Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[archaebob]

The whole conversation seemed planted so you thought it was town on town?

No, I didn't think it was planted when I first read it. My first feeling was that it was town on town. Since it has been proven to me that it wasn't town on town, I've had to update my theory.

There are two options left:

Scum vs. Town -

When I read the exchange thinking that it's scum-Muffin vs. town-Chinaman all along, it really doesn't work for me. And this is because Muffin being scum requires him to be aware of all the roles,

including the fact that Chinaman is town

. I fail to see what Muffin would have to gain from tunneling a town player who nobody else was even looking at seriously, especially given the existence by that point of other much more plausible lynch candidates. Why would he waste his time getting himself so strongly associated with Chinaman, a town player, at the expense of an early spot on either a mislynch or a bus wagon? I can see how poor play could possibly be involved, but I

know

that Muffin is an intelligent player, and this explanation is not particularly satisfying.

Scum vs. Scum -

This option, however, makes perfect sense. The two scum have a go at each other, over NOTHING. There are serious payoffs to this. 1) They seem like they are doing something, when they aren't. 2) One of them getting lynched is pretty implausible, over all. 3) If one of them DOES get lynched, town points go to the other player.

It's mega-distancing, and SEEMS like town vs. town. What better way is there for two scum to slip under the radar?

Which, btw, they pretty much did. I'd bet pretty heavy money that had Muffin not been replaced by a total non-poster, he would have survived till at least today.

Unfortunately, due to a fluke, Muffin wound up flipping prematurely. And now, I'm having a very difficult time seeing his interactions with Chinaman as scum vs. town.

Also, I thought my reasons for unvoting foilist were pretty clear when I did it. I wasn't feeling the lynch.

This isn't a reason. One moment, you've decided that foilist's usage of your name means that he must be scum who knows your alignment. You make a big show of changing your mind, and turning on him. Yet, at L-1, you suddenly unvote. Why?

I'm a little surprised that you seem just as suspicious of me today as compared to yesterday. Did nothing that happened yesterday give you a clue I might be town?

Everything period is a clue that you

might

be town. However, the fact that you think your actions yesterday have somehow

confirmed

you as town is a clue that you

might

actually be scum.

True I didn't unvote foilist13 with a deliberate goal of lynching Muffin, but couldn't I have very easily put my vote somewhere else if I wanted to avoid a Muffin lynch?

It's not as much mental gymnastics as having a scum read on Papa Zito, but how do you think the events of yesterday are compatible with me being scum?

For me to decide that you being early on that wagon confirms you as town, I have to be able to say that I can't see a plausible scum motivation for doing what you did.

Truth is, though, I can. I can see you being faced with a choice between bussing Sociopath and Foilist, and choosing Sociopath. You were VERY late on the foilist wagon, so the bus wouldn't do much for you. In fact, you knew at that point that if foil flipped scum, I'd be all over your ass. With

Sociopath

, however you had an opportunity to be one of the first on the wagon, Mr. Golden Bat Boy, or whatever. What better way to get long term town creds than to contribute early to a wagon on the fucking

Godfather

! Seriously. In addition to all that, Sociopath probably looked like he was going to be a pretty useless scum partner, so why not pick him to bus over foil?

And it's not like you could have gone back to AGM after making such a big show of changing your mind.

[archaebob]

Suggest you go back and read then, since several people have posted why they want cruelty dead.

I

did

read, Pops. Please, show me where you posted why you want cruelty dead.

The only explanation I see anywhere in your iso is

this

:

Case 1: foilist13 vs. Muffin (125) - bad case
Case 2: peanutman vs. archaebob (139) - Would only agree on a couple points if we were later in the game
Case 3: AlmasterGM vs. archaebob (221) - Agree on a few points but they're aren't damning. Some weird repeats of Peanut's case.
Case 4: AlmasterGM vs. MordyS (also 221) - Horrible. All theory and wrong at that. lulz

Case 5: Muffin vs. cruelty (289) - PbPA, I agree with all points here.

Case 6: cruelty vs. archaebob (290) - Playstyle nonsense.
Sanjay's 327 isn't a case but it was lulz so I thought I'd say so here.
Case 7: SpyreX vs. AlmasterGM (351) - I agree with a couple of points here. Good case.
Case 8: archaebob vs. Peanutman (370) - This case is pretty much predicated on Foilist13 being scum.
Case 9: PhaerieM vs. Muffin (464) - Some good points here.

