Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[Gammagooey]

I can see where Phaerie is coming from, everyone except Sociopath has stated their opinions in general, and there hasn't really been any new content aside from archae's case on Sanjay, which happened Today.

People not posting in a certain amount of pages doesn't mean much when it's mostly just a rehash of previous posts.

Having said that, SOCIOPATH. You've had a week to catch up, can you at least give us a defense for Phaerie's case against you even if you haven't completely caught up yet? It's on page 19, and is regarding stuff much sooner(pg 2-6ish i think) than that said by Muffin.

[peanutman]

In light of PhaerieM's 698 (which, thanks btw for raising this)
Can you please answer to my questions at posts 11 and 16 (peanut in iso) regarding you and Spyrex? You claim I have totally ignored Foilist all game but given all your accusation flinging this day, you have been remarkably cordial to a few people (notably Gammagooey MordyS and Spyrex). Not wanting to address everything at once to be able to focus, I would like you to respond to my questions regarding Spyrex and for you to post your suspicions which you claimed you had earlier on but have yet to provide us.

[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?

[peanutman]

My apologies, Post 701 was directed at you Bob.

[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.

[peanutman]

That's nice, Archaebob, but I don't buy it. For him to be in your top 4 scumlist with those reasons seems quite odd, especially since you've been much more aggressive with at least 4 other people. It really seems like your reasoning is, exactly as you warned us before from others, statements made after the fact. It's quite vague in fact.

@Sociopath, could you give us some idea as to when you plan on posting your thoughts? I know some players are just itching to hammer and end the day, and would hate for it to end without your thoughts.

[foilist13]

@Archaebob - What are your views on Cruelty? Does it bother you that he has posted very infrequently, and that at least one person has said he is the best lynch choice for today?

@Sanjay - What do you think of SpyreX? I don't think I've seen you mention him yet, and I'd be interested to know what you think of his posting style.

[cruelty]

Why do you put so much emphasis on what one person thinks? I think that's the second time you've cited one (other) person's opinion as a foundation for making a point.

[foilist13]

I didn't cite anyone. I asked those players what they think because I think that their answers will be significant.

[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.

[foilist13]

I looked back through the thread, and he never came up with a case of his own. All his posts are agreeing with some other player who has just posted accusations. He is very good about including a little extra content so that it looks like he's scum hunting, but he has not strayed from some part of the crowd at any time. He posts just enough, but not enough to draw serious attention.

This seems like an absolute classic scum play. I can't think of anything that would make more sense for a scum player to be doing. However this is only deduction. I haven't seen any solid scum slips.

[cruelty]

According to Sanjay, I posted a plausible defesne,

and that at least one person has said he is the best lynch choice for today

Admittedly these two quotes are fairly far apart from each other, but they suggest that you're more invested in what other people think than you imply. This is strange for me, given that you're trying to paint me as scummy for the same thing.

(I should note that the second quote is a little out of context, but the sentence from which it's pulled (his post 77) is predicated on someone else's judgement, presumably Papa Zito's).

That according to Sanjay quote strikes me as particularly strange - I'm not really sure why you're using his judgement as a springboard, but I guess one could almost infer that you're subtly implying he's town. Or buddying him, which I guess amounts to the same thing, sort of. It's actually along the same lines as archaebob declaring himself town as per several people, which you attacked him over.

I'd also note that your main case on me seems to be that I'm not straying from the pack too much. I'll ask this - who is? Currently (well, as per last votecount) 7/9 voting players were on one of you two (foilist, AGM), the exceptions being AGM (on bob) and Papa Zito (on me). Given that I agree that the two of you are currently the scummiest players in the game, I don't see much problem with pursuing those lines.

[Papa Zito]

Sup kids. I had a great weekend, thanks for asking.

So then, on to cruelty. I can't believe you guys are actually asking for yet another case to be posted, but hey, when in Rome. First I'd invite the crowd to read Muffin's 289, which was quite spot-on.

PbPA gogogo.

0. RVS (null)
1. Foilist
2. Foilist
3. AGM / Foilist
4. Foilist
5. null
6. Foilist / refusal to share
7. refusal to share / AGM
8. AGM / Foilist
9. ARCHAEBOB vote & case???
10. null
11. Archaebob
12. Foilist
13. Foilist
14. null
15. null
16. archaebob
17. Foilist
18. AGM
19. null
20. Foilist
21. Foilist / AGM
22. Foilist
23. Foilist
24. Spyrex (on request)
25. defense
26. defense
27. defense
28. Foilist
29. AGM
30. Foilist
31. Foilist

So what does all this tell us then?

- First, cruelty has refused to provide his thoughts on people unless pressured. The only ones who really have to worry about this are scum. More wiggle-room for later, fewer tracks if you're flipped, amirite?
- Secondly, cruelty has stuck to the main bandwagons all game. He's pretty much tunnelled on Foilist the entire time and, regardless of his alignment, Foilist has been an easy target - precisely the type scum go after. Cruelty has also lobbed a few stones AGM's (aka The Other Big Bandwagon's) way. Anyone else? Nope, not unless you count -
- Iso post 9 - a terrible case on archaebob, and vote, when he hadn't mentioned the guy once before. This case came immediately after Muffin posted his case on cruelty - classic deflection. Even worse, the case was abandoned, archaebob unvoted, and the issue dropped completely when the town didn't follow. Last point on this - Did archaebob have a wagon on him at the time? You bet he did.


