Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[archaebob]

vote muffin

as far as I'm concerned, this pastry here is already confirmed scum.

[archaebob]

oh, and i found the scum buddy as well.

HOS Gamma Gooey

for that idiotic comment about Jigglypuff being superior.

There, game over we win. Now let's bandwagon and lynch these scumbags.

[archaebob]

serious about what?

lol.

[archaebob]

God, you're annoying. I hope you get killed quickly.

wow, two posts in, and you're ready to kill me?

i didn't know that this was also the random temper tantrum stage

[archaebob]

If you can be this obnoxious three posts in, I can only imagine how bad the future possibilities are.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Foilist 13 and cruelty haven't posted yet. It's still early, but I just wanted to put that out there, as a running list.

[archaebob]

Muffin, you've also played with foilist 13. Why me specifically?

[archaebob]

Alamaster, how many games have you played? Can you provide some meta links?

[archaebob]

EBWOP: "Almaster", sorry

[archaebob]

@ Muffin - I'm actually still wondering what you were referring to if you asked me if I was serious.

[archaebob]

@EBWOP (again) - "when" you asked me if I was serious.

[archaebob]

AGM - why would you assume that any town player would do what YOU would do? Especially considering that this is his first game, I find it difficult to follow your suspicion of him.

[archaebob]

Almaster has played in several games. Not sure how he could actually think this was a good case just now.

unvote

vote Almaster

Btw, Muffin, I've still got my eyes on you. Almaster needs the vote right now, but always remember that you're still a pastry, and I WILL eat you before this game is over.

[archaebob]

Hey guys, first game I've played on here, so I'll start this off with a Vote:AlmasterGM for having a Pikachu avatar when Jigglypuff is clearly superior.

Something else of note: Gamma said nothing about checking out all the players, that was totally Almaster's made up assumption. The only thing we know is that Gamma has seen Almaster make at least ONE post in ONE other game. No conclusion about extensive researching, or checking out all the players, can be drawn from this. This doesn't even imply that he's looked up other players.

I'm finding AMG really out of line with this argument.

[archaebob]

lexprod, why haven't you voted for someone? you've made one post, and disappeared. there are couple other people on here with only one post as well.

I'll forgive you for now, since this is literally the first day of the game, but everyone should know that I pay close attention to who is posting, and who isn't, and that lurking will draw more attention to themselves than just about anything else they could do.

Foilist, you need to explain how AGM's argument makes even the slightest bit of sense.

You missed something important. It wasn't die. It was killed.

Now, semantics blah blah but - why would one assume killed over lynched?

There's one reason that sure springs to mind. Guess what it is?

Unvote, Vote: AlmasterGM

is this the primary reason you're voting for AGM right now?

[archaebob]

@ Gammagooey - jigglypuff is the lamest character in any installment of SSB. You deserve a mega

USMN: Gammagooey

for that horrible, horrible, blasphemy right there.

*spits*

[archaebob]

@ Chinaman - you've said you don't find looking up other games beforehand to be a tell either way. isn't it, then, suspicious that someone would make an argument trying to make someone out to be scum based on that? Especially a newbie player who happened to already be the random bandwagon at that moment?

[archaebob]

URATFM: MordyS

[archaebob]

@ Chinaman - why aren't you voting for Muffin or AGM?

[archaebob]

Foilist, you aren't reading the thread carefully. Are you trying to find scum, or trying to scrape by?

[archaebob]

FOS: foilist13

[archaebob]

@ China - I just asked a question. You and foil are the one's drawing conclusions about what I "want" you to do.

[archaebob]

The FoS was in response to his posts up to this point. It had nothing to do with him not replying.

[archaebob]

unvote

vote foilist

[archaebob]

A scum player is in the business of trying to "prove" that other players are the scum. With this in mind, it would make sense for a dedicated scum player to research the other players in order to find differences in playing styles, or other "tells" that they can come up with in order to point fingers at town players.

...?

Hey guys, first game I've played on here, so I'll start this off with a Vote:AlmasterGM for having a Pikachu avatar when Jigglypuff is clearly superior.

What about this quote at all indicates that gamma gooey has been "researching" all the other players before the start of the game?

Also, these next two quotes contradict each other:

Why are you pressuring him for a vote?

@Chinaman - FoS'ing is the coward's way of voting. The only reason to do that is if you already have a vote on someone else. Otherwise you've served no purpose by doing it.

And finally, you don't even have clue who we're talking about with this whole conversation:

Taking all this into account though, I can't prove or deduce that MordyS was looking up other players. I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it.

MordyS has nothing to do with this conversation. Gammagooey is the one who knew the avatar ahead of time.

So i'll repeat my question, foilist.

Are you actually trying to find scum, or are you hoping to scrape by with latching onto the poorly formed arguments of others?

[archaebob]

@ Gamma -

It's unreasonable to expect people to post more than once a day. This game only got going at all earlier today, so keep that in mind.

No lurkers yet buddy, but I love your thinking. Keep paying attention to who's posting and who's not.

[archaebob]

Foilist, the first two quotes went together. My commentary on the second quote was also commentary on the first.

Taking all this into account though, I can't prove or deduce that MordyS was looking up other players. I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it.

If you concede the point, then why is your vote still on Gammagooey?

And your belligerence will get you nowhere, as you have, in fact, not been reading the thread carefully.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

[archaebob]

@Cruelty - the vast majority of people I play with are those whom I've never seen before. Its not impossible, just unlikely, especially considering Almaster did not know him.

Hey Almaster, you know how in just about every forum people bitch at you if you don't lurk before posting? I read through some games before signing up for my first one, and saw you in one of them.

I saw that Almaster had a pikachu avatar in the Stratego game, and I read through several other themed games before signing up for this one, including Majora's mask, Mind Screw 3, and Advertising Mafia. (Before Almaster says it:I'm pretty sure Spyrex was in at least one of those too)

Any other points you'd like to ignore?

[archaebob]

Belligerence? I'll leave it at "you're one to talk."

Pathetic.

This is not an excuse for you to ignore my other points.

I voted Muffin for two reasons:

1) It was RVS, and no one else was suspicious. I don't think I left it on him (or her...I still don't fucking know for sure) for that long at all, actually.

2) It's a fucking pastry.

Anymore questions?

[archaebob]

@ Archaebob - Who are you asking? The first one is mine directed at Cruelty, the second is from Gammagooey directed at Almaster, and I don't know off the top of my head who the third was directed at, but I don't think it was me.

The point is not who they were directed at. The point is that both of them came chronologically before you posted that first quote, and both answered the argument you were trying to make. The fact that you totally ignored the content of these quotes indicates to me that you aren't reading carefully.

[archaebob]

I want other people to comment on this.

[archaebob]

you still are ignoring a few of my points.

you dodged first with the "oh, '...?' is not a question" bull shit, and then you dodged again with belligerence line.

are you scared of this argument, or something?

This is your first post of the game:

What Almaster says about MordyS actually holds water. It makes sense, to me at least, for a town player to research a player they're suspicious of, but to go and look up everyone or even random people at the very beginning?

I can't fathom how you managed to get the name wrong, and how you STILL had it wrong in your next post later on, but whatever.

What I don't understand is how the above is a remotely logical conclusion, given this quote:

Hey guys, first game I've played on here, so I'll start this off with a Vote:AlmasterGM for having a Pikachu avatar when Jigglypuff is clearly superior.

There is nothing about the argument that you made in the first quote that even

remotely

holds water.

[archaebob]

URATFM = you are a total fucking moron

kirby is a goddamn beast, and i will not stand to hear you or anyone else say otherwise.

[archaebob]

@ Muffin - have I been particularly undiplomatic in this game?

I mean, y'all from 846 have a very specific idea of what kind of player I am, though the truth is I've been trying out different metas for all of my games. I don't think I've been notably abrasive in this game so far, except perhaps in direct response to foilist.

[archaebob]

btw, @ Mordy -

[archaebob]

@ Foilist - I don't at all understand why you wouldn't switch your vote to Gammagooey after you realized that you had got the name wrong.

This makes no sense.

@ Afatchic - why do you find my jumping onto the AGM wagon scummier than foilist jumping onto what he thought was the gammagooey wagon? Do you actually find me more suspicious than foilist?

@ AGM - where did you go?

@ Chinaman - I don't understand why you are resisting putting up a vote. I don't agree with the Muffin that FOSing is COMPLETELY useless...but I do see it as slightly less helpful to the town overall, especially this early in Day 1. Overall, I'm not getting a scummy read on you at the moment, but withholding your vote out of some strange notion of self-righteousness makes it seem a little like you're trying to hide something. SO, do what you want, but I strongly recommend just sucking it up and dropping a vote.

I think we need to forgive the lurkers for now, given that it's halloween weekend.

[archaebob]

@ Foilist - no one asked you to change your vote without figuring out who you wanted to vote for. the point is, you had figured out that you had wanted to vote for gammagooey, but accidentally voted for someone else. upon having realized your mistake, you should have felt like your vote was in the wrong place, and have had some proactive desire to correct that. no one was asking you to totally withdraw your suspicions, or unvote, or anything like that. we are all just a little bit puzzled that you consider voting for the people who you actually find suspicious entirely irrelevant.

@ peanutman - I acknowledge your case and your suspicions of me, and understand the issue you have right now. I'll have you know that writing long coherent posts is my default mode of play, but that I generally don't fall into my default mode of play until a little ways into Day 1. Foilist and Muffin can attest to the truthfulness of that last sentence. Your going to have to accept right now that I have something specific in mind, and I'll just have to accept that you suspect me.

@ AGM - I'm a little bit irked by your disappearance from this game.

@ lexprod - time is running out. you need to start posting or be replaced.

[archaebob]

I second Gamma's request to reformat post 125

What i dislike the most thus far....
Bob's bandwagon vote on to AGM. It was with terrible reasoning (A 1 liner, imagine that), and just looked scummy to me. He claims that AGM just can't believe that is a good case, thus votes him. Generally, this can be a good reason for a vote. The only problem is, he is voting for someone not pushing a good case on post 40!

Unvote, Vote archaebob

So...you don't think AGM deserved a vote, because in your opinion, he wasn't

actually

trying to push a good case, he was just "voting for someone".

Now, why would you make this argument for him, and not for me? For some reason, you've decided to interpret AGM's vote as not serious, and you think it's justified. But he said in the post that it

was

, in fact, a "serious" vote. Am I not supposed to take him at face value?

I voted for AGM because he had become scummier than my RVS vote. I don't see why that makes you think I'm scummy, and it is interesting that you haven't posted ANY content of any kind about anyone else.

[archaebob]

@ Muffin - I would like you to respond to Foilist's case.

Also, I find your statements about FoS's being COMPLETELY pointless to be pretty ridiculous. While I tend to agree that there is no good reason to withhold a vote on Day 1, I think you are way overstepping yourself with this argument. FoS's don't have absolutely NO effect, and it is idiotic to define having an effect only as something that will contribute to a lynch. You might as well say that posting anything other than a vote has no effect. Why don't we all just post votes, and forget all this debating and stuff?

An FoS is a formal declaration of suspicion against another player. FoSing someone for no reason can be as comparably suspicious as voting them for no reason, and can also illicit a similar sort of reaction from the attacked player. They serve their purpose, and I think you are wasting the town's time with this back and forth argument over nothing with chinaman.

Overall, I haven't seen a whole lot of scum-hunting from you.

[archaebob]

@ Cruelty -

You've made three posts this entire game. In your first, you random voted chinaman. Is chinaman actually your top suspect right now?

You seem to be very skeptical of AGM's case, and of foilist 13. Why have you stuck with your random vote?

@ Foilist -

It is a very small minority of the players in this game that think my FoS of you was without reason.

[archaebob]

@ cruelty - I want to avoid any more arguments about whether or not it's necessary to always be voting, so I'll just say this: can you please indicate who you overall find the most suspicious right now?

@ foilist - could you please post a general scumlist? I'd like to know what you think of all the players who don't happen to be Muffin.

[archaebob]

and foilist, I don't care if you mention every single player, I just want to see if there is anything that you have noticed and have an opinion about besides where your vote happens to be.

[archaebob]

@ Foilist, regarding your voting behaviour. If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way. Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?

Foilist never made this argument, so why are you making it for him?

FoS: Peanutman

[archaebob]

@ MordyS - who do you suspect besides foilist?

[archaebob]

afatchic - Only a few posts, not much to get a read on.

cruelty - I get a scum vibe here. He only jumps in every so often to posts arguments that agree with the general feeling at the moment.

peanutman - Similar to cruelty, except his arguments don't follow the general trend which gives me more of a town vibe.

Afatchic has posted 5 times.

Cruelty has only posted three times, while peanutman has posted twice.

Why do you say that afatchic has "only a few posts, not much to get a read on," while you already have clearly formed opinions of cruelty and peanutman?

[archaebob]

@ Foilist - could you please go into detail about the difference you see between peanutman and afatchic? I really can't fathom how one gave you a different vibe than the other.

Scumlist (from scum down)

foilist13
Peanutman
AlmasterGM
afatchic / cruelty / Muffin
Gammagooey / Spyrex / Chinaman / lexprod
MordyS

Gamma through lexprod is neutral.

[archaebob]

@ cruelty - can I assume then that you do not find Muffin at all suspicious?

[archaebob]

@ Peanutman - why do you give the benefit of the doubt only to foilist? you had no problem voting for me on your second post.

@ Cruelty - I'm saying that only because you said foilist's suspicions were entirely worthless. Muffin is his top suspect, so I extrapolated. Is this incorrect, or not? I don't understand why you are hostile to me.

[archaebob]

@ Peanutman - is my "unexplained" vote the only reason you are voting me? wouldn't you agree that i have explained it fully since it was made? it's curious to me that you aren't willing to ascribe my posting habits to my play style, but yet you are willing to fabricate a whole defense out of thin air to proactively offer another player.

I don't buy your vote on me. And that's not OMGUS, believe me.

And I don't buy that you are giving foilist "the benefit of the doubt." I think you are trying to gently show foilist a way out of his hole.

HoS: Peanutman

Afatchic, lexprod, and AGM really need to post soon. Lexprod in particular, who has actually posted nothing so far, and specifically said he would be on tonight.

Muffin, you've also disappeared. I need a response to the case against you, and I need to see some scum-hunting. You are very much not in the clear right now.