I assume you have interest in giving us a better reason than that. Especially in light of...recent events.

[archaebob]

@ PharieM -

Where did you go? I'm getting a little anxious.

And help me out...why do you think i'm scum?

[archaebob]

WIFOM.

WIFOM fallacy.

Where's the fallacy?

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.

Bolded part is scummy on cruelty's part.

It's also scummy on your part, peanutman's part, and foilist's part. Why the special treatment?

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

Why are you so interested in getting votes off cruelty?

Because I don't think he's scum.

If I flip town, what information do you get?

You keep pushing this dumb "information" issue. This doesn't even matter - we should be lynching SCUM, not people who we think we'll get lots of information from. You're scummy, and are lynchable. The end.

I agree that there is no information to be had in particular from you flipping town. I also agree that given the choice, we should lynch scum, rather than some who's informative. What you are forgetting is the fact that we don't know for SURE who is scum, but we can be reasonably sure about what flips will give us information. Given two players that are equally likely to be scum, it makes sense to choose the one who's flip will be more informative.

But anyways, I don't see cruelty as scum, or as a particularly informative lynch.

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

Because he likes shifting his advocacy all the time so you can't pin him down on anything later.

He didn't shift his advocacy at the end of the day yesterday. He attached himself to the foilist wagon and stuck with it. I would generally agree that he could put his cards out there more often than he does, but he has been consistent with his philosophy this whole game, ultimately did stick his vote onto a wagon, and kept it there. I don't think you are representing him accurately.

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

LOL, are you serious?

Quite.

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.

The fact that you even know what this means and are on the debate team makes me think you are quite knowledgeable about it and are actively using it. Mmmmm…Politics DA.

Yeah k whatever.

1) What archebob thinks we should do today. E.g., I want offense, not abstract responses to posts or promises.

I can't parse what this means at all.

[archaebob]

@ Papa Zito -

I just want to make sure I fully understand your position. I'm not trying to be lazy, or strawman you, so please correct me if I am wrong.

These are the reasons that I can see for your cruelty suspicions:

- you agree with Muffin's case on cruelty
- Cruelty's general unwillingness to divulge information
- Cruelty's voting position on primarily the main bandwagons all game
- his bandwagon vote onto me
- Cruelty wasn't on the socio-path wagon.

Is that everything?

[archaebob]

@ Papa Zito and AGM -

I really don't see the confusion about Cruelty's position on Almaster. It's the same as mine, and it's also the same as yours was at the end of the day yesterday, Papa. I think he explained it pretty fully yesterday: he thinks that AGM is scummy, but because of mitigating factors related to strategy and information flow, he has decided that actually lynching AGM is not the most beneficial move for the town to take.

He's using poor wording today with this whole "I

want

you lynched, but I don't think we should actually lynch you" business, but I think it means basically the same thing he was saying before. AGM is scummy, but not a good lynch for the town. There's no contradiction.

@ Sanjay -

I think it is a little conceited to think that I so feared your onslaught that I would bus my flying under the radar Godfather to avoid it, but alright.

This isn't fair, Sanjay. I wouldn't think this about just anyone, but

you

made several comments about my play in both the Newbie 846 post-game and in the QT that do suggest this might be the case. It's not conceit, it's me trying to figure out how I'd expect you to react to me if you were scum, based on my past experience with you.

i'll respond to the rest later, I don't have time tonight.

[archaebob]

I'll concede the point that it isn't fair for me to call you conceited. But it was either that or think that you think me a total idiot and a selfish bastard.

This is a really weird statement, Sanjay. Selfishness has nothing to do with it, this is mafia, and sometimes bussing is necessary. And besides, my hypothesis involves foilist being scum as well. How would it be selfish to switch from one scum-partner to another?

And you

know

I don't think you're an idiot. C'mon man. It's exactly because I know that you are very smart that I'm so disposed to coming up with conspiracy theories in which you are scum.

