we're ready to put this one away.

[charlatan]

Oh, and

Vote: Messiah

.

That's L-1, so now's a good time to claim.

[charlatan]

I could have gone into more thorough detail - but it would have been mostly from those topics. I was feeling lazy.

That's about what I assumed.

[charlatan]

For my part, I enjoyed the game a lot, though anyone who reads the entire quicktopic will note that I did get frustrated. I do not blame you for the setup issues, Lobster. Having a little flavor in this game, while maybe against conventions, seems relatively harmless to me even now, and whoever asked you to change the role PMs should probably have been able to assume that someone would bring that old flavor into the game either way. I am disappointed that it became about who was confirmed and who was not and various other setup speculative issues rather than scumhunting, but given the circumstances I suppose it is hard to pin the blame anywhere. Like I said, I still had a good time.

I was frustrated because we were looking at a situation where the town had three confirmed townies when there probably should not have been any, and I also didn't think we'd be able to get Looker lynched for similar reasons (I think I would not have voted for her as a townie, though she did not help herself in that regard.) We did not feel that we had the luxury of trying to hunt down the doctor or we would endgame with too many confirmed and simply be picked out by process of elimination (which almost happened.) Though I appreciated the attempt at rebalancing by offing Howard, that stung, too. This was my first game as scum, and I wanted to win, but I didn't want the town to have to be hurt to do it.

Our quicktopic will probably say more than I can here. Hoopla essentially scared the shit out of me from Day 1, and my attempts to hunt power roles were failures throughout the game. Peabody gave me the benefit of the doubt each time, so that's rather embarassing. Empking gets mislynched a lot, but the guy's vote is very often where it needs to be, so he had me worried when he got confirmed. Almaster made me actually laugh out loud at multiple points. I had personally hoped to endgame with Messiah and Milkshake and try to bank on Milkshake's long-standing suspicion of Messiah, though in the end the assumption that there were only two scum ended up being instrumental to the win instead. I thought maybe we could use the fact that we had both bussed hiphop Day 1 to pin the same charge on Hoopla at the end, but that was shakey at best.

I'm happy to have played with everyone. I hadn't played with any of you before, but I've read games featuring a few of you, so I was happy about that. I hope to see you out there again.

[charlatan]

Yeah, I was frankly surprised that we weren't really called out on that, and I did not plan that myself. I don't think I would have found Peabody very suspicious as a townie, so I thought attempting overly hard to distance myself from him would probably appear artificial.

[charlatan]

I just want to echo what Howard said a little, lobster -- that was not an easy situation for a first time mod, and you made the calls you saw fit instead of abandoning it or just ignoring everything and pretending it wasn't screwed up. That's certainly a good thing, IMHO.

[charlatan]

Almaster made me actually laugh out loud at multiple points.

lol, where? Glad I could be of comedic value.

I enjoy GO HAMMAR GO and the sarcastic comments about "plain old vanilla ice cream".