[archaebob]

@ foilist - I'll go into detail once I have a read on all the players. more people need to post.

that's all I'm saying about that right now.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

I asked for you a list because I couldn't tell if you were paying attention to anyone besides muffin. You cannot say the same for me.

I'm voting for you because the things YOU have done are scummy. I'm not ignoring the player's who haven't posted, but I'm also not going to vote them for being inactive over halloween weekend. Pay closer attention foilist, I still don't think you are reading the thread closely. Have you noticed how almost a third of my posts draw attention to the non-posters?

[archaebob]

Foilist, I already said that we're not discussing this. You'll get your list of opinions after lexprod and the rest of them lurkers start to show up.

[archaebob]

Spyrex, I know it's a LOT of extra effort, but can you please put the names of the people you are quoting into the quote tag? Going back to read the thread later is going to be a bitch if you we have to figure out who's addressing who for each post.

[archaebob]

@ foilist - what's your opinion of Peanutman? My opinion of him is that he's scum. There, now it's fair. Do you find anything about him suspicious?

[archaebob]

Archaebob, the attention is on you now.

unvote, Vote:Archaebob until he posts something of relevance, and then depending on his answers.

If we are not discussing this, what exactly have you decided the discussion will be about?

Lol.

@ Spyrex - I'm just curious, why would you prefer to lynch foilist right now than peanut man?

[archaebob]

The discussion is going to be about the players who haven't posted yet. The discussion tomorrow revolve very strongly around them. Then, depending on how things turn out, we're going to lynch either you, peanut, or one of the non-posters, if they manage to dig themselves a deeper grave than you've been enable to so far.

At least, that's what I intend.

[archaebob]

EBWOP: "will" revolve very strong around them.

[archaebob]

Foilist, don't worry. I'll give you the full-fledged wall post of a case you deserve before we get around to lynching you.

Spyrex, here's something you might want to look at. Foil was cop in this game, and got himself lynched with a slip up in the third line or so of the post I've linked you to. His play from that point was as idiotically stubborn and as scummy looking as it has been in this game. I tunneled him, and we lynched him pretty quickly; the catch, though, is that he was actually town.

Therefore, I'm not actually positive that foilist is scum. It is clear to me though that he hasn't learned his lesson from that game, and is therefore somewhat useless to the town.

[archaebob]

No, it's not pro-town to let yourself be lynched. You should defend yourself as best you can. But you aren't doing a very good job of that, since it's crystal clear how OMGUS your vote of me is.

You've also shown us that you didn't really suspect Muffin to begin with, given how quickly you were willing to drop your case on him.

Anyways, I'm done for the night. I hope to see a greater variety of faces on the thread tomorrow than what we've had so far.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS - sorry, i missed your post the first time around.

I don't know if it's the same or not. I suppose in this game his scum tells are a little more entrenched, while he had actually seemed pro-town over all in the other game.

Frankly, I don't care much though. He's acted like obvscum in this game, and I'd be willing to lynch him on principle whether or not that's actually his role.

[archaebob]

At 9:30PM? How old are you?

[archaebob]

@ Mordy and Spyrex - did you read anymore of the meta than the first post? The important thing is the way he defended himself, not the original tell itself.

[archaebob]

(and I paid for an argument!)

No you didn't.

@ lexprod - what do you think of peanutman?

[archaebob]

Mordy and Spyrex: please don't post a response to AGM yet. I want to see afatchic, Chinaman, Muffin, and cruelty stake out their positions, based on everything that has happened so far.

[archaebob]

almaster, can I assume, based on his total absence from your post, that you find nothing notable or at all suspicious about foilist's play?

[archaebob]

@ cruelty - I'm not asking you to give away your entire hand. I'm playing it a little close the chest right now myself. But you aren't voting for anyone, and haven't provided any bolded statements indicating who your top pick for scum right now is. I respect the reason why don't want to post a general scum list, but the

total

lack of transparency is a little unsettling.

I'd appreciate if you could at least vote. You've mentioned that you think foilist overall is the most suspicious. Any reason why you haven't voted yet?

[archaebob]

@ Gammagooey - gotta say, not the best move defending me just now. i didn't need it, and I was hoping to see how others would respond to AGM's case without anymore direction from the players who have been posting most so far. You did a good job tearing apart AGM's case, but now we'll never know what afatchic, Chinaman, or Muffin might have revealed in their uninfluenced decision to support or reject it.

I'm still waiting on those three: fatchic, Chinaman, and Muffin.

I really would encourage the town to abstain from engaging any further until we have heard from them, as all we are accomplishing is letting them see clearly who is on what side, and where it is safest to enter.

@ Afatchic, Muffin, and Chinaman - please take this opportunity to catch up, form your opinions, and update your vote. I'd like to know where you stand.

[archaebob]

@ AGM - I'm going to respond to your case later on. I'm not someone to ignore a case just because I could probably get away with it. I have a specific reason for not responding right at this moment, which has to do with the non-posters.

Don't worry. As soon as I get the info I want from all the players in the game, I'm going to pretty much drown this thread in words.

Please understand that I'm not trying to be some kind of savvy political operator, and use my current town creds to totally de-legitimize your scumhunting. I didn't think it was a good idea to respond to your case just yet for reasons entirely unrelated to my current opinion of you, and I do in fact resent Gammagooey for stepping in the way he did.

I hope you aren't too hostile right now to answer these questions:

1) What is your opinion on foilist?
2) What is your opinion on peanutman?

Can we be a little bit cool for the time being?

[archaebob]

mod: I think we need prods for afatchic and Chinaman

[archaebob]

@ Gammagooey - what's your stance on peanutman?

[archaebob]

unvote

vote muffin

[archaebob]

From sunday:

Same for me. Was busy most of the day yesterday and probably will be busy until Monday evening. Post later.

From yesterday:

Just checking in to say, as I said earlier, probably won't have time to post until late tonight.

So

...where is he/she/it?

[archaebob]

You guys can feel free to jump on the Muffin wagon. There's no way we're going to lynch AGM or foilist until Muffin does something about the nagging suspicions against him, and the total lack of posting is not really not helping.

In all honesty, I'd totally prefer lynching a lurker over a scummy player who's being active. I consider it the priority of Day 1 to make everyone establish a position and a pattern of play, so that we can get to the real scum-hunting after the first flip. I'm much more worried right now about the day ending with Muffin, China, and fatchic being allowed to keep to the shadows than I am of leaving foilist or AGM alive an extra day.

Muffin, you need to post.

It'd be totally awesome if you guys could join me in pressuring him.

[archaebob]

EBWOP: haha, that was a double negative

"and the total lack of posting is [remove the extra not] really not helping"

[archaebob]

yep.

I don't know for sure who we need to lynch yet, but I do know for sure that we're not lynching at all until everyone in this game has clearly staked their positions out, and responded to the queries of all the other players.

Get your vote up on muffin, Gamma. AGM is not going anywhere, believe me.

[archaebob]

peanutman, whether or not you like me, trust me, or think I'm scum, don't you agree that at this precise moment it is a good idea to pressure Muffin?

Don't let your personal issues with me prevent you from making a good town move. I'll still be here after, when Muffin posts, you can switch your vote back to me if you still think I'm the best target.

[archaebob]

@ Muffin, Chinaman, Afatchic

We're waiting on you.

[archaebob]

@ cruelty -

I don't mind that you suspect me, and I think it's pro-town for you to be keeping tabs on everyone, including me. I promise you, all will become crystal clear regarding my intentions and my positions once I hear from afatchic and Chinaman (or their replacements). I don't see how my playstyle so far is a scum-tell to you, given that there are many examples of town players doing what I've been doing up to this point.

You don't like that I'm not transparent. I follow you. But if you go back and read the questions I've been asking this game, and really pay attention to the way they're phrased and the context in which they're posted, I think you'll find an ample amount of content. I'm paying attention to every player in this game as closely as I can, and I will tell you that part of the reason I haven't been posting cases so far is because I have a bad habit of tunneling which I am trying to lose.

If you read Newbie 846 (which I linked earlier in the thread as foilist's meta) from the beginning, you should see pretty clearly why I have developed a bit of a phobia regarding too much content and cases when not all of the players are posting. You'll also see an example of me playing a certain way at the beginning of the game for a specific reason, and then totally changing gears later on. I was town in that game, and I would suspect that reading it will somewhat alter your opinion of me.

unvote

vote: Chinaman

[archaebob]

@ cruelty - is there anything about me besides my playstyle that you actually find scummy? you don't like that I'm arrogant enough to ask other players to do certain things, or that I'm confident in presuming that certain assumptions of mine will be respected. Fine. But that's about the only thing you can say about me. I find it interesting that you never considered the contradictions and major scum-slips dropped by foilist13 to be worthy of a vote,

even in the early stages of the game

, but yet you are willing to put me up to L-3 because of something which I think should be easy to reconcile with an aggrresive town personality. You are now putting me in palpable danger of a quick lynch, and I think that I've objectively done less to deserve your vote than at least two others who you have decided to ignore.

[archaebob]

That said, I resent being asked for constant opinions because they will come.

hypocrite much?

(Side-note to archaebob: They aren't wrong, even if they aren't right. I don't think you're scum, but I think your posting style and a lot of your content has been inane. Less asking, 'how do you feel,' questions, and more posting: "BANG YOU'RE DEAD CAUSE SCUMMERS NEVER PROSPER" arguments, plz? And stop promising it'll all make sense once all the lurkers post. You're not Obi Won Kenobi.)

I know they aren't wrong. But if you pay attention to my posts up to this point, I haven't exactly been keeping my positions a secret. Many of my questions are pretty pointed, and all of them are direct.

Go ahead and skim that meta I linked. You'll see what's coming next. I just think its important right now to ensure that nobody is slipping by undetected, since that's what screwed me over in the last game I played as town.

This would go a lot faster I think if more people would vote Chinaman. Not that i'm trying to control the town or anything.

[archaebob]

unvote

vote afatchic

[archaebob]

it doesn't make any sense to suspect AGM more than afatchic right now. Had AGM not posted at all since he first was attacked, his play would have been equivalent to what afatchic's has been. We have no way of knowing that afatchic wouldn't seem scummier if he was posting, because he isn't. I strongly recommend focusing attention on lurkers before focusing on the players who have actually been scummy, because the one's who have already posted have already been caught, and aren't going anywhere. The one's who haven't might still get away without slipping up.

[archaebob]

@ AGM - I don't actually love the case on you right now, as I generally think there are bigger fish to fry. However, I cannot ignore that you have decided to entirely avoid mentioning foilist13 or peanutman this game. I asked you for your opinions on them, and you have ignored my questions. Obviously, I'm not in much of a position right now to demand answers from you, but you also aren't in much of a position to refuse them. I also don't buy your vote on me, not because I think there is no reason to suspect me, but because you have decided to totally ignore the other players in this game who have objectively been much scummier. However pure your intentions may be, you have to accept that your vote at this moment looks like a poorly implemented chainsaw defense, and the total lack of thoughts from you regarding the players that are most suspected right now makes you seem like scum. If you are a town player, I see very little so far from you that has been pro-town, and I would not at all mind lynching you today. I strongly recommend that you drop this whole "I'm so cool because I don't take shit from you" bullshit, and give us a good reason to keep you around. Try actually scum-hunting, for example.

[archaebob]

Do you understand the concept of objectivity?

I do. I recognize that scumminess is, on some core fundamental level, a subjective thing. However, while viewing a player to be scummy may indeed be a subjective opinion, the quantity of scummy occurrences to which attention of some kind should be directed is arguably pretty objective. It is subjective to say that I'm convinced by the case on Player X, and that I think Player X is pretty scummy, but it is objective to say that Player X has contradicted himself, has had a case made against him by one or more other players. Objectively, there has been discussion of foilist13 and of yourself relating to things you have done that one or more players consider to be scummy. Objectively, AlmasterGM has totally neglected to address that discussion. Whether or not AGM subjectively finds you and foilist to

actually

be scummy is not what I'm after. I find the fact that he is voting for me, while simultaneously ignoring the cases against two other players, to be very unsettling.

If you still disagree with my usage of the word "objective", don't bother rebutting again, as I've already made my meaning very clear, and I have no interest in debating semantics.

On this note, I also detect a sense of confidence on your part. You encourage us all to use our votes to pressure other players. Yet, with 4 votes on you, you don't feel the need to defend yourself that much, satisfied with relying on other players to defend you (I know you stated you didn't like it but you haven't really said anything about it either).

I'm confident enough not to defend myself right now because I'm convinced that at least two of the scum are already on the wagon. Not enough to quick hammer, I don't think. And if I'm wrong, then I doubt I'm in much danger anyways, as the player to hammer me would pretty much become obvscum.

So yeah, I'm not really scared of your wagon peanut. I'm going to take my time, and do the best I can to guarantee that the town gets all the information it can get from today. You can stand in my way as much as you want, but good luck justifying your actions as pro-town.

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

Newbie 846 was my second game ever. This is my third game ever. Read that whole game, and take careful note of who wins. Then maybe it might occur to you that I learned a lesson from it, and am trying something different in this game.

If you want to make your argument fairly, then read Newbie 842 (my scum meta), in which I ALSO played differently from this game.

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

My takeaway is not something I have any interest in sharing with you right now. The important thing is that this game is different from both my scum meta AND my town meta, and therefore nothing about my alignment can be gleaned from past games. Again, keep in mind that this is my third game EVER. It seems silly to suspect a relatively new player for changing up their style a little within their first few games.

[archaebob]

@ AGM - your decision to ignore the cases on foilist13 and peanutman predate your case on me. I feel very little obligation to respond to you right now.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

1) Very nice to see you again. *pulls out a belt and a potato skinner*

2) I want to know your opinion of foilist, since you were there for Newbie 846. I'm not totally sure what to make of it right now, and it's bugging me.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS - I'm on the debate team on my school as well, and I expect that Almaster, if he actually DOES say that, loses a lot of rounds. He may be telling the truth in that it's something he says, but it's definitely not standard.

[archaebob]

So I have to respond to a case not on me before you will respond to a case on you? How does that make any sense?

You don't "have" to do anything. Your

decision

to ignore the cases made on other people is anti-town, and very scummy. My decision to ignore the case on me might be as well, but I have already explained fully why I am choosing to act this way right now. YOU have not.