If I was really so scared of you, why wouldn't I just night kill you? Is that really that much worse of a plan than offing my godfather, who had practically no suspicion on him? As I recall, PhaerieM was the only one on that wagon that even had strong scum vibes from the dude. Most everyone else was policy lynching.

If you ever were actually scared of me (lol), you obviously would have been much less so after having successfully destroyed my first attempts at incriminating you. You said this yourself:

Also, I'm a lot less scared of you after my ninja defenses shot down everything you threw at me last time.

So obviously you weren't going to NK me out of fear. And dude...why are you defending yourself like this? You know its WIFOM. You keep saying, "why would I go after my own godfather, who had no suspicion on him?" Give me a break man, I know you don't need me to explain this to you. You went after your own godfather because you thought it would confirm you as town, as you so blatantly tried to claim today on several occasion. It is not implausible

at all

that a scum player would do exactly what you did, and I think it's especially plausible in your case, given how much you've tooted your horn today.

Going back to your Post 1008 now:

As for why I wasn't feeling the foilist13 wagon anymore, does anyone know why anyone feels anything? Feelings are strange and fickle mistresses of the mind and what is one day one's fervent passion can the next day be the slightest afterthought. I know feelings can be scary, but sometimes we just have to accept them.

This is SO weird, Sanjay. Read this again, and think about how it sounds. You are a logical, analytical player, and I know that you ARE capable of articulating your feelings. I mean, really? Let's take a look at your supposed reasons for voting foilist:

A lot of people have posted since I started typing this. I'm just going to pretend that they didn't if that's okay.

@Sanjay - I've got a vague town read on you right now. I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a scum slip so far, but that doesn't mean I'm not looking.

@Archaebob - I'm not saying that there are questions that have gone unanswered other than the ones you just posted, but his choice has been to simply disappear and hope that I get myself lynched, where as I am actively trying to defend myself.

And if you are not tunneling, then what other players have you seriously considered besides me and Almaster?

@Almaster - Why shouldn't we lynch you? Is it just because you've said you were the Doc, or is there something else you have to offer?

Ha ha, foilist13. I can't believe you are accusing someone of tunneling in the same post as you continue your ridiculous policy of only having eyes for AlmasterGM.

Here's a question: Why did you consider it important that

I

considered your timeline plausible? I didn't notice it at first, but I think this is a scumslip on your part. Here's why?

Why is me finding something you said is plausible a point in your favor? For all you know I'm scummy scum trying to get the town to do my dirty work by having them lynch the power role so I don't have to. From what you know of my scum meta, I know you can trust me to

never

do that as scum, but you never know if I have changed my scum meta.

I think you listed me finding your defense plausible as a point in your favor because you know my alignment.

This probably would have been a better zinger if you had said you have a neutral or scummy read on me, thus making you valuing my opinion totally bananas. But oh well. I think it is a good point anyway.

Anyway, AlmasterGM's recent defense is a little head-scratching, but it actually makes me feel better about lynching foilist13 than AlmasterGM. If nothing else, it takes away the only reason foilist13 had for us not lynching him.

Vote: foilist13

I want to see one of these two flip and I'm just fine with it being foilist13.

You give us a whole post of reasons to justify your wagon-hopping onto foilist. Do you seriously to expect me to believe that at the last second...L-1...you suddenly decided that all of your logic was completely invalidated because of a

feeling

? I can tell from the way you play this game that you have an intellectual mind, and I can tell from the way that you write that you know the difference between an intuitive stance, and a fleeting afterthought. If this feeling that you had was such a fickle mistress of the mind (meaning, you know, in that category of idle passions that pass quickly and

unreliably

), then why was

that

enough to make you unvote foilist?

But more seriously, I think foilist13's little "dead man walking" routine kind of made me think I was wrong about him.

Oh, well I'm glad that we're getting super cereal now. However, I really don't believe you, and that's because there is no in way hell his whole AtE campaign could have convinced anyone of anything. But please, feel free to expand on what you found so compelling.

Firstly, saying Muffin was tunneling Chinaman is a big ol' misrepresentation. When Chinaman let up, Muffin let up. Muffin trying to get something going on Chinaman, keeping it up long enough to see if it'll work, and giving up on it. Not tunneling at all.

I disagree, i think he was tunneling.