One final thing, and this is a recent development so I won't include it up there. He's really really nervous about my vote. My one single vote. He doesn't like it, and he's desperate to hear a case from me. Even though I've had my vote on him a while, his calls for explanation have coincided with other players starting to put pressure on him. Seems like nervous scum to me.

Spyrex stuff coming in a bit.

[Papa Zito]

Spyrex. Buddy. Help me out here.

Ben 490: AGM at L-2, Foil at L-6
Spy 517: Kill AGM nao
Spy 531: He's a doc, kill him anyway!
Pea 565: unvote, AGM at L-3, Foil at L-6
arc 575: vote, AGM at L-3, Foil at L-5
San 576: vote, AGM at L-2
Spy 583: unvote, AGM at L-3, Foil at L-4 ****????****

Spy, you want someone dead, you've been desperate to lynch AGM - Why the hell would you abandon the AGM wagon here?? At that point the AGM wagon was still more viable than the Foilist one, by three votes. I don't get it.

Also:

Ok, if there is an actual doctor, please claim. 1-1 is fine.

I

don't want to out our doctor.

lolwut

[SpyreX]

The votes, ultimately, aren't going to be as big of an issue as you think in that process. It was absolutely apparent that, without a CC, that lynch isn't going through.

NOW, on the offchance it gets there I've made it absolutely clear I'd hammer. Thus, assume one's vote IS there.

And, the other should be fairly clear:

I don't want to out our doctor. However, if the choices are not getting scum lynched OR outing the doctor because "ohh noes PR claim" I WILL push for the doctor to get the scum lynched.

In a perfect world it would have been a series of "HAHA VOTE" when he claimed doctor after the VT claim (and yes thats a damn claim) and we wouldn't be IN THIS MESS NOW.

So, yea.

[AlmasterGM]

Unvote. Vote: cruelty.

[Sanjay]

SpyreX, why vote foilist13 and declare you'd happily hammer AlmasterGM instead of the other way around?

[peanutman]

Unvote. Vote: cruelty.

AGM, like I've stated many time with Bob, explain your votes when you do them, or else it's just scummy. I want to know why people are voting when they do vote, and not an explanation after the fact. If you don't have a reason to vote, don't. If you do, tell us.

[Sanjay]

I mostly disagree with peanutman.

Voting without telling people why can but a fun and exciting adventure for both scum and town and there are plenty of reasons to do it for everybody!

Cool reasons town might want to vote without saying why:

1) They want to gauge reactions.
2) They feel like explaining their vote would compromise their scumhunting.
3) You don't have much of a case but you just feel like voting for a dude.

Cool reasons scum might want to do it:

1) To pretend you have one of the town reasons.
2) To make people think you are cool and hip and don't care what the town thinks.
3) Because you are worried about your wagon position and you want to get in as soon as possible.

Cool reasons anyone might want to do it:

1) Because you are cool and hip and don't care what the town thinks.
2) Because you are cool and hip and don't care what peanutman thinks.

BONUS:

Totally stupid reasons scum might want to do it:

1) You are an idiot and you think putting votes on people that you can't justify is a good idea.

------------

If you are thinking about voting without explanation, ask yourself if you have a good reason to. If you don't, I agree with peanutman, explain your vote.

But I don't see how voting without explaining is scummy at all.

You want to fill me in, peanutman?

[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.

[SpyreX]

Because no other person has been as scummy as GM. Period.

Saving him because "OHH SNAP POWER ROLE" doesn't make sense.

When you add in the fact he's never, ever, ever getting killed regardless of alignment if we dont hit scum hard and fast this issue will pop up every. single. day. Until its lylo then HURF. And what is the magic bell thats going to make this change? Hoping that if he IS telling the truth the real doc gets lynched? That the mystical cop wastes an investigation on him?

I'm calling a scum a scum and not betting on PR's being or not being present. If he IS a doctor (hint: he's not) he is all but worthless at this point.

I'm having far more trouble understanding not lynching survival-based (and unnecessary) lies. On a player that has been scummy. Who now gets to jump the shark because of his claim.

As it sits though I'll freely admit I don't care too much anymore. 30 pages is ridiculous.

[cruelty]

He's really really nervous about my vote. My one single vote. He doesn't like it, and he's desperate to hear a case from me.

I was more interested in hearing a case from you because prior to that post you'd contributed effectively nothing. I don't think it's particularly scummy to want someone to explain their vote, especially when they have no content to get a read from.

a terrible case on archaebob, and vote, when he hadn't mentioned the guy once before. This case came immediately after Muffin posted his case on cruelty - classic deflection. Even worse, the case was abandoned, archaebob unvoted, and the issue dropped completely when the town didn't follow. Last point on this - Did archaebob have a wagon on him at the time? You bet he did.

It's scummy to drop a case you know is bad? Having said that, I never really expected to get a lynch, my motivation was more to draw attention to what bob was (and still is, to a degree) doing - running the town.

Unvote. Vote: cruelty.

lol.

[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.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:

AlmasterGM (3) MordyS, Gammagooey, foilist13
foilist13 (4) cruelty, archaebob, SpryeX, Sanjay
cruelty (2) Papa Zito, AlmasterGM

Not Voting (3) Muffin, PhaerieM, peanutman

Deadline November 20 4pm EST

Note there was an amendment in the rules regarding a non-majority at the deadline.

[MordyS]

Is AlmasterGM really voting twice or is it mod-error?

Woops fixing.

fixed