Whatever you have to say about me, there can be no denial of the fact that I am reading the thread very closely, am drawing attention to things that other player's have not noticed, and am at least acknowledging everything that is going on in the thread (INCLUDING the things I have decided to ignore right now). I at least have made the effort to clearly explain why I'm withholding information right now...or at least have strongly indicated why I might be doing that. Your latest post is the first acknowledgement that there even WAS a case against foilist or peanutman. I find it very improbable that you have found nothing worth commenting on from either of them. Also, the kind of case you made against me makes me very confused as to why you weren't equally miffed by several other players in this game. All in all, it is difficult for me to reconcile your play with a town mentality, and if you ARE town, I don't think you have been at all helpful, and have no reason to suspect that will change.

[archaebob]

did i get in here before my 24 hours are up?!

Sorry for going MIA. I'll try to catch up later tonight and make a decent post.

What happened to this?

vote afatchic

again, just for good measure.

[archaebob]

Actually, you know what, vote: afatchic

Good good good.

I want MOAR.

[archaebob]

@ peanutman -

A lot of people pressure voting one person sends that person the clearest signal they can get that their lurking is not working. Especially if discussion is forcibly stalled as well. This is because the goal of lurkers is to have everybody lynch someone else while they stay safely in the shadows. The pressure vote obviously doesn't obligate anyone to post, but any scum who is trying to lurk is going to have no choice but to drop the act if they are hoping for a mislynch.

And that's why I really don't care much about the wagon on me. It's not that I am exempt from your pressure votes. It's that they don't send me any signal that is particularly formidable. Therefore, as I consider my actions to be beneficial to my win condition at this moment, I have little reason to not continue as I have been. What exactly is my incentive to appease you right now, Peanutman? I definitely am NOT hoping that you guys will lynch someone else while I just sit here and keep my lips tight. In fact, I have explicitly stated that I won't support any lynch until everyone has posted, and I've had time to post my cases. This is a concrete, falsifiable promise, which you can get me lynched for if I don't respect. So what are you hoping to accomplish with your vote on me? You aren't going to get me lynched now, and I've given you a concrete claim of what my actions will be in the very near future. Unless you are all somehow positive that I am scum, I see very little pro-town motivation for the existence of this wagon.

[archaebob]

We certainly shouldn't end the day until Bob deals with the arguments against him.

I fully agree.

I'm curious, Mordy. In your view, what are those arguments against me that I should deal with?

[archaebob]

@ afatchic -

Just replace out if you can't manage anything past this prod dancing. Posting literally once every two days with a promise each time for more is not helpful to this game. I'd prefer you just call it quits and get replaced, instead of pretending like you can commit when you obviously can't.

Please, get your act together.

@ Muffin -

I sincerely hope you didn't think you could just go back to lurking as soon as we moved our votes to someone else.

[archaebob]

Mk, it's been almost three days now, and it's becoming increasingly more clear that afatchic is actually inactive, and not a luker. He might still be scum, but I don't think that I'm accomplishing much anymore with my pressure votes. It

really

bothers me that I'm not following through with what I originally said I was going to do (regarding lurkers), but especially given that the town is not sympathetic to my plan of pressuring non-posters with votes and halted discussion, I doubt that much would be gleaned at this point even if afatchic WAS a genuine lurker.

So, long story short, I've decided after much consideration to just suck it up and get the hell on with it.

I'm starting me epic reread of the thread now, and y'all had better prepare yourself for some major fucking WORDS.

I might take a day, but you'll definitely see something from me either tonight or tomorrow.

[archaebob]

mod: please deal with afatchic as best you can, as you are the only one who has the power to continue this crusade

[archaebob]

@ AGM - you really need to start addressing your posts. Going back and reading you in iso, it is very difficult to tell who you addressing at times. Please make the effort to put the name of the person you are quoting in each quote tag.

I'm going to start with your first case, the wall with 9 points against me:

1)

Foilist 13 and cruelty haven't posted yet. It's still early, but I just wanted to put that out there, as a running list. "

It hasn't even been one day yet and he's already indicting people for not posting. Forced pro-town.

Lol, do you even read the posts you quote? Pay attention, Mr. Debate Team. I'm specifically saying that it's

too early

to be indicting people for not posting,

because

it's only the first day. I'm just making it clear from the onset of the game that lurking is something that I pay attention to. In fact, I even tell Gammagooey in post 72 that it isn't fair to be calling people out on inactivity yet.

All in all, I find it laughable that you would even attempt to paint this as a scumtell.

2) Goes from apparent uncertainty / question asking to a vote without anything significant happening between the two posts. No substantial explanation, either.

AGM - why would you assume that any town player would do what YOU would do? Especially considering that this is his first game, I find it difficult to follow your suspicion of him.

Almaster has played in several games. Not sure how he could actually think this was a good case just now.

vote Almaster

Your right, there is no significant difference

between those two posts

. What your missing is the subtext! Which of course, you conveniently left out of your case. Here's my post 31:

Alamaster, how many games have you played? Can you provide some meta links?

Shortly after this, you told me to check your wiki. So I did. While doing so, I noticed that you played in several games, and concluded that you had too much experience to actually believe the case you had against GG. Hence, I informed the town of my position regarding you in post 41.

I don't think my thought process was really all that mysterious, and I find your selective quotation of my posts to be deliberately manipulative.

3) Asks folist a question, waits 12 minutes (realtime), and then FOS's him without any explanation. What was he doing for those 12 minutes?

Foilist, you aren't reading the thread carefully. Are you trying to find scum, or trying to scrape by?

FOS: foilist13

For those twelve minutes, Almaster, I was rereading the thread. I noted Foilist's swap of MordyS and GG's name, and closely re-evaluated his arguments in Posts 42 and Post 59.

Again, this wasn't exactly a mystery. Even if you weren't sure why I was FoSing him at that very moment, I made my reasons for suspecting him abundantly clear within the next few pages. This is yet another pathetic excuse for a scum-tell.

4) Starts talking about the wagon on me significantly after the fact.

What about this quote at all indicates that gamma gooey has been "researching" all the other players before the start of the game?

Lololol. This is an instant fail for two reasons:

1) The quote doesn't at all talk about the wagon on you.
2) You are accusing me of talking about something long after the fact...right after you just finished making a case on my FoS of foilist. Your case on this FoS is LONG after the fact. Most of your case on me is long after the fact, actually.

And even if we ignore both those major flunks, I fail to see your point. In your opinion, is it anti-town to be going back into the thread "after the fact" to bring up things that you don't think have been adequately addressed?

5) Contradiction: First, he indicts people who haven't posted yet and says he's keeping careful watch of who posts and who doesn't. Then, a couple hours later, he's saying we can't expect people to post that much.

It's unreasonable to expect people to post more than once a day. This game only got going at all earlier today, so keep that in mind.

These just keep getting better and better.

Imma refer you to my rebuttal to point one.

6) Asks for other people to comment without actually commenting himself : fishing for popular opinion before committing to any one direction.

I want other people to comment on this.

Actually, I asked other people for comments because I was the ONLY one commenting on the foilist situation. Let me show you the abundance of comments I made, regarding Mr. Foil.

In Post 60, I very directly accused foilist of not reading the thread carefully.
In Post 70, I posted a small case on him, bringing up his misinterpretation of Gammagooey's first post, a contradiction in his dialogue with Chinaman, and his mistaken swap of MordyS's and Gammagooey's name.
In Post 76, I ask foilist why his vote is still on Gammagooey. (hint, hint, it's not!) <- (this actually wasn't intentional, but meh, it worked out pretty well)
In Post 78, I quote a post of foil's, and two of Gamma's, in an attempt to show how foilist is ignoring the arguments being made that render his position illegitimate.
In Post 80, I answer why I had my vote on Muffin, and let him know just how lame he really is. Additionally, I reference the fact that he is selectively responding to my points.
In Post 81, I rebut his attempt to rebut Post 78.

It is not until

post 82

that ask for comments from others.

And...guess what! After I asked for more comments, I kept going! I address Foilist no less than four more times before I ask him for his scumlist.

So, your point is complete bull shit. Your either a moron, or a manipulative scum, and judging by the relatively intelligent tone of your writing, I'm going to go with the latter.

And whatever you may think about my scumhunting of Foilist, I certainly made myself a lot more useful than you did during your calculating abstinence from this thread.

7) Another contradiction.

@ AGM - where did you go?

I think we need to forgive the lurkers for now, given that it's halloween weekend.

I'd say more of a change of heart than a contradiction.

And still, even if this IS is a contradiction, it's the worst attempted scum-tell so far in this case.

8) References a nonexistent justification for a past vote as a defense. Remember, bob never gave any substantial reason for why he voted for me.

I voted for AGM because he had become scummier than my RVS vote. I don't see why that makes you think I'm scummy, and it is interesting that you haven't posted ANY content of any kind about anyone else.

I'll reference you to my rebuttal for point 2.

And again, where was I referencing a non-existent justification? I was PROVIDING a justification, a new one, in response to afatchic's vote.

9) MOST IMPORTANTLY: All his posts are just mountains upon mountains of white noise. There is literally NO scumhunting being done, just tons of questions and random comments that make it look like he's contributing when he is not. Seriously, go read him in isolation - he's so incoherent and random it's funny.

I honestly cannot even bring myself to respond to this. I doubt anybody else needs me to, so I'd like to abstain, if that's acceptable.

----

I'm willing to get to the other stuff later, though honestly, responding to all this AGM bull shit is a big waste of time. I'd prefer to go onto my cases, so let me know if you need me to defend myself anymore.

[archaebob]

Peanutman

First substance post of the game from Mr. Nut:

Spyrex accusing AGM of a scum-slip about the word "killing" is really a weak argument to contribute to the building AGM wagon. His quote seems much more like a visceral reaction to Archaebob's comment that says much more of his annoyance to the latter's RVS joking-style than to the game itself.

As for Gammagooey, there is one thing he stated that really doesn't sit well with me.

Mordy-I have trouble seeing the motivations for a mafia to stick his neck out and say that something is absolutely not scummy and draw attention to himself.

Why feel the need to prevent thoughts of buddying between you and Mordy. I had given that prospect much wait until you went out of your way to mention it. Even if this isn't the case, I am rather opposed to identifying people as town, in the early days for a few reasons. For one, the scum can single-out people who seem most pro-town based on those statement. Also, it can cause the town to ignore them in their scumhunting, based on the fact that some people feel they are town.

He has established a couple of things with this first part of his post:

1) He doesn't like people saying that other people are townish, because it makes it easier for scum to scope out their victims.
2) He is more offended by people saying who they think are town than he is by people making weak arguments. (I'm judging this by the relatively light treatment of Spyrex, and the full quotation and paragraph given to Gammagooey).

@ Foilist, regarding your voting behaviour. If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way. Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?

Peanut creates a totally original defense for foilist out of thin air, and hands it to him. I can tell he thought really hard about it. Worried by the hole that foilist seems determined to dig himself, peanutman jumps in with some leading questions in an attempt to show his partner the light. I want everybody to pay careful attention to this, as this might be the biggest solid slip of the game so far. In the face of a very scummy looking foilist, peanutman's response is not to question him with guarded suspicion,

but to proactively make up a defense that had not at all been hinted at by foilist or anyone else in the thread.

I consider this the scummiest move by anyone in the game right now.

Next section:

Now, for my preliminary case on Archaebob. Vote : Archaebob. Here's why:
1)

@ Chinaman - why aren't you voting for Muffin or AGM?

@ China - I just asked a question. You and foil are the one's drawing conclusions about what I "want" you to do.

Now, your question does ask why he isn't voting. However, taken in context, you aren't so much asking him way he isn't voting but more insinuating that he must vote on one of those he has suspected. And as for "drawing concusions" on statements, isn't that the whole basis of MafiaScum? In the end, I draw the conclusion that you were pressuring Chinaman to vote which is scummy in my book when the game is already flowing at a nice pace.
2) Your play style, a plethora of short posts, many lacking serious and valuable content, gives the allure of activity and any kind of questions may seem like scum-hunting, but it doesn't hold as much weight when really looked into. I encourage you to make longer, more coherent posts, with more content.
3) Regarding your exchanges with Foilist, you repeat at many times that he is ignoring your important questions and arguments, but I had trouble myself finding them. If you do have questions that are repeatedly unanswered, either repeat them, quote them or link to them. It would make your arguments much more convincing to me, and to the rest of the town I believe.
3)Also, you vote without any explanation.

unvote

vote foilist

Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:

@Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.

So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.

I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.

(Note: if anybody still needs me to defend against the points in this case, let me know. At the moment, I feel like I've adequately addressed them already in my response to AGM.)

The major thing I want to draw attention to in this case is the thought process he is using to form his ideas against me. The key word here is "assumption". Every point he makes in this case is something that he assumes to be true about me, as a result of some element of my posts.

I want it to be clear that I don't consider his case to be totally illegitimate, as I think his points were fair at the time he made them. What strikes me as very off is the extent to which he is willing to assume the worst about me from a very limited amount of evidence. And this is scummy to me because it contrasts extremely sharply with his attitude towards foilist.

In his first point, he talks about my attempt to "pressure" Chinaman for a vote. I admit completely that this was exactly what I was doing, and my post 65 was designed purely to see who would call me on it, and who wouldn't. Here's what peanut had to say about it:

Now, your question does ask why he isn't voting. However, taken in context, you aren't so much asking him way he isn't voting but more insinuating that he must vote on one of those he has suspected.

And as for "drawing concusions" on statements, isn't that the whole basis of MafiaScum? In the end, I draw the conclusion that you were pressuring Chinaman to vote which is scummy in my book when the game is already flowing at a nice pace.

Interesting how ready peanutman is to "draw conclusions" about me that are negative, while he was not only willing to give foilist the benefit of the doubt, but even willing to help him defend himself just moments before.

And this is the pattern:

2) Your play style, a plethora of short posts, many lacking serious and valuable content, gives the allure of activity and any kind of questions may seem like scum-hunting, but it doesn't hold as much weight when really looked into. I encourage you to make longer, more coherent posts, with more content.

Yeah ok. Fine. My playstyle at the point was to ask a lot of questions without revealing too much. And you consider this a scum-tell? As in...scummier than AGM or foilist? Seriously? I mean, hey, where's

my

benefit of the doubt?! Why aren't you giving

me

some secret code to help me defend myself, like you did for foilist?

Oh that's right. I'm not aligned with you. My bad.