Secondly, are you telling me that you fail to see what Muffin would have to gain from attacking a town player who nobody else was even looking at seriously? Are you reading your own posts? If being early on a mislynch wagon is important to a scum player, what could be better than starting your own mislynch wagon?

Sanjay, c'mon, I know you're better than this. Muffin's shots at getting Chinaman mislynched were pretty much nil, and there was never anything that indicated otherwise. And Muffin was smart enough to know of this. I really don't see why Muffin spent so much time on Chinaman, if he knew all along that he was town.

You are stretching a lot to make this "Sanjay is scum" thing work, archaebob.

I

was

beginning to think this actually, but fortunately, my confidence has since been restored.

@ EVERYONE -
Is anybody else actually paying attention to this exchange between me and Sanjay?

Here's the big points I have right now:

-Sanjay's reasons for switching on to the foilist wagon are extremely poor, and difficult to believe.
-Sanjay's reason for hopping off the foilist wagon at the last second is not at all clear, and smells like text-book scum
-Sanjay has blatantly stated that he should be confirmed town after his role in the Sociopath lynch yesterday. I reject this claim completely, and the assuming manner in which he has tried to make it seems very scummy to me.
-Sanjay's defenses against me today have been very weird.

Please seriously look at this stuff, go back and read the end of the day, and remain vigilant. I don't think this game is as simple as some people are trying to make it seem.

[archaebob]

It's not the same at all, unless I'm reading it wrong. The doc claim isn't figuring into his thinking, it's the fact that he's unable to form a wagon and get the town to follow. My reasoning was and is entirely based on the doc claim.

His reasons are different, but his position is the same. He suspects AGM, thinks he's scummy, but doesn't think he's a good lynch for other, unrelated reasons. I can't find a single place where he has been inconsistent about this.

I'm trying to ferret out his motivations, and it's a damn hard job. Your white knight act isn't helping.

I appreciate this, believe me, and I'd prefer to not be doing this. The only reason I'm intervening is because he's up to four votes, and I'm damn scared of this town quick-lynching people after how fast yesterday's wagon went. I really don't think he's scum, and I'm trying to stop the town from doing something dumb.

I can definitely back off from this discussion for a while if you would like me to, i just want to make sure the town doesn't wind up suffering from an overdose of confirmation bias.

vote: peanutman

[archaebob]

@Bob, Why did you ask me for my cruelty case and then ignore it?

I just missed it the first time, when I was reading in iso. It came after your big list of what cases had been posted in the game, so for some reason or another, it didn't catch my eye. When you quoted it for me, I realized that I was wrong, went back and read it, and then used the information from it to compile all the points to your position that I could see. You said that my Post 1004 did a decent job of summarizing your views, so i stopped talking about it. i wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent you, I just didn't see that part of your post at first. The whole reason for my post 1004 was to make sure that I

wasn't

strawmanning you.

@ Gammagooey - first off, I think i'm beginning to agree more than i did before with your theory that AGM bussing out his partner would be suicide. This is making me somewhat more inclined to consider a cruelty lynch than I initially was, but I still don't see enough actual evidence that points to him being scum.

secondly, i respect why you aren't convinced right now. I just want to know that we are still keeping on our toes, and not making assumptions that aren't supported by the facts.

I haven't seen that happen yet.

Regarding your Muffin v. China analysis, I get the feeling, reading it, that you had already made up your mind as to how you wanted to perceive before you wrote it. That is, you made the comparison of scum-town and scum-scum with the end goal in mind of the scum-scum scenario being the better one. It doesn't really seem objective at all, some elements of which Sanjay has already raised.

I'm not claiming that it's objective. I'm drawing attention to something that strikes me as interesting, and describing my gut reaction to it. What IS objective, however, is the facts. I'm making my gut read based on things that Sanjay has done. What else can you do, save a cop investigation, that is more objective than that?

I don't think it's particularly scummy to not have made any direct comments towards another player in a 12-player game D1.

Whether or not I agree with this (and i'm pretty sure I don't), the point I was making was that it is illogical to find cruelty scummy for not mentioning people without finding you scummy for the same reasons. Given the statement that not mentioning other players is scummy, it is inconsistent to apply it only to cruelty.