Skipping this next paragraph, I'd like to continue with this:

3)Also, you vote without any explanation.

unvote

vote foilist

Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:

@Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.

So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.

I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.

That's what you'd like to believe, isn't it?

So lemme get this straight:

Foilist votes somebody for a really really bull shit reason, and even manages to vote for the wrong person while doing it. Once the fact that it is the wrong person is brought to his attention, he decided to stubbornly keep his vote where it is, giving some more bull shit reasons for why he didn't feel compelled to switch his vote.

Your response to this is to ask him in the most delicate, conciliatory manner possible if he was, perhaps, keeping his vote on the second person because he

did

in fact have separate reasons for suspecting him. Craftily, you plant your defense of him as a series of leading questions, hoping he'd take the hint and crawl his way to the surface.

Now, I vote for someone who has done all the things that foilist has done. Granted, I keep my reasons for this vote a little ambiguous at first, but they became pretty clear not too much later. My vote is completely justified, whether or not I took the time to explain it completely, and I keep a steady dialogue with my target, asking pointed questions, and showing the town what my issue is.

Your response is, pages later, to interpret that the most likely explanation for my vote was OMGUS in response to a little quip made by foilist against me. You further "draw the conclusion" that I'm a likely candidate for scum as a result of this vote. You VOTE for me to be lynched.

No no no. Not buying it at all.

---

In his next post, two of peanut's paragraphs are very interesting to me.

I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games. Given that the majority of the players are town, chances are when I pick up on something and I question them, they are probably town. Nonetheless, I do question them to get a read, but I don't feel the need to always be aggressive. Therefore, regarding Foilist, I am trying to understand his logic, and, if his claim is true, I wanted to know what he found scummy about Mordy.

Finally, regarding the Foilist BW, I don't get a strong scum feeling from him. To be honest, I don't think a scum would act in this way on the first day. This could of course be taken into WIFOM so I'm not claiming him town but I wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch on Foilist just yet. Others have acted scummy as well.

The special treatment he is giving to foilist is pretty blatant. His vote is still on me, even though foilist hasn't responded with an explanation of his vote on Mordy. In fact, his vote STILL on me. Foilist NEVER answers peanutman with a response that would corroborate his theory. Naturally, this doesn't bother peanutman at all, and he never proactively mentions foilist again.

And he wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist just yet. Mhmm. Interesting how he doesn't seem to mind keeping his vote on me later on in the game, when I'm put up to L-3. Interesting how deliberately, and how

desperately

peanutman tries to shift attention to someone other than foilist.

I partially call him out on all of this in my next post, and he responds:

@ Peanutman - why do you give the benefit of the doubt only to foilist? you had no problem voting for me on your second post.

I'm not just giving Foilist the benefit of the doubt, you have it as well. I'm not claiming you're scum, but my vote is on you because I still have my suspicions. If you were to pursue your line of thinking, I shouldn't be voting anyone at all, correct? That is not the intention of me giving the benefit of the doubt.

I just won't get tunnelling someone because of one seemingly scummy action and blow it out of proportion.

You are so fearful of tunneling that you try as hard as you can to shut down discussion of foilist as quickly as possible? You find nothing about him worth questioning, and nothing suspicious? If this is genuine, then you have a SERIOUS paranoia of tunneling.

And yet...Peanutman, your vote has been on me since your first serious post. And you have never attempted to generate any discussion on your own about anyone who wasn't either me or Gammagooey. You have had nothing to say about AGM, and nothing to say about foilist (besides deciding to give him the benefit of the doubt). If that isn't tunneling, I don't know what it is.

unvote

vote peanutman

[archaebob]

That's it for today, but don't lynch anybody when I'm gone, because there is more coming.

And by more...i mean MOAR.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

It's more complicated than you think. And like I said, there's whole lot more to go over before the end of this day...and by more, I mean MOAR.

@ everyone -

I don't think we should waste anymore time right now on AGM. He's already been discussed ad nauseam, we know he's going to pull his whole disappearance shtick right now anyways, and I think it'd be a huge blunder to lynch him before discussing everything else.

I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on peanut right now. (not that i'm trying to give the town orders, or anything).

[archaebob]

I'm going to

unvote

right now, because I don't actually want to lynch peanutman at this moment anyways, and I generally get the impression from that we can carry on quite well as civilized folk, without the need of threats. As long as he continues to answer questions diligently as he has done so far, I don't see any justification for starting a wagon on him.

I think it's an exaggeration to say I crafted an original defense out of thin air.

I don't think so. Let's take another look:

@ Foilist, regarding your voting behaviour. If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote.

I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way.

Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?

I've found nothing in the thread from foilist before this post that at all indicates or even hints at this being the case. You have decided completely on your own to come up with a semi-plausible explanation for foilist's actions.

To me, his behaviour regarding his reaction to the vote, if you think about it, is something no normal scum-player would do. It's so ridiculous for a scum to put himself in that situation. With my question to him, I am simply stating that if he knows he wrongfully voted for Mordy and his vote is still there, does he find Mordy scummy? To say it's crafted out of thin air, you're really embellishing this one. His vote is on Mordy, I'm assuming he finds Mordy scum : out of thin air. Let's be honest, if we were both scum, it would be advantageous for me to bus or distance myself from this, not get closer. In fact, these examples of irrational behaviour are things that scum love to jump all over because it's easy to accuse.

wifom wifom wifom wifom W I F O M

Any statement you could make regarding something that a scum player would supposedly "want" to do

immediately

becomes by its very nature something that a scum would have equal incentive to NOT do, precisely because it's what you'd expect. You might, for example, as a scum player, decide to neither distance yourself or bus foilist

because

you know it's something that a "scum would do".

Foilist has just as little reason to put himself into this position as a town player as he does as scum. I don't think he's gotten himself to where he is on purpose, I think he made a lot of mistakes which were unintentional. I still fail to see why you were so willing to interpret his actions in the towniest way they could be interpreted, and why you still persist in doing so.

One thing I would still like you to address is your pattern of voting or FOSing someone without any explanation at all (i.e. your post is simply the vote).

Reaction hunting. I never vote for no reason at all, but I sometimes withhold the reasoning for a few posts to see who reacts to the fact that I haven't explained my vote. If somebody calls me out on it and votes me for not having explained my vote, then that gives me some information about that player. Depending on the context, and how ambiguous I think my reasons actually were, I might think that they are a watchful, judicial, pro-town player, or a conniving scum. The reaction by itself isn't enough to form a theory, but that reaction in tandem with lots of other stuff can be.

I give the benefit of the doubt at first for a mistake here and there, but too many things just don't add up in my mind. If it was just one thing, I would take note of it and keep looking around, but I can't let all these things go unjustified.

So in your opinion, foilist has made less mistakes, and justified himself better, than I have? You think I have done more anti-town things without a good explanation than foilist?

But that's just it. You keep your reasons to yourself at first, waiting for some reactions from others before explaining your vote. You are "craftily" playing this game. How is ambiguity in voting ever a good thing? At best, it's anti-town because a quick-read through these pages days later makes identifying your reasons for voting much harder.

Ambiguity can be a good thing because it doesn't let the scum know what they are up against. If you come out all at once with all the inconsistencies you have noted in another player, that player might get a clue, get their act together, and come up with a decent excuse for the things you've found so far. If you just point out

some

of the inconsistencies, then the player might instead make up a bad excuse that further contradicts something else he's said that he doesn't realize has been noticed yet. By me keeping some of my thoughts concealed, I'm greatly increasing the chances of a scum slip. For example, when I told foilist that he wasn't reading the thread carefully, I didn't go in point by point and show him exactly what he had missed. Had I done this, he would have seen clearly the mistake he had made, and would have intelligently apologized, saying it was an accident, etc etc. Instead, I gave him the chance to reveal whether or not he was playing from a pro-town mindset. When he responded with belligerence, he was effectively affirming his commitment to what he had written so far, and was eliminating the backtracking defense he could have taken of seeming like a careful pro-town player who had just made a mistake. We now know that he is either dispassionate scum, or stubborn VI. My vote of him was not omgus in response to his belligerence, but my declaration of suspicion/desire to lynch him.

Correction, I draw the conclusion you are a likely candidate for scum not as a result of this vote but as a result of all the oddities and actions you have made this day. Don't pin my vote on just one of your actions.

Do you still think I'm more likely to be scum than foilist or AGM? If you knew that all three of us were town, would I be your preferred mislynch?

Listen, many people were targeting Foilist. So, I could either take part in the accusation-hurling, thereby blending in with the others (easy for scum to hide) or I could take these exchanges as fodder for my reads and pursue others who haven't been properly examined. You tell me which is more beneficial to town, adding myself to the heap or bringing new things to light.

This would be a fair defense if you had been consistent with this attitude. When the wagon was on foilist, you tried to redirect attention as much as you could to other players, namely me. But when the wagon was on me (and I had the same amount of votes as foilist did at the peak of his wagon), you continued to question me, and left your vote on. If your goal actually IS to discuss the players who aren't being discussed enough, why didn't you move your vote and your interrogation to someone else?

I don't want to advocate a D1 lynch of foilist. But of you, at this point, I would support it (hence my vote). My vote is still on you, even at L-3, because I feel you deserve it. And I'm desperately trying to avoid the town just looking at a select few. For one, with all your cries of watching out for lurkers, Spyrex has certainly slipped through the cracks. He is totally slipping by right now, posting accusations here and there but generally following along with you, Mordy and GG without having to do much of the leg work.

So, you wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist

at all

, but you wouldn't mind seeing the day end with my lynch right now. You say that you are "desperately trying to avoid the town just looking at a select few". Perhaps you've failed to notice that I have consistently addressed a greater variety of the players in this game than anybody else. Believe me, I've noticed Spyrex, he's not slipping anywhere. I just think it's productive for the town to keep the focus on one player at a time, and right now I'm choosing to aim that focus, to the best of my ability, at you.

[archaebob]

@ Spyrex and Cruelty -

I'm most interested in your thoughts right now. e

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay - any thoughts?

[archaebob]

dude, i only posted this stuff today. chillax.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay - do you think that foilist's performance in 846 at all puts a damper on what can be submitted as evidence in his case?

[archaebob]

@ cruelty -

I just want to know what you think of peanut.

[archaebob]

@ cruelty -

thank you for the answer. In case you didn't notice, I specifically said that I wasn't actually pushing for a peanut lynch right now.

@ Spyrex and Muffin -

Where you at?

[archaebob]

@ everyone - In case I haven't made this clear yet, I'm not pushing for any lynches right now. The question of who is the best lynch should come at the very end of the day, after everything that has possibly been discussed before deadline has been gone over. Right now I'm posting my suspicions and my thoughts on every player in this thread that I think deserves scrutiny. I'm writing as if each case is a serious case, whether or not I currently think the player is actually scum. The reason I'm doing this is because I've seen scummy things from more players than I would expect there to be scum roles. A second reason is, if I can be totally truthful, I'm not exactly confident about my prospects of surviving the night. I'm therefore expressing everything that I've noticed about everyone, rather than holding on to it for Day 2. For example, the current case on peanut is not because I think we should lynch him today, it's because I want this case to be out there so that if we DO lynch foilist, and he DOES flip scum, you guys will have the evidence I think you need to indict Peanut, whether or not I'm still around for tomorrow.

Does that make sense to everyone?

[archaebob]

@ PharieM -

A few players on here DO think I'm pretty well-confirmed town, and most of the other players haven't at all indicated that they seriously suspect me yet. Of the players actually on my wagon, my hunch is that at least one or two of them are scum. And would I guess that the scum players aren't thrilled with my play-style in general, because my whole MO is to make it difficult for them to slink around.

Obviously, this is all just conjecture, and I'm not actually saying that I think I will die tonight. Hell, the fact that I've even said all this is probably going to make them go with somebody else, just to screw around with everyone. But from my perspective, I think it is in my interest to make sure that I say everything I would want to say NOW, rather than later.

Do you have any thoughts on the game so far?

[archaebob]

@ Spyrex -

What do you think of my case against peanut?

[archaebob]

@ Spyrex -

Yeah, when you can, I would like a more in depth explanation of why you don't get the vibes from him. The way he responds, and the things he writes in his posts are all majorly setting off my gut scum-dar.

Who's your third pick for scum, after foil or GM, if it's not peanut?

@ Sanjay -

What do you think about this? And you didn't respond to my question.

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

I don't know what you mean when you say this thread is muddled. But I'm going to assume that you are dropping your case against me unless you say otherwise, and have nothing to say about the wagon which already HAS formulated on you. Just deciding that catching up on this game is not worth your time seems like a very convenient dodge, and I suspect that it will guarantee your lynch today if you persist with this idea.

@ peanuman -

I unvoted because I trusted you to respond to me as any honorable sort of dude would, without my needing to threaten you with votes. It's only been one day, so I'm not begrudging you yet, but just keep that in mind.

[archaebob]

lol ninja'd

nevermind peanut

[archaebob]

Unvote, Vote:AlmasterGM

Now Archaebob's responded, now there is no reason for me to keep my vote off of you.

No. This is Day 1. There was no Night 0. With the exception of scum, nobody in this game knows more than anyone else. Given that fact, there is absolutely no reason we should be blindly accepting these promises of future information. I am not going to divert my attention onto other cases until archebob responds to mine. Once he responds, I'll think about it. The end. Why you continually endorse his evasive behavior is completely beyond me.

That last couple of sentences pretty much finishes it in my mind. After he responds you'll think about it? Really?

Can you please explain what specifically about those last couple of sentences you find suspicious? I don't think I quite understand your point.

@SpyreX - Can you tell us who your suspects are in order? I assume your top one is Almaster based on your vote, but who else has raised your suspicions?

Goddamn.

Super re-vote @ foilist.

In order too. Why not just ask for a comprehensive scumlist?

What issue do you have with what foilist said here? I don't follow you.

I'm just going to wait for a wagon to formulate and then decide whether I like it or not.

Haha. Massive FOS @ AGM.

I don't understand why you'd say that, it's almost like you want to be lynched.

I love when people actually take it seriously and are like OMG U R SO SCUMMY IM VOTING 4 U.

Oh, so you were just joking?

Clever...

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

What do you think about this? And you didn't respond to my question.

Oh, sorry archaebob.

I meant to declare that I was actively ignoring your question until foilist13 addresses mine.

@Sanjay - No. I said I'd go more into depth, but when I went to make the post I realized that I really didn't have much of anything to post other than that I really wasn't thinking about it and the reasons I already posted still held true as weak as they are.

@ Sanjay -

well?

[archaebob]

Not nearly as clever as you, but yes. Anyone who hops on a statement like that is either dumb, scum, or tunneling REALLY hard.

AGM, give us ONE good reason not to lynch you today. You've decided not to respond to my defense against you, which I accept as an implicit surrender. You have had nothing at all to say about any of the players currently under scrutiny, and nothing intelligent to say about anybody else either. I have yet to see a single pro-town contribution from you, and now it's as if you've completely given up on even trying to avoid being lynched.

So what should we make of you?

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

What you say makes sense, but you'll have to forgive me for not being able to totally trust you with regards to your supposed opinion of foilist. And, as you can probably guess why, I don't expect that will be changing much either.

I'm curious what you think of peanutman.

[archaebob]

AGM, your vote is still on me. Am i still your top suspect?

[archaebob]

Is there a particular reason why you are asking me about peanutman, archaebob?

Yes. I posted a massive case on peanutman, so I want opinions.

[archaebob]

Since when is being self-righteous anti-town?

Archaebob, the attention is on you now.

unvote, Vote:Archaebob until he posts something of relevance, and then depending on his answers.

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

I strongly recommend that you make yourself useful doing some sort of scum-hunting. Post your opinions on people. Ask questions. Whether or not you are scum, you are the least costly mislynch right now by like a million miles. You will be lynched today no matter what if that's still true at deadline, and I think you could do wonders for your case by taking steps to change that.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

so...being self-righteous has been anti-town since AGM wrote those posts? Meaning...it wasn't before?

Do you think those posts that you've quoted are at all inconsistent with the rest of his play?

Also, I'd like to know who else is topping your scum list. If AGM is your number one pick, then give me slots 2-4.

[archaebob]

@Archaebob - If Almaster pulls his act together and we don't decide to lynch him, who would be your next suspect?

I haven't decided yet. I also never said that AGM is my current top pick for scum.

I don't think I've seen you comment on MordyS or Gammagooey recently. So in keeping with your motto of keeping an eye on all of the players, what are your takes on them?

I think they're town.

@ foilist -

so...being self-righteous has been anti-town since AGM wrote those posts? Meaning...it wasn't before?

Do you think those posts that you've quoted are at all inconsistent with the rest of his play?

Also, I'd like to know who else is topping your scum list. If AGM is your number one pick, then give me slots 2-4.

I don't think I quite caught your answers to these. Would you mind repeating them?

[archaebob]

EBWOP:

ninja'd

ignore the last line

[archaebob]

I didn't say he was, I asked who would you want to lynch in lieu of him, seeing as right now he seems to be the most likely lynch candidate.

I'll trade you my top three for your top three (not counting AGM, for both of us).

[archaebob]

Interesting.

I'm pretty impressed with Muffin right now. He somehow managed to totally destroy your case without even posting a defence! I mean jeez, his replacement isn't even in your top four!

What part of peanutman's case did you find convincing? As far as I can remember, almost ALL of it hinged on you being scum.

Oh, and just so that I didn't lie to you:

foilist13
peanutman
cruelty
Spyrex

I do need to hear from the replacements soon though.

[archaebob]

Mk.

I'm going to sleep to now.

Peanutman, unless you rebut me again, I'm going to assume that you concede all the points in the last response I posted to you.

Cruelty, you have continuously popped in with a promise for more content later, and then disappeared. I'd like to know what it was that had you "more concerned" with foilist.

Mordy, I'm excited to hear from you again tomorrow.

Sanjay, I need to hear more from you before I can start to feel comfortable about you in this game. You are as difficult to read as foilist, for the exact opposite reason.

Replacements, get your act together. I won't be happy ending today until y'all have staked out your positions.

And with that...good night.

[archaebob]

@ Cruelty -

Some questions:

- You've said in the past that you don't like letting wagons gain steam until you're sure about your scum read of them. Does this mean that you are ready to lynch foilist now?

-If you knew that both AGM and foilist were town, which one of them would you consider to be the least costly mislynch?

- What do you think of Spyrex? (<- answer this one for sure)

[archaebob]

You guys, this sounds good. Foil, peanut, and Almaster are a very probable scum-team, given everything that has happened.

It seems a little too easy though. I'm inclined to assume from my own paranoia that we probably are wrong about at least one of our top three suspects going out of Day 1. So let's not get flat-footed here.

I'm not sure that AGM flipping town would really tell us anything about foil or peanut. Their recent votes, however awkward, are just as likely to be a poor attempt at gracefully getting on the mislynch wagon as they are a bus. I've spent some time thinking about it, and I don't really see what we stand to learn by seeing AGM's flip. Also, AGM has pretty much already claimed to have a power role of some kind, so I expect we'll ultimately wind up being deterred from lynching him today anyways.

Foilist's flip, on the other hand, would tell us quite a bit. Because both foil and peanut voted for AGM

after

strong suspicions had already been raised on all three of them, there is no controlled way to extract any information from the results of that wagon. However, knowing if

foilist

was scum or not would reflect very strongly on the case against peanut, who has been seen to have given special treatment to foilist since his first serious post in this game.

The mediating factor in all of this is that foilist is substantially more costly a mis-lynch than AGM. Foilist, though not terribly helpful, at least makes an effort to draw attention to things that other players might not have noticed. I credit foilist entirely with having made me aware of the inadequacies of Muffin's contribution. His case, however poorly crafted, had what I consider to be a pro-town result. If he is town, I think he is enormously more useful than AGM would be as town (because AGM really is

completely

useless).

I'd like some thoughts on this. When it comes down to it, who do you guys think is a better lynch today?

In any case, try super hard not to lynch yet, as I want to post a few things about Spyrex and Cruelty. I don't think I'll have time until tomorrow evening to do it properly, and I think it's somewhat important, so hold your horses plz.

[archaebob]

Does anybody actually need me to respond to foilist's case? I'm happy to fully rebut it in the same way I did AGM's, but it's going to require some time to do properly, and from where I'm standing, it looks to me like it should be obv-bullshit (<- new word, amirite?).

I'm going to keep working on my cases for now. Let me know if this latest wall from foilist is something you need me to address.

[archaebob]

fuck it, this thing is so bad i'm DYING to destroy it.

I'll post my "defense" tomorrow.

[archaebob]

@ everyone -

Something has come up IRL that requires my attention tonight. I hope to be back here tomorrow, but I don't know for sure how much time I'll have to make any lengthy posts until the weekend.

Peace.

[archaebob]

@ Papa Zito -

I'm curious to know why you find cruelty to be the best lynch today. I think he's suspicious too, but he's far from the scummiest right now. And Sanjay is your #3? Does this mean you don't find foilist13 to be scummy at all?

[archaebob]

However, welcome to the land of "Confirmed Town". Population bob. Seriously.

@ Cruelty and Peanutman -

You both have expressed a strong dislike for players posting information about who seems townish in the game, for the reason that it makes it easier for scum to pick out their NK. Yet neither one of you commented at all when Spyrex declared that he thought I was confirmed town.
Why is the above declaration okay, when other attempts to indicate who seems townish have been met with heated resistance from you?

[archaebob]

oh, and

vote foilist13

.

I really see no reason to lynch a claimed PR on D1. Firstly, the cost of mislynch is substantially higher. People have mentioned that him being outed means he'll be roleblocked or NK'd, so he's useless. Well, if he's NK'd then that means we won't have wasted one of our lynches, and if he's roleblocked, then that means the roleblocker can't block any of our other PRs. Doesn't make sense to use OUR day lynch to off him right now.

Also, AGM flipping doesn't tell us anything about the other players. What will we know that we didn't already know if he turns out to be scum? His alignment wouldn't alter the case against foilist or peanut at all, since their sudden votes could just as easily be a bad attempt at getting on the mislynch wagon as they could be a bus. Foil and peanut jumping on that wagon was scummy in and of itself, regardless of AGM's flip, so it really doesn't matter if AGM turns out to be town or scum. Peanutman, however, is

substantially

more likely to be scum if foilist turns out to be scum.

In short, besides getting rid of a pretty useless poster, I don't really see the benefit to the town of lynching AGM. I don't think we know for a fact that he's scum; at least, we aren't any more sure with him than we are with foil. From my perspective, foilist's lynch is safer, more informative, and equally likely to hit mafia.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay-

oh, and

vote foilist13

.

I really see no reason to lynch a claimed PR on D1. Firstly, the cost of mislynch is substantially higher. People have mentioned that him being outed means he'll be roleblocked or NK'd, so he's useless. Well, if he's NK'd then that means we won't have wasted one of our lynches, and if he's roleblocked, then that means the roleblocker can't block any of our other PRs. Doesn't make sense to use OUR day lynch to off him right now.

Also, AGM flipping doesn't tell us anything about the other players. What will we know that we didn't already know if he turns out to be scum? His alignment wouldn't alter the case against foilist or peanut at all, since their sudden votes could just as easily be a bad attempt at getting on the mislynch wagon as they could be a bus. Foil and peanut jumping on that wagon was scummy in and of itself, regardless of AGM's flip, so it really doesn't matter if AGM turns out to be town or scum. Peanutman, however, is

substantially

more likely to be scum if foilist turns out to be scum.

In short, besides getting rid of a pretty useless poster, I don't really see the benefit to the town of lynching AGM. I don't think we know for a fact that he's scum; at least, we aren't any more sure with him than we are with foil. From my perspective, foilist's lynch is safer, more informative, and equally likely to hit mafia.

What about my reasoning do you not agree with?

[archaebob]

@ Spyrex -

My point is that I'm equally sure about foilist AND almaster. I have no way of deciding right now that one of them is more likely to be scum than the other. From my perspective, they are both likely to be scum, but they are also both very plausible candidates for VI. The only thing I can point to and say FOR SURE is that foilist's lynch gives the town more information (which i've been saying since before AGM's claim). The doc claim isn't the main reason I think foil is a better lynch, but I do think it substantially increases the cost of mislynch.

And it's not a get out of jail free card. Do you really think for one second that if he's actually scum, he has

any

chance of surviving for this entire game? All that has to happen is for the mafia to kill the real doc by accident, and his claim is out the window. And even if that doesn't happen, it's going to be very difficult for scum-AGM to convince us that he's the doc for the rest of the game.

I think AGM is a very good lead, and I think he's very likely to be scum. I just don't see any reason to pick him over foilist at this juncture in the game.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

I tend to think he's lying too. But I'm not positive about that, which means I have to think about the situation logically. If foilist flips scum, then peanutman probably will as well. If foil doesn't, then my entire case on peanutman goes to shreds (which is good, because it means we won't mislynch him). We learn something very concrete and applicable about another player by lynching foilist. AGM's flip, however desirable, doesn't tell us ANYTHING.

And again, honestly, how do we help ourselves by lynching a claimed doc? Even if you think he's scum, there's no reason not to save him for after we lynch all the other, un-PR claimed people who we ALSO think are scum. It's just smart risk avoidance.

I really think foil is the one who needs to go today.

[archaebob]

My case on peanutman is largely an examination of his relationship with foilist, and how that relationship has been very different from his relationship with other players, most visibly me. If foilist flips town, than the case becomes a poor one, because it's difficult to see why scum-Peanutman would want to buddy up to a town player who was under a lot of suspicion.

And I don't see any part of your case that becomes invalid if AGM flips town or scum. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing?

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay

I can see that you are online. Please answer my latest question.

Also, I gently suggest to you that you fully stake out your position NOW, rather than later on, when it's already clear who the lynch will be. It will make it so much easier to interpret your opinion of things as genuine, and not influenced by the general trend of the town.

I still fail to see why you would prefer and AGM lynch over a foilist one.

[archaebob]

That whole post was directed at Sanjay.

And I'm not going to comment further until he does.

[archaebob]

confirm vote: foilist13

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay

I can see that you are online. Please answer my latest question.

[archaebob]

EBWOP: my bad

[archaebob]

If we think they are scum we don't need extra incentive to lynch them.

True. But what do you do when you have two players that you think are BOTH scum? How do you decide which one to lynch first?

Plus I really don't see how an AlmasterGM lynch would be less illuminating than a foilist13 lynch.

Gammagooey: Feeling pretty town about Gammagooey.

Another person that is practically confirmed town if foilist happens to be scum

.

If foilist13 is mafia MordyS is definitely town.

I would say that confirming two players as pro-town is quite a bit more illuminating than the very inconclusive information we would get from this:

If AlmasterGM is town, we have a very scummy looking townie that has been under attack from page one. Pretty much everyone has commented on him.

And your efforts to dodge discussing the connection between peanutman and foilist13 has been noted.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

I consider you equally likely to be scum, but I consider your lynch to be more informative.

I'm not going to comment on your defense vs. his right now.

[archaebob]

FoS: Sanjay

[archaebob]

I don't buy his AGM vote.

At all.

[archaebob]

k, i'm signing off for the night. lots of hw to do

[archaebob]

and AGM, VI means "village idiot". Refers to a town player who fucks everyone over by being retarded.

See foilist's play in Newbie 846 for an example of this.

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

why are you still voting for me?

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

What does the town learn if AGM flips scum?

[archaebob]

The biggest issue I have with lynching AGM over me, aside from self preservation, is that I am answering questions, AGM is not. According to Sanjay, I posted a plausible defesne, AGM did not. Also, Archaebob, if you lynch me and I flip town, whats to stop the mafia just Night Killing Peanut? What you just said makes him a strong target, so if they chose to do so, you would effectively learn nothing.

I think I have been a much more useful player than AGM, and at least one of you has already pointed that out, and the mafia could easily take away whatever you might learn from me, or not and use it to try and confuse you. There is not so much to learn here as you might think.

Also Peanut buddying up to a disreputable town player is WIFOM. He could do it just to hide behind it later when I flip town, so that argument is null.

According to Sanjay, yes. I don't find your time line plausible at all. Of course, I don't know what that really means, since I found your time line in 846 quite a bit

less

plausible, but I've decided that the best thing to do with you is keep to lynching you until you learn how to stop being proactively scummy.

In short, if you were any other player, I wouldn't hesitate at all about pushing for your lynch. And because of that being true, I've decided I'm not going to hesitate anymore in this game about pushing for your lynch.