However, I get the feeling that you, Archaebob, are scum from some of your recent activity. You have recognized that Cruelty has good chances of getting lynched and have found a way to perhaps gain town-cred. If you defend Cruelty and he turns up town, you can see the next day "I told you all he was town, now there must be scum on his BW, let's lynch them", effectively throwing pressure off of you.

So completely theoretical and WIFOM-full that I'm not sure how to respond to it. If you think I'd be scummy for defending a player that flipped town, then you should certainly think that the people on the Sociopath wagon are scummy for attacking a player that flipped scum.

Finally, I've brought this up numerous times, Archae, but stop voting without explanation. I assume your decision to vote on me is partly based on my recent absence (though I concede that you do have other suspicions as well), but at least post a thought with your vote. Because, at this point, you could come up with a whole slew of reasons after the fact for your vote, depending on the town's reactions.

And I've explained numerous times, Peanutman, why I disagree with you on this point, and you need to accept that I find voting without explanation useful some times.

But wait...Sanjay voted you without explanation as well. Why do you only direct comments like this at me?

@ Sanjay - i saw you online for a LONG time yesterday evening. Can you please respond to our conversation?

[archaebob]

I guess you don't realize how odd this is after you've been defending cruelty all day?

I don't see what's odd, unless you were expecting something further from me. You're the one who's on the cruelty wagon, and I'm trying to understand your position. I'm looking at each one of your points and thinking seriously about how valid it is, and in the meantime, you've told me to stop actively defending cruelty. What do you want from me? Do you want me to go into depth about why I don't think cruelty is scum or not?

[archaebob]

@ PZ -

My opinion right now is I i'm not at all convinced, I think the points are exaggerated, and could come from town. The biggest issue I'm having is I don't see anywhere that he has been

inconsistent

. It would do wonders for the case against him if you could quote me an incident where he contradicts himself.

Beyond that, I've decided to abstain from actively defending him any further for the time being.

@ MordyS - if peanutman flipped scum, who would you pick as the last mafioso?

[archaebob]

mk.

@ Sanjay -

Let's discontinue this for now. I don't really think you are the right lynch today, even assuming that I'm still totally confident in my scum read on you.

@ everyone -

I want Peanutman or foilist lynched today. I still think the connection I found between the two of them yesterday is a damn good one, and if either one of them flips scum, I'll definitely think the other probably is as well.

If peanutman flips scum, and foilist flips town, then I think that AGM is pretty plausibly the last scum.

If foilist flips scum, and peanutman town, then I'd really hope you all would take another look at Sanjay. Failing that, I'd probably stick with AGM again.

Regarding cruelty:

I really do have a town read on him right now. Y'all are beginning to theorize that I might just be scum who KNOWS cruelty is town, and is defending him to get the town cred when he flips. There's no way I can defend against this, and this is yet another heads i win, tails you lose construct. If cruelty flips scum, you all will say that I was defending him because he was my partner. If he flips town, you will say that I already KNEW he was town, and that I'm even more scummy for having defended him. This isn't scientific at all.

I was reading some of his exchanges again, and i noticed in particular how excruciatingly bad AGM's reasoning has been with regards to cruelty. Just something I noticed.

What I need to see to be receptive to a cruelty lynch is an instance of cruelty actually contradicting himself, being inconsistent, or doing something unexplainable as town. All I see right now are superficially scummy things that, though anti-town, are in line with the philosophy that Cruelty has expounded all game.

Regarding the sociopath wagon yesterday:

I've looked and looked, and I really can't see what people saw that made them so suddenly unhappy with lynching AGM or foilist. I don't see the evidence against Muffin/Sociopath, and I don't think that there was a legitimate reason to lynch him. I can't see that wagon forming the way it did with everyone on it being town, because it was too fast, too confident, and too random. I'm therefore forced to conclude that there were people on that wagon with insider information. I'd expect that town would be worried about jumping on a possible mislynch wagon like that with little actual evidence...had socio flipped cop or something, i don't think all of you self-aggrandizing wagon hoppers would be as pleased with yourselves. The fact that so many people felt so confident about quicklynching like that makes me suspect that there were people on that wagon who actually KNEW sociopath was going to flip scum, and were looking for that town cred.

So, here's how i stand: I buy PharieM's vote, Papa Zito's vote, and MordyS's vote onto that wagon. I

don't

buy Sanjay's vote, foilist's vote, or AGM's hammer. As far as I'm concerned, Socio's flip makes the second three

more

suspicious to me, not less suspicious.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

I just reread the first half of Day 1, doing my best to clear my mind of any pre-dispositions I had. And, as much as I hate to say this, I came up with a townish read on Chinaman. I'm actually pretty amazed that I never noticed how scummy Muffin's case on Chinaman was...it disturbs me a little, and I feel like I need to withdraw from this game again and reassess everything from scratch.

Someone else who came up as majorly town is foilist. I have to apologize to him for having mostly ignored his case on Muffin at the time, I actually think that he was spot on. It wasn't well written, and seemed like fluff, but the things he pointed out in that case are exactly what I noticed when I did my reread.

I also find the whole MordyS vote deal to be way less suspicious than I did when it was happening. I think I have to admit that I was heavily tunneling foilist. Not because I wasn't looking at other players (I was), but because I was interpreting everything he said as scummy, and not to be taken seriously by default.

so...mk

unvote

I know this doesn't look great, but I need to reread the whole thread before I pursue anymore wagons. I'm happy to answer questions.

[archaebob]

He seems...a lot scummier...

[archaebob]

@ Gammagooey -

It was a good case. I actually thought that one was decent at the time it was written as well, but by then AGM, foil, and peanut had all acted a lot scummier. I didn't find it compelling enough to divert attention from my top suspects, so I didn't. Muffin being replaced also made me less inclined to lynch him.

What I don't understand, still, are the votes that moved so quickly to Sociopath that

weren't

based on actually scummy behavior. I definitely think AGM's hammer was a pretty blatant bus now.

[archaebob]

@ peanutman -

The "strength" of the case, has nothing to do with when it was posted. Pharie's case was always "stronger" than foilist's. However, the extent to which any case is actually

convincing

does depend on what else is going on when it is posted. I'm saying that I regret not allowing myself to be more convinced by foilist's case at the time he posted it, even though it wasn't a strong one. I always thought that Pharie's case was stronger, but i wasn't convinced by it when it was posted, because of the other things that were happening in the thread.

Alright people.

vote peanutman

Going back to where I was before my meltdown. I still think peanutman has a big chance of being scum, and if he does, I'll be able to rule out once and for all the possibility of Sanjay being scum.

@ those of you still on the cruelty wagon -

Does muffin's case on cruelty Day 1 at all factor into you thinking he's scum? It seems to me like Muffin was actually trying to get cruelty lynched.

[archaebob]

do mini-normals usually have un-sane cops?

[archaebob]

This thread needs a healthy sprinkling of Phaerie dust.

This.

[archaebob]

MordyS, there was something extremely scummy about that last post. And it's not OMGUS.

[archaebob]

The good news is that if AlmasterGM *is* scum, he can't kill Peanutman tonight or it'll become clear that he was faking his doctor role. If he isn't scum, we'll still get one more night of investigation and hopefully it'll help clear someone / help establish his type of sanity.

I don't at all understand what you are saying here. Can you please walk me through the logic?

I trust Papa Zito's opinion after the Muffin lynch, which could be a good heuristic for a Cruelty lynch, but the presence of AlmasterGM + foilist13 (scum/mistake makers) dissuades me.

Why do you trust Papa Zito's opinion more than you would normally, and why do the presence of AGM and foilist dissuade you?

I could be down with an archaebob lynch, tho. His recent material has me a little flummoxed, and his protest against the Muffin lynch actually isn't a bad recent to lynch him. He's at least bad at reading players (thus he protested so vigorously) if not scum himself.

How is my protesting against a quick-bandwagon on someone who I didn't think was a smart move for the town to lynch a good reason? I

still

don't think that was a smart move. It was lucky that that wagon hit scum at all, and had Socio flipped town, we wouldn't have gotten any information whatsoever.

You go read the thread, Mordy. My resisting that wagon was utterly consistent with my play, and I have no doubt I'd be under quite a bit more heat had I suddenly just hopped over to the big wagon like everyone else.