This bit about the mafia night killing peanut is just idiotic. Peanutman is pretty suspicious for quite a few reasons that are unrelated to my specific case on him. If the Mafia NKs peanutman, they will have spared us a mislynch, which is pro-town. We wouldn't learn nothing, we would learn that we were wrong about you and peanutman at the cost of only 1 mislynch. By Day 2, we would have hugely narrowed the pool of candidates for mafia.

So how exactly could the mafia take away the information we would glean from your lynch exactly?

I have no issues with that, especially since I think he's lying. If he's telling the truth he's either going to be night killed or role blocked depending on whether or not they have a roleblocker. If he's lying then we've caught scum and all will be well with him.

So yes. I still think we should lynch him.

Perhaps this isn't clear enough to everybody. The fact that AGM-doc would either be night killed or role blocked DOES NOT mean he is useless, and that we might as well just lynch him now. By leaving him alive, we are forcing the mafia to either use one of their NKs or their roleblocker to take care of the situation. This means they can't NK or roleblock somebody else in the town. If we just kill him, because we think he's "useless", then we are allowing the scumteam to off the doctor without needing to expend any of their night actions. This is anti-town.

Again, this is IF almaster is actually doc. I don't know how any of us can be sure enough of his being SO much more likely to be scum than foilist, that we feel comfortable ignoring this strategic element completely.

I have had suspicions of Almaster for some time, so wouldn't it make sense for me to be perfectly happy with him being lynched? I don't think he has done anything useful for the town, and he decided to lurk away the case on him at the beginning. Also shouldn't I prefer to lynch him over me? I mean my wanting to lynch him has only gotten stronger since it began essentially him or me. Under any condition his lynch is preferable to mine.

...unless he's actually the doctor. Then your lynch is WAY preferable to his.

[archaebob]

Sanjay, what about Almaster's case sets him apart from foilist on such a profound level that you find strategic planning to be totally irrelevant in this situation? Can you really say in any sort of scientific way that AGM is

more

likely to be scum than foilist? What's your criteria for making a quantitative statement like that?

To answer your earlier question, I'm not going off of any element of their defense that I think makes them equally likely to be scum. I don't think scumminess can be reduced to fine enough gradients to make a distinction like that, period. From a purely scientific and logical standpoint, they have both put themselves in the category of "very likely to be scum". I see no useful methodology to differentiate in any meaningful between two people who are both already in that category.

Now this is where gut reads come into play. In this situation, with two players who are both in the category of "very likely to be scum", the town would generally pick the lynch based on some gut based statement of "well, i think over all he's more likely to be scum." But that's all it is. Gut. And while gut has a tremendous role in playing this game well, it is NOT a good deciding factor for picking the D1 lynch, especially when there are very real, very logical strategic elements that clearly indicate one option as being superior.

I have made the argument that foilist's lynch is, from a strategic standpoint, much more helpful to the town. A scum flip OR a town flip from foilist would give us some very concrete information. AGM's flip at most has the POTENTIAL to factor into the overall scumhunting game, based on everyone's past comments about him. I haven't seen anyone establish a strong connection between AGM and any other players (except maybe for MordyS's peanutman case). What do we really learn from seeing if he's scum or not?

Also, I have made the argument that AGM being doc, however unlikely, significantly increases the cost of mislynch. It doesn't matter that he's outed and won't be able to save anyone, because we are requiring the mafia to take care of him, rather than someone else.

Let's think about the possibilities here:

1) He's doc, and they decide to kill him ASAP. This means they won't be killing somebody else. Pro-town.

2) He's doc, and they decide to role-block him. This means that as long we keep AGM alive, whatever cops/vigs we have will have totally open field.

3) He's scum. Even if he actually is scum, it's still not a bad idea to keep him alive, because the mafia now has to make a conscious effort to AVOID lynching the doctor. Imagine that! Keeping a fakeclaimed doc alive makes our real doc quite a bit safer. And if that's not true...well, then the mafia will NK the doc, and we can lynch almaster with PROOF of his being scum.

In any possible situation, there is a significant pro-town benefit to leaving Almaster alive for at least today. The worst thing that could happen is that we wind up lynching our doc, which means we've taken a whole lot of pressure off the mafia. As it is, AGM-scum's life is either contingent upon the mafia NOT taking out our power role by accident, or the non-Almaster scum-team is under significant pressure to figure out how best to deal with AGM-doc. Why would we want to use our only D1 lynch to take all this pressure off of the scum?

So again, I don't think AGM is a good lynch. There are significant strategic benefits to lynching foil instead of almaster, and I haven't seen any evidence for AGM being scum that is SO rock-solid it completely invalidates those advantages.

So what do you guys still disagree with?

[archaebob]

Also Peanut buddying up to a disreputable town player is WIFOM. He could do it just to hide behind it later when I flip town, so that argument is null.

The WIFOM defense doesn't really work here, because there is no incentive for a town player to seem scummy. If a player seems scummy

in the thread

, then they are scummy. Period. The only exception to this is if the scumminess can be explained away as a deliberate gambit (ex. my play at the beginning of Newbie 846).

I don't see any pro-town motivation for deliberately becoming negatively associated with another disreputable player. First of all, peanutman-townie would have no way of knowing your alignment, so your whole bull-shit thing about him doing it just to hide behind it later

when you flip town

obviously doesn't make sense. As far as he knows, he is associating himself with someone who will flip scum. A town player would be equally unsure about everyone's alignment, and would therefore take careful note of the suspicious things you were doing. I don't at all believe he would take it upon himself to go and get really associated with you as some kind of "gambit", so that later on,

if

you flip town, he gets town creds. That probably wouldn't give him any town creds anyways, even assuming that he guesses right.

Is everybody else reading the same thread I'm reading? Honestly, the stuff that foilist posts up here activates my gut quite a bit more than anything Almaster has done.

Please, PLEASE vote foilist.

[archaebob]

@Archaebob - In the scenario I posted Peanut man is scum, not town.

At this point I've got no where left to go. I've answered all the questions directed at me, at least I think I have, and Archaebob has decided to tunnel like a worm running from Satan himself, so my only remaining point to make is that Almaster has made almost no serious attempt at defending himself, and is as we speak lurking away the case on him, just like he did in the beginning of the day.

Archaebob, based on what I know about your attitude towards lurkers I can't believe you haven't tried to hammer AGM.

With regards to the peanutman scenario, my point is that there is no way a town player would intentionally, as a gambit, try to buddy up to a suspicious player. SO, if you flip scum, he probably is scum as well. There is no WIFOM involved. Now, if you were to flip town, that DOESN'T mean that he isn't scum...but it does mean that his treating you very nicely is a null-tell, and we need to look elsewhere for clues. Maybe that's what you were trying to say, and we just talked past each other.

I'm not sure what you mean by tunneling in this context. Usually, the term is an allusion to "tunnel-vision", and describes a defect in scumhunting in which a player allows confirmation bias to limit his attention to only one person. I have decided that I want you lynched today, but I don't see what

at all

indicates that I've been focusing all my attention on exclusively you.

If you believe that AGM is leaving questions unanswered, then please assemble a list of all the ones you think we should make him reply to. From what I can tell, he has addressed all the major contentions to the best of his ability. I don't see what else he could say in his defense that would make any difference, really, and I think he feels the same way. But if you genuinely believe that we're letting him get away with something, I do want to see it.

My attitude towards lurkers is that they need to make their opinion known, and they need to post a certain amount of content over the course of the game. This is to make it impossible for them to change their opinions at the last second to match what everybody else happens to be saying, and to give them ample opportunity to scum slip. It's mostly a safety measure taken to avoid scenarios of active townie vs. active townie with the scum lurking around just because they can. I try and prevent this by halting discussion and forcing attention to non-posters as much as possible.

This isn't applicable to AGM, because he is the actual player who the case is against. Also, I think any post of his right now would just be a rehash of things he's already tried to say.

However, AGM, you do need to respond to these questions, which you HAVE ignored.

1) Who do you think we should lynch today? Why?
2) Why is your vote still on me?
3) What do you think of foilist13 and peanutman?

I will say that I don't think we should end the day with a foilist lynch until he has answered those. For

sure

.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

It was not not necessary to "pressure" AGM, as you can clearly see, as I expected his self-interest would entice him to post, as it clearly did.

The connection between foilist13 and peanutman is like this:

1) Foilist acted scummy, and peanutman made up a plausible defense for him under the guise of "benefit of the doubt." I acted scummy (from his perspective), and he voted me, jumping on an already growing bandwagon. He has stated multiple times that he would be very happy with my lynch today, and has never retracted that statement.

2) The made up defense that he gave foilist was the idea that foilist left his vote on Mordy because he

actually

suspected him, for reasons separate from his vote of Gammagooey. Foilist never affirmed this as the case, and his later explanations for what his reasons were contradict this defense. Since peanutman gave "benefit of the doubt" as the reason for not suspecting foilist, and gave the made-up defense to him as a part of his "benefit of the doubt" campaign, i would expect town peanutman to be very unsettled by the discovery that foilist really had no good reason at all for keeping his vote on mordy. In truth, he either didn't notice, or didn't care. Both of these options make it significantly less likely that peanut was actually trying to scum-hunt foilist.

3) Peanutman has not mentioned or addressed foilist13 once this entire game. Again, I find it hard to believe that he genuinely does not know what the roles are.

4) Foilist has flipped flopped a lot over whether or not he finds peanutman suspicious. At first, he gave a rather shoddy reason for seeing him as town (or more specifically, as townier than cruelty). Then he didn't mention him at all, ever. Then i posted my case on peanut, and he gave a very awkward reply about why he still didn't really suspect peanut (since most of the case was predicated on foil himself being scum). This was fair at the time, but foilist, naturally, didn't take it upon himself to question peanutman about the special treatment. His reaction does not match up with what I would expect from an actual town player who discovers suddenly that another player has been buddying up hard to him. And finally, peanutman randomly surfaces as his third highest suspect. I call bull-shit on that, period.

5) They both jumped on the AGM wagon at the same time. (This point is very self-consciously less strong than the others, but it fits the pattern.)

[archaebob]

@ Sociopath -

You need to stake out your positions before the day ends. The only reason I'm letting you get away with this not posting thing is because I sympathize with your methodical approach to catching up in a game, and not wanting to post until you are done. However, this means your contribution, when it comes, must be

stellar

.

[archaebob]

@ AGM -

If you think he's scummy, make a case on cruelty, and vote for him.

Actually, vote for foilist.

But explain why you think cruelty is scummy. I need to see you make an argument about somebody who doesn't happen to be me. I can't be unbiased about arguments against me, and I need to see if I can follow your reasoning when you are making attacks.

@ Sanjay -

Can you please summarize the case against AGM? I'd like a complete list of reasons of why you think he is scum, because I don't I totally understand your position right now.

[archaebob]

@ foilist - do you have anything to say about my fourth point against you and peanutman?

[archaebob]

@ Spyrex -

-Why on earth would you ask for a claim right there?
-What about my reasoning for wanting to lynch foilist13 do you disagree with?
-If you still want to lynch AGM, then

why is your vote on foilist?

[archaebob]

yeah, and nobody even think about claiming doctor right now.

[archaebob]

And boom goes the fucking dynamite.

HoS: Sanjay

Don't hammer until I get time to post this shit up, but I think we're pretty much done here.

@ everyone -

big reveal time: I don't think AGM is scum. I've poured over his posts, and I don't see the case on him at all.

What we have here a bunch of superficial scum tells. However, if you really go over his iso, and put yourself into the mindset of an arrogant, egotistical, logic/debate oriented town player, everything he has posted makes sense. I encourage everyone to do this. Read this game as if you were him, and see if it's actually impossible that he's not scum.

Foilist, peanutman, and Sanjay are scum. I'll post more about Sanjay later on, so don't hammer yet, but this is overwhelmingly my read on the game right now.

[archaebob]

In regards to my apparent buddying to scummy players, I will try to explain my strategy. Day 1 is definitely to the scum's advantage. All townies are somewhat suspicious of everyone, looking everywhere for clues. So, they will generally jump on other players. However, the scum-team obviously know all the alignments so they aren't playing this game blindfolded. They can pursue certain players, pick-up on certain elements and blow them out of proportion. For that reason, I would guess that the town is mislead the vast majority of the time in D1. Hence, I try to not just go after the obvious suspect of the day but to look around at those who are suspecting him. This ties into my "benefit of the doubt", that someone's first mistake will most likely be blown out of proportion but I can give them a chance for a mistake early on. Everyone is saying that AGM and Foilist are both likely scum but I would in no way be surprised if they were both innocent townies. I clearly can't be sure but, as I said, the town is usually mislead by the scum-team (sneakily) D1.

Also, Bob, I feel you have yet to provide a proper explanation for my repeated questions/comments regarding your voting without reason in a post. And yet, you state

This is to make it impossible for them to change their opinions at the last second to match what everybody else happens to be saying

This is in reference to lurkers but I believe still applies. You don't want others to get by without explaining themselves so they can't redefine their position later, but you keep opening that door for yourself (even if it's for an hour) where you can match the people's immediate reactions to your "vague" votes. Is that not inherently scummy as per your previous post?

Why didn't that same benefit of the doubt extend to me? You allowed me to get up to L-2, and

never took your vote off

until you decided to jump on AGM. This is not consistent with your earlier statements, and I don't believe that it came from town.

The difference between me and a lurker is that I vote/FoS. And there's quite a bit of information contained in that single bolded statement. For one, I'm committing myself to suspecting a single player. I've never voted for somebody i didn't actually suspect, just for a reaction, and then try and take it back and say I suspected somebody else the whole time. All I do is withhold my explanation for a little bit. And secondly, there's a lot that you can figure out about my reasons by paying attention. Generally, I drop an FoS or a vote after receiving a reply to a question. So, logically, that should communicate to you that I take strong issue with the latest reply from the person I voted for.

The amount of content and information I inject into this thread makes me pretty much the exact opposite of a lurker.

If one doesn't think AGM is scum, then why would one yell for a doctor to not claim?

Mysteries within mysteries.

Because I wasn't sure. And I'm still not sure. And a claim is completely unnecessary, since we can catch AGM-scum later on. There is no reason to sacrifice our doctor in the meantime.

That is very VERY poor play on your part, Spyrex. However much you think AGM is the right lynch, there is no way in hell that lynching him

now

as opposed to

later

is worth outing our doctor on D1.