Also, I'm guessing at least one scum player WASN'T on the lynch. That leaves Gammagooey, Peanutman, Archaebob, and cruelty.

What are you basing this guess off of?

Archaebob has risen the most red flags for me.

Oh, and why is this exactly?

[archaebob]

EBWOP: Lol, that middle quote is still MordyS, not PZ. I got confused.

[archaebob]

I don't at all understand what you are saying here. Can you please walk me through the logic?

Happily. If AlmasterGM is scum, and Peanutman dies tonight, then that means he didn't protect him. Why wouldn't the doctor protect the cop? Epso facto, the doc is lying. Therefore the cop can't be killed tonight if AlmasterGM is scum. If AlmasterGM is town, then he protects Peanutman, and likely dies himself (I assume, if he's town, that scum left him alive because there was a lot of scrutiny on him), which means the cop stays alive for at least one more night. Does that make sense?

Yes, perfect sense. That's very good thinking.

Why do you trust Papa Zito's opinion more than you would normally, and why do the presence of AGM and foilist dissuade you?

Papa Zito was right about Muffin. Effective scum-hunting goes a long way in my book. AGM + foilist13 are either scum (a reason to distrust them), or have displayed poor playing this game. Both are good reasons to be skeptical of their scum-hunting. I'm using a heuristic to try and figure out who might have a good read on who the scum are -- this was simply me demonstrating it in short-hand.

This, however, is not so good thinking. My town read on you yesterday was contributed to strongly by the fact that you seemed like a dedicated, independent thinker. I hope you will continue to act in the same way, and not start any of this "follow the person who happened to be right" bull-shit.

And besides, Papa Zito has himself stated several times that he didn't actually have a scummy read on Muffin Day 1, so how was he "right"? I disagree, still, that he was right, because his reason for lynching Sociopath was largely based on the fact that he was a lurker. What Papa Zito was, was lucky.

How is my protesting against a quick-bandwagon on someone who I didn't think was a smart move for the town to lynch a good reason? I still don't think that was a smart move. It was lucky that that wagon hit scum at all, and had Socio flipped town, we wouldn't have gotten any information whatsoever.

You go read the thread, Mordy. My resisting that wagon was utterly consistent with my play, and I have no doubt I'd be under quite a bit more heat had I suddenly just hopped over to the big wagon like everyone else.

I really am not liking the casual way you voted Archaebob. You didn't specify any reasons, except that he has raised "red flags" and that he protested the Sociopath lynch yesterday. I think that his protest was consistent with his earlier play. I haven't ever seen Archaebob do things casually, and he requires ample reason to do anything.

Yes, it was consistent. But he also protested a wagon on scum that lynched scum. It's unfortunate if he turns out to be town that was just trying to do the best thing, but he still protested a scum wagon. SpyreX (our martyred townie) said as much: If Muffin flips scum, it's time to look at archaebob again. I was hesitant to do so before because I thought I had stronger scum reads on Peanutman. In the absence of that read, though, it's time for me to acknowledge that he was absolutely correct. Whether it's internally justifiable or not, you still protested a scum lynch. That's something to take a second look at.

Why are you citing the opinion of our martyred townie, as if that somehow makes him more likely to have been right? This is getting increasingly weird.

And yes, Mordy. I protested a scum lynch. But to call that scummy, the burden is on

you

to prove that my protest was illegitimate. And I

still

think that lynch was a risky, bad move for town, and that you are LUCKY it caught scum. Very lucky.

That is, assuming you are town. I'm becoming increasingly more convinced that there is someone on that wagon who KNEW it would work, and was onboard for that very reason.

I completely reject this notion that it somehow makes sense to draw categories in this game based on who was on that wagon. I mean, what were your reasons for jumping onboard exactly, Mordy? From what I remember, you sorta just said "what the hell," and hopped on. Frankly, I think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that your "what the hell vote" somehow makes you less likely to be scum than my "are you fucking kidding me I'm not going to switch wagons like this for no reason" refusal to vote.

What are you basing this guess off of?

The speed of which the wagon formed plus the predominance of other wagons during the day. If I were scum, I'd hold off the wagon in the hope that I could get one of the other candidates lynched instead. I think it's reasonable to think that if there are two scum (presumably aligned, but I really don't know), even if one got on the wagon in time, it's unlikely that two of them lynched their partner. Especially since two people staying off the wagon and on a different wagon could've theoretically forced a different lynch. It's a probability play, but I think it's cool.