[archaebob]

@ peanutman -

The difference, here, is that there was strong evidence in the thread of my defense of him being true. I was reiterating his implicit justification for lurking in response to a question about why I was okay with him doing it.

You, on the other hand, completely invented your defense of foilist. And that post by itself at the beginning of the game would not have been enough for me to post a case on you. It's the fact that the rest of your play is completely inconsistent with what you did at the beginning that really clinches the deal.

[archaebob]

YES. wait.

i need to post about sanjay.

[archaebob]

I don't want to out our doctor.

However, I, as we've seen, have watched this stalled because no want wants to lynch a non-CC'd doctor.

Follow me.

This only is valid if you assume that lynching the non-CC'd doctor is necessary right now.

And it's really not. Either AGM will be CC'd at some point in the future (as in, after the doctor has had his shot at saving some folks), or he'll be NK'd. There is no reason to lynch AGM before his being scum is confirmed, and there is no reason to demand that that confirmation come now.

PS, bring it archaebob.

I'm guessing this is about my flip flopping my opinion on AGM, right?

No. It's the fact that you pre-emptively tried to counter a point that you knew would surface after foilist's flip. You came to the realization that you had no choice but to bus foilist. With this realization came the sudden pang of fear that a connection between the two of you would be noticed. Guess what? It already was.

Only problem is, the thing you tried to address really wasn't so bad at all. Foilist could have cared that

you

thought his time-line was plausible because

you were the only person to have said that it was.

It was a poor way of defending himself on his part, but it in no way reflected on

you

.

However, you, in your paranoid, flailing, scum-bag state of existence, read into it as something very serious and vulnerable that needed to be dealt with. And then came the thought: "Aha! If I bring this up myself, and somehow work it into my bus, then there's no way anybody can say it makes me suspicious! It'll look like I'm a town player who was paying very close attention to the game, and was SO unbiased that I noticed when another player was treating me with too much respect. If I do that, then it won't look like a bus!!!"

So, you constructed this whole elaborate operation to get foilist to contradict himself, hoping to use it as the justification for your flip on him (which, btw, is way uncomfortably close to what you did to him in Newbie 846. Ironic that this time he's actually scum with you). He didn't, but you were out of time, and decided to use it anyways. Finally, you voted for foilist. Your sneaky bus/pre-emptive defense maneuver was complete.

That's the story as I see it to have actually occurred. Now let's look at this from the hypothetical of you being town (a true hypothetical, in fact).

You are voting for AGM. From your perspective, he's more likely to be scum. I post all sorts of reasons why I think the strategy works out better if we lynch foilist. You either say the strategy is irrelevant, or completely ignore my posts. Sanjay-town is convinced AGM is scummier than foilist, and scummier enough that it makes the most sense to lynch him. You stick to that. Then...foilist posts this:

The biggest issue I have with lynching AGM over me, aside from self preservation, is that I am answering questions, AGM is not. According to Sanjay, I posted a plausible defesne, AGM did not.

You don't mention anything about this quote for four pages, and continue ignoring/rejecting all my reasons for thinking that foilist is a better lynch.
However, at some point during the next four pages, you notice that post again, and think:

"Why does foilist care about what

I

think? I mean...that's so

specific

. Hrm. I don't see any reason why he would list only

my

name there. That must mean...OH MY GOD! He must think I have way more authority over everybody else...but only a town player could have authority over the other players!! That must mean he knows I'm town...which means he's scum! Oh my god!"

And...THAT...realization...is ultimately the main thing that causes you to unvote AGM and put foilist to L-1. Of all the arguments I posted, none of them were able to change your mind, but the fact that he would single you out as the only player to have posted anything at all about his timeline so clearly indicated his prior knowledge of the alignments that you were convinced he must be scum after all.

Sanjay-town is not an idiot.

You are scum.

[archaebob]

Note to all:

If foilist actually does flip town, you can completely disregard my case on Sanjay.

i don't expect that will happen though.

[archaebob]

I can't imagine how you got to be this mistrusting, archaebob. It's not healthy.

But if you want to remind everyone that I come off as rather townish as scum every once in a while, go right ahead.

As for peanutman, I haven't read peanutman very closely. I haven't posted all my opinions as quickly as I would have liked. foilist13's reaction to my first post was kind of interesting so my last few posts have been dedicated to that tangent.

AlmasterGM is my next player I want to comment on, so it might be a little bit before I comment on peanutman.

Is there a particular reason why you are asking me about peanutman, archaebob?

The bolded: Oh yeah, sure Sanjay. Thank you for reinforcing in my mind the fact that you didn't seem scummy to me in the last game I played with you when you were scum. I'll be

especially

sure to use that as a reason to take anything scummy you do in this game as town-tell. Feel free to make slight adjustments to your meta so that I become totally convinced you are town.

The rest: Just pointing out how much Sanjay didn't want to talk about peanutman.

[archaebob]

I'm more interested in seeing if foilist13 can put my mind at ease than I am in pushing him and seeing if he cracks.

Ultimately, he's probably going to be my lynch recommendation because I'm not really comfortable having a player that I would allow this much scumminess as town hanging around.

That is, of course, unless I find someone scummier.

Very good work catching that slip up before it was too late, Sanjay. Otherwise, I might have been weirded out when you started to change your mind about foilist. I mean, you committed yourself so strongly to wanting him lynched in that first post that I definitely would have found you scummy later if you had started to change your mind. But no! You qualified your previous statement with an option of changing your mind as soon as you "find someone scummier"! Thank you for clearly explaining what needed to happen for you to change your mind, it was a little bit too ambiguous before.

[archaebob]

mk, I think i need to post a full case. I don't have time tonight, as I'm about to go to dinner, but I would REALLY appreciate it if you all wouldn't hammer until I can get that up here. Last time I ask for anything like this today, I promise.

This is especially important now, since Sanjay being scum means I'm almost definitely dead tonight. Hang on.

[archaebob]

I really don't see that foilist13 quote as something I would need to worry about if I was scum and foilist13 flipped scum. He mentioned me. Big deal. How does foilist13 saying "Don't lynch me, Sanjay says I'm alright" implicate me as his scumbuddy? Hint: it doesn't.

Your right, it doesn't. That's the whole point I'm making. You in your paranoid scumminess interpreted it as more dangerous than it actually was, and decided to cut off any connection that could possibly be made between the two of you.

But I'm realizing now that that argument is dependent on assuming that you're scum to begin with. I'll just say that my gut went "OH MOTHERFUCKER" when I was reading your post about it.

That being said, the main problem is that your logic makes no sense at all. How is his usage of your name something that makes him more likely to be scum? What, he was revealing that he knew you were town because he thought you had authority or something? That doesn't make any sense, which is why I'm more inclined to believe that you over-reacted as scum, rather than being a town player who actually thought the quote made foilist suspicious.

How was I "out of time"? I really don't see what the huge pressure for me to vote foilist13 now is coming from. Despite MordyS's soft-claim as a triple voter, foilist13 isn't going to flip right away, and even if he was my scum buddy, I wouldn't have to worry about foilist13's quote until AFTER he flipped, and then only if someone noticed it, and then only if they could show how it implicates me.

Assume foilist13 is scum and show me an argument based on that quote which makes me scum. I don't think you can.

There wasn't huge pressure to vote foilist, which is why it doesn't make sense that you did. By out of time, I meant out of time to try and make him contradict himself again. But blah, that was all a part of my made-up narrative about how my gut is reading the thread. From my perspective, the story I wrote in that post fits the events much better than the corresponding one does with you as town. I need to really think, and figure out what the specific things are that are giving my gut that read before I can post a case.

The reason I asked you about why you were asking me about peanutman was because I was surprised you hadn't taken my post-846 advice. I told you that you need to start asking harder questions to people, and you asking me about peanutman seemed like a softball question.

I'm not referring to the fact that you asked me why I was asking you about peanut. I'm referring to your answer to my question, which was a big dodge. And then later on, when you finally did talk about peanut, you totally ignored the connection between him and foilist.

But all of that's for later.

I don't think I was implying that me acting scummy is a town tell. Come on. Firstly, I don't see how what I said even does that, and secondly, if I'm so smart, shouldn't I know that that is a totally retarded argument anyway?

But if you want to remind everyone that I come off as rather townish as scum every once in a while, go right ahead.

Why else would you say that? You were stating as a fact that you can seem very townish as scum, and asking me in an awkward, sort of baiting manner if I wanted to let everybody know about that. Why would I exactly? There is no reason on earth that I would want to do that.

If the statement "Sanjay seems townish as scum" is true," than the statement "If Sanjay is scummy, he's less likely to actually be scum" is also true. I think you were trying to implant this predisposition into the heads of the town, particularly me.

Come on dude, you know from the 846 scum QT that I love keeping you alive as scum. I was super disappointed when foilist13 revealed that you were the one he investigated. I was hoping it would be muh316 or something.

Anyway, that's kind of a dumb thing to say. If other people are scum, they could easily off you to try and cast suspicion on me. And if I'm scum, I could easily off you and say "Well, you can't trust the nightkill! WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM LOL LOL LOL"

Whatever. If you're scum, you'll still want to kill me because you know I suspect you, and you know I am pre-disposed to tunneling you like a madman.

@ the doctor

(who may or not exist and who may or not be AGM) - if foilist

does

actually flip scum, it'd be totally awesome to get protected tonight. Just sayin.

I need more time than I can ask the town to wait around for to get a Sanjay case ready. So, if y'all are actually ready to hammer foilist, I think now is a good time.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

You didn't answer an earlier question. What exactly, in you mind, is the case against AGM?

I'd really like everyone to answer this question, mostly since I think he's town, and I think you will too if you really examine the arguments against him.

[archaebob]

I didn't bother to count myself, so when MordyS asked if he could hammer, I assumed we were at L-1.

Sanjay is very good at defending himself. I don't know if that means I'm wrong or not, but I need to reconsider certain things.

I think it's already been made clear by now, but I have to confess to something of a paranoia regarding Sanjay. You'll have to forgive me this...it is the direct result of his scum play in Newbie 846, in which i was town, and in which I never suspected him even once until I was NK'd and we were well into the next day. The experience was somewhat traumatic for me, since I was something close to positive that foilist13 was scum in that game, but he flipped cop, and then I died. Anyone who's a little bit confused about the past context of my relationship with foilist13 and Sanjay (which it turning out to be quite a force in this game, as a matter of fact) would do well to read Day 2 of that game. I believe I linked it earlier when I first gave an example of foilist's meta.

So, here's how things stand. I've been very suspicious of Sanjay since his iso 7, which I guess just rubbed me the worst way I could be rubbed, given the past history involved. Since then, everything he has done has seemed suspicious to me. It was also around this time that I began reassessing AGM's play, so I'm not totally sure as to what extent my recent town read of AGM was influenced by my desire to substitute Sanjay for him on the scum-team.

SO:

I still think we should lynch foilist today, as all my reasons for preferring his lynch still stand. Mordy and Gamma, I'd love to know what about that reasoning you disagree with.

I still think that if foilist flips mafia, peanutman becomes obvscum. I'm not sure right now how many people agree with that, and how many don't.

I'm not totally clear on who I think the third scum is, and I'm starting to think that I'm over-stepping myself by trying to catch all three on D1. I do genuinely think that AGM is far less scummy than he has been made out to be, and I see strong strategic reasons for keeping him alive at least until Day 3 (assuming foil flips scum today). And I'm very wary of Sanjay, which I can't help. I have to go back and see later if I still think I have anything on him.
There's lots of people who haven't been posting much, and I think more attention needs to go to them.

So, in conclusion, I think I over-stepped myself by going off the deep end about Sanjay, and totally dismissing the case against AGM. But foilist is still the best lynch today, and I think that we should be getting on with it about now.

[archaebob]

@ Pharie-

I did not ever intend my comments about lurking to be directed at you. I apologize if I came across that way, I am very aware of your entirely adequate activity in this game. I was referring specifically to Sociopath, and to a lesser extent, Papa Zito (who has posted some, but not enough for me to get any kind of read on him).

@ Peanutman -

Who is that last post directed at?

[archaebob]

At the time, I was suspicious of Spyrex because of how hard he was buddying up to me, and his statements about finding you less suspicious without any visible reason. Since then, though I

am

still a little miffed by some of the things he posts, I've decided that I don't consider him particularly scummy. He bothers me a little, but the things that I haven't liked from don't actually seem to me like they are scum tells. Thus, I decided to not follow through with my case on him.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

The only thing I find scummy about cruelty is his bandwagon vote on to me. This put me up to L-3, and I don't totally buy the reasons for it. Other than that, I've found him to be generally indiscriminate with who he attacks, and who he finds suspicious. Though I generally disagree with the his overall strategy of play, being anti-town is not scummy in and of itself, and he's been pretty consistent with his philosophy in this game.

It doesn't bother me that other players have said he's the best lynch, because I think it's very pro-town for as many players to be given attention to as possible. So far, Papa Zito has not really explained his suspicions of cruelty, and AGM has refused to, so I have nothing to look at.

But since it is abundantly clear how pointed that question was, I'd really love to hear what you find suspicious about him.

[archaebob]

Spyrex, I really don't understand your stance. Nobody is saying that the wagon will

never

go through without AGM being CC'd, we're just saying that there's no reason to lynch him on D1 without a CC. Why is it so important to lynch AGM specifically, even when that would require outing our doctor? Why not lynch somebody else who's also super likely to be scum first, and then save AGM for later? The longer we keep AGM both alive and un-CC'd, the longer we guarantee that our cop is able to his job.

I'm really having trouble understanding your perspective on this.

[archaebob]

papa zito, I don't think your description of cruelty's voting patten is accurate. he was the first person on to foilist's wagon, and stayed there even when the votes on AGM were majorly picking up.

[archaebob]

@ peanutman, in case you haven't got the memo, we're lynching either AGM or foilist today. I normally wouldn't mind your vote on me so much, but you're now directly holding up the day from ending. It's like...voting for a third party candidate. Completely pointless.

Nice dodging though. This way, you still don't actually have to commit yourself to one of the wagons that might actually go through!

Honestly guys, this latest vote from peanutman is almost a dead giveaway. I mean, really, peanut? Between AGM, foilist, and me, you actually think that

I'm

the most likely to be scum, and the most productive day one lynch for the town?

Give me a break. This is such a blatant dodge.

[archaebob]

This is NOT for talking about now but it will be. This is a bad news bears kind of statement.

I'm just curious: is this referring to me, or to peanutman?

[archaebob]

I don't really have a clue what's going on here anymore. Why is foilist suddenly not a viable lynch candidate?

[archaebob]

Spyrex, absolutely not.

Sociopath is a replacement. What justification is there for lynching him? You think his lurking is at all an indication of him being

mafia

?

This makes very little sense. Can people please explain why foilist/AGM is suddenly not a good lynch anymore? I'm very suspicious of all these sudden wagon hops.

[archaebob]

Ok you guys, that was pretty ridiculous. I don't even have a fucking clue of what to say about that.

@ Gamma -

His meta is a mitigating factor in my ability to be confident that he's scum simply from his gameplay. It is not a mitigating factor in how

other

players (cough cough peanutman cough) interact with him, and therefore not a mitigating factor in the amount of information to be had from his lynch. My ultimate decision to lynch foilist was based on strategic reasons, and the fact that I didn't see anybody else who was as independently scummy as foilist.

Regarding Sociopath-

I honestly think that yesterday's lynch was borderline insanity, and that we got VERY lucky. I still fail to see the justification for quicklynching a replacement, and I never found the muffin case terribly compelling. The only thing to say about Muffin, from my perspective, is that he posted far less content than is normal for him. Because of this, he was somewhat suspicious to me for a time, but when he replaced out from RL problems, I couldn't see anyway to interpret his low content as indicative of alignment. Sociopath then replaced in, explicitly stating in the thread that he didn't want to post anything until he had read the whole thread. At the time I considered that acceptable, as it was a direct, falsifiable promise about his future play. So naturally, of course, he took a monstrous amount of time to get caught up, and never really posted anything. This bothered me a lot, and I started to call him out on it; however, the day was getting long, and I felt like I had already used up all of my political capital earlier on when I was dealing with the other lurkers. The only thing I could have done, really, was try to pull another "nobody post until he posts" stunt, but I guessed that it wouldn't work, and that I would just be forfeiting my ability to influence the D1 lynch. I decided to let him slide with the lurking, focusing my energy instead on trying to move the wagon over from AGM to foilist. At a certain point, I thought I saw something in Sanjay's play, and went off the deep about it. It quickly became clear to me that whether or not I was right about him, I had nothing approaching a good case, and it was too early to try and incriminate him further. So, I backed down, and declared that I was ready to lynch foilist.

Suddenly, Pharie votes for Sociopath, and suddenly a large chunk of the town does. What the hell am I supposed to make of this exactly? The lurking is smelly sure, but neither Muffin nor Sociopath ever really did anything concretely scummy. I certainly didn't think randomly quicklynching Sociopath would be good for the town, as there was no reason to expect that he wouldn't just turn up as a lurker townie. And tell me, what would we have learned if Sociopath had flipped town? Nothing.

From my perspective, the whole town switching wagons at the last second like that, completely ignoring the two people we'd been talking about all day, was very very very shifty. I thought for sure that some serious scum maneuvering was going on there. Think about it from my perspective. I really didn't believe that Sociopath was particularly likely to be scum, so all I saw was a whole bunch of people suddenly piling on a pretty random person. What did you expect me to do? Join the mob? Would that have satisfied you?

As far as my inactivity goes, I had legitimate RL stuffs going on towards the end of last week, particularly Thursday (Calc test the next day). Also, I had already sort of said my piece about who I wanted lynched, and didn't really think I would be accomplishing anything by trying to get super self-righteous at everyone. And finally, I was flabbergasted as fuck over what was going on, and needed time to assess the situation (which I didn't have).

Imma have to go over thread before I can say much else, and I really don't have the time tonight. There's another game that I'm totally neglecting right now, and my attention is going to go there first. I contributed a solid sixth of the posts yesterday, so y'all should be fine getting on for a while without me.

[archaebob]

I'm still here, don't replace me. Like I said, I'm paying attention to another game right now.

[archaebob]

yes, PharieM, a week minus all of thxgiving break.

Also known as two days.

[archaebob]

@ foilist - Replacing out of the other game is not really an option, as I would be pretty much the sixth person to do so. It's an extremely dense piece of work, and is taking quite a bit of time to get the hang of.

I understand if you don't totally appreciate this philosophy, but I generally like to think about what I do before I do it. Sociopath's flip has given us an incredible wealth of information, and I want to have a good handle on it before I post anything. You aren't going to scare me into posting any sooner than that. This is thxgiving break, and my time has been limited by RL, and I'm not going to pretend to suspect someone that I haven't read as thoroughly as I'd like to first.

[archaebob]

cruelty, why don't you suspect/want me lynched anymore?

[archaebob]

foilist, i'm not understanding your cruelty vote.

can you concisely summarize, with like a numbered list or something, what your reasons are for voting him? I generally can see the picture, but I'm not totally sure what the full extent of your argument is.

[archaebob]

Foilist, all of your points are either factually inaccurate, or extremely poor. I strongly recommend that you go back over your points, check your sources, and think seriously about what your over-arching theory is.

This really interests me:

Cruelty (4) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM, Gammagoey, foilist13

All of you, 'splain please. I'm not seeing the case here.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

yeah...I could do that. But I want to see these other people outline their arguments against cruelty first.

SO,

Let it be recorded in this

very official

record that I owe foilist13 a rebuttal to the six points against Cruelty in his post 953 before Day 2 comes to a close.

Signed, Archaic Robert

There. Sorry, it's the best I can do right now.

But seriously, I'd take this opportunity to look them over yourself before getting royally trashed.

[archaebob]

@ foilist13-

Well, I'm saying right now that I don't at all see the case on cruelty. And that means that I'm automatically suspicious of everyone who's on that wagon until I see some good reason why they are there.

I'll also add in now, as a little teaser, that I don't think you are cleared at all, and that I still do strongly suspect Sanjay.

@ MordyS-

why peanutman?

@ cruelty-

given the option, would you still want foilist lynched today?

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

Can you show me where he tried to take full credit for the lynch?
Also, what happened to wanting AGM lynched?

@ Cruelty -

@ cruelty-

given the option, would you still want foilist lynched today?

[archaebob]

The political capital thing is interesting to me as well, it seems that archaebob thrives on being in the middle of all that is going on in a game, on being the leader who sways and guides the town, discusses only the things that he tells us to discuss, etc. It's interesting that as soon as he *lost* that political capital, i.e. the power shift at the end of Day 1, he has just vanished from the game, as if all of the joy in the game went out of it for him now that he was no longer calling the shots. I think it's extremely important to him or his ego that he be the leader, and I think he felt like after the events of the end of day 1, he couldn't just simply reassume his place at the top of the town, the leader of discussion, and go on like normal, so I wonder if that has something to do with why he has stopped posting. That's certainly what it feels like, but I don't know what (if anything) that indicates about his alignment. It could just be an ego thing, and it's not fun for him anymore, or it could be that he doesn't know how to play it after his scumbuddy was outed and so quickly lynched, giving him no chance to game-plan and twist it around to his advantage, and making him look bad for not being ok with the Muffin lynch. His last several posts have seemed very flustered, so I'm I guess more inclined to go with this option. The third option is that he is town, & is simply telling the truth about being busy & unable to post. I find this one the hardest to swallow. I have never seen *anyone* post as much as he did on Day 1. I just find it hard to believe that his circumstances changed so drastically, so quickly, and at just the perfect moment of the Muffin bandwagon beginning.

Lol.

I just want to clear a few things up.

1) I don't have an obsession with "political capital". Whatever "power" I might have had in the town yesterday was due simply to several players deciding they thought I was town after I linked foilist's meta in this thread. This was not something I could have planned for.

Now, in general, I'm a very active player. This is mostly because when I get into a game, I get

really

into a game, sometimes to the point that I wind up compromising my RL a little more than I should. Also, I am never in more than two games at a time, because I like to focus my attention. This also helps contribute to an unusual amount of activity on my part in any given game.

Now, it seems that me being super active, and me asking a lot of questions, and me boldly declaring what I think the town should be doing at any given moment have given you all this impression that I fancy myself some kind of dear emperor. Dismiss this silly notion from your heads. What I fancy myself as is an invested player, who's arrogant enough to think that he can convince other people about what is best for the town. If I ever wind up in a leader position, it's because I've managed to convince you of things, not because I've barked orders at you. Honestly, being the leader is not something that I particularly care about, or aspire to be.

2) I'm not emotionally invested in this game, and I don't actually have an uber-ego.

Let it be known that I am the farthest person in the universe from being personally offended by anything in a game like this. My not posting in a game will

never

be related to me being pissed off, or something idiotic like that.

Also, I'm not really a big ego. Really. I'm not. Or at least, my ego is not related to social factors. I might be arrogant enough to think that I'm right about who the mafia are, and that you all would do well to listen to me, but I'm not arrogant enough to "not be having fun anymore" if you guys decide to tell me I should get real. Seriously, this paragraph that I quoted made me laugh, it's such an unflattering depiction of me.

3) Believe it or not, I

actually

was really busy in the last week.

Also, I'm making a conscious effort to moderate my activity in general, both because I think it helps to clutter the thread, and also because I need to be more responsible with my computer time.

And...guess what! I thought I knew who the mafia were, and I was wrong! Maybe, just maybe, I'm actually humble enough to realize that I might not totally know what's up, and therefore want to

avoid

assuming any sort of role as top of the town immediately at the start of Day 2.

Truth is, I don't really know what's going on in here right now, there's a lot to go over, and I'm biding my time. I think that I influenced the discussion in Day 1 more than was helpful (something that is a recurring problem for me), and I'm interested in seeing what y'all will come up with if I'm less of a dominating presence than I usually am.


Hopefully this clears things up, Pharie .

[archaebob]

@Archaebob - Several people have posted vague opinions on whether or not I am likely to be town based on muffin/socio's flip, but I honastly have no idea what the general consensus may be. There is no wagon on me at the moment, and Cruelty's suspicion of me feels OMGUS driven, which I can relate to, but you are the only person to indicate any real suspicion. Can you elaborate on that?

Sure. But first, explain how anything but your last sentence in this quote is of any relevance.

@ Sanjay -

I'd love to know what you think about cruelty. Love as in

love

.

[archaebob]

@ foilist - I still do not see the relevance. Why should I care what the general consensus of the town is? More importantly, why should YOU care? You seem to be implying with your post that it is somehow odd for me to level any suspicions at you, given the fact that I am alone in doing so.

"No-one else finds me suspicious. How dare you!"

[archaebob]

@ everyone -

Given what we now know about Muffin's alignment, does anyone have a new perspective on the Muffin vs. Chinaman dialogue near the beginning of Day 1?

At the time, I thought it was town on town. We know now that it wasn't that. However, I'm still getting the vibe that they had the same alignment...

[archaebob]

I'm pretty sure foilist isn't mafia. When he came under attack his first offense was on Muffin. If he's scum, why would he try to get the pressure off himself by putting it his own godfather, when attacking a random townie would do the same thing without risking a godfather lynch if people listen to you.

WIFOM.

I pointed out that cruelty and peanut never spoke to each other yesterday. If they're both scum trying not to draw attention to each other, bussing at this point where everyone suspects both of them would be pretty much suicide. Neither of them wants the other lynched today. Hmmm.

Heads I win tail you lose. This is unfalsifiable, and ignores, as cruelty rightly pointed out, that he has not talked about many players in this thread. It also ignores the fact that peanutman has said just as little about AGM and foilist, except when directly pressured.

Going back to Almaster- I still think that if he's a townie his play yesterday was absolutely terrible, but there's the tiniest chance that he's just what he said he was: a terrible, terrible doctor.

His play today has been much better though, and I really don't think he would bus right now, so if cruelty comes up scum there are people I'd rather lynch before him.

Side note: SpyreX was one of the only people still willing to vote him after his claim. WIFOM and all that, but it's still something to think about.

You lost me with the bolded. Que?

Also, yeah, WIFOM and all that, meaning it's

not

something to still think about.

Peanutman's defense at the beginning of the day seemed a little scummy to me (trying to put suspicion on people because they're voting for him, not stating his own suspicions until some of the heat is off) and claiming that he had a big part in lynching Socio when he didn't even vote for him is glory hogging at best, and scum trying to get town cred at worst.

So vote peanutman. This is WAY more compelling than anything I've seen for cruelty.

Cruelty didn't contribute much at all yesterday, didn't mention Muffin/Socio until very late in the game, and similar to peanutman is pushing on archae who I think just made a townie mistake (reasoning was a few posts back if you want it). In addition, he's still stating that foilist is scummy even though Socio's flip makes him just about as confirmed as a village idiot as he can get. He also has inconsistancies in his reasoning for being irritated at AGM and changing from not wanting to lynch AGM yesterday to wanting him lynched now.

Quote me the inconsistencies in cruelty's reasoning, and explain why his flip flop over AGM is any different from Mordy's over AGM, Sanjay's over foilist, and mine over AGM.

I will vote for any of these three dudes. However, if cruelty is scum

I think AGM looks a hell of a lot better given my bussing is suicide theory

, making peanutman the last maf in my eyes (doesn't work the other way around:if peanut is scum, either Al or cruelty could be the last maf).

I'm thinking cruelty gives us the most info from the lynch and has a high chance of lynching ze scum.

Vote:cruelty

The bolded is a very bad theory.

I still don't see the logic behind the italicized.

[archaebob]

@Gammagooey - I'm willing to back off Cruelty for now, and yes I'll try and be civil, but he and Archaebob have been less than that towards me this game, and it's starting to get under my skin.

Have a cookie. (PS: you started it)

Back off from cruelty meaning what?

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay - why did you unvote foilist at the last second yesterday?

and ur right, the two have nothing in common. that's not my point. that whole conversation just seems...planted. I never really felt very comfortable with their dialouge, and now that I'm looking at it again, it's bothering me even more. It just seems so convenient...the two of them went after eachother over basically nothing, giving them the appearance that they were doing something productive, while they were actually just tunneling eachother. Muffin was called out for this, and ultimately got lynched. I still don't think that was a smart move, given what we knew at the time, but it happened, and he flipped godfather. What I'm curious about is why Chinaman slipped away. And then I remembered. He got replaced.

There's nothing concrete here atm, I just want people to read over that exchange again, and decide if it all pinges their gut, now that we know Muffin's alignment.