Oh it's cool, Mordy, it's very cool. Here, have a cookie.

And this is stupid. It's pure conjecture, and not even good conjecture, and I find it down-right criminal that you are using this as a serious reason to push for my lynch.

Oh, and why is this exactly?

Read above. Also read my response to your "I'm starting over" post which raised all kinds of red flags for me. Actually, now I'm wondering; What if foilist13 + archaebob are scum partners? Archaebob defended foilist13 on Day One and foilist13 just came to his rescue today. Idle speculation, but would actually totally diminish the town-tell that archaebob gave on Day One.

I defended foilist13 day one? This is a fucking joke, right?

Archaebob, can you explain this exchange between you and Muffin?

No, I can't explain this conversation to you, unless you mean my end only. I asked that question because I made a conscious effort this game to be less abrasive with my gameplay than I was in Newbie 846 (which I suggest you read Day 1 of), which included Muffin, foilist, and ultimately Sanjay. However, one explanation that makes quite a bit of sense regarding Muffin's apparent change of opinion is his use of the word "particularly". Given Muffin's past experience with me, i wasn't acting "particularly" abrasive in this game.

@ Mordy - question: is there any reason in particular that you favor my lynch over cruelty's?

[archaebob]

@ Gamma -

I don't how much I buy the cop claim, but it doesn't matter. It'd be idiocy to lynch peanutman today at this point.

@ everyone -

If this has come down to a choice between me and cruelty, then I obviously pick cruelty. I don't think he's scum, but I do think he's been pretty anti-town for most of the game. I know i've been a bit of a mess with regards to my reads, but I would argue that the dedicated way in which I have pursued those reads has ultimately been pro-town. I generally cause the town to look at a greater variety of things than it would otherwise, and I think it is generally good for the town to have someone who is bringing up those crazy conspiracy theories, as long as they are well researched. I have demonstrated that I don't cling to my positions once I have been proven wrong, and i feel like i can ultimately help to catch scum.

I also don't see how my lynch is informative at all, whereas I do think that cruelty's flip would genuinely reflect on AGM's alignment.

But, all that being said, I really don't think cruelty is scum, and I haven't had anybody take me up on that challenge to find me a genuine inconsistency in his play.

I don't really know who I want lynched yet, as I've come to a generally townish read on foilist. I don't think that everything I've said about Sanjay has been proven invalid, and if you guys wind up in lylo with him still around, I'd strongly recommend taking a good look at him again...but he obviously isn't getting lynched today, and I don't think I'd want him to be at this point anyways.

I'm a little disturbed by the fact that PZ has not at all responded to my challenge to find something genuinely scummy about cruelty, and I felt like his reaction to my questioning of him earlier seemed a little touchy. I also don't know if it's even possible to reconcile the lynch yesterday with him being scum, but it still bothers me. I also am a little perturbed by Phaerie's total absence from the thread today...I remember her making a pretty strong argument about my "lurking" being a scum tell for me, despite my RL claim. I wonder if the same applies to her.

And finally, I really dislike the way MordyS has pushed for my lynch all of a sudden. His reasons are extremely sloppy, and don't seem consistent in style with his play yesterday. I'm also finding that I don't buy his Socio vote nearly as much as I thought I did, though I've got to double check and make sure I'm

really

watching the confirmation bias. He's the primary person I'm going to reread at this point.

The only one that I still have a pretty solid town read on is Gammagooey. I'll have to check on that again too though.

[archaebob]

Mordy, it's 1 AM here, and I'm going to bed.

Peace.

[archaebob]

Actually, I'll respond to one point, regarding foilist:

Yes, I did post that link to his meta, but I don't think that was a defense. At most, it was a warning of caution, which finished off by stating that I'd still be totally down to lynch foilist.

But let's entertain this hypothesis, I'm curious to know that your theory is.

I'm scum, foilist is scum, I make a big show of going after him, knowing all along that I can ultimately link his meta, giving me the excuse I need to back off his wagon before he gets lynched. So what do I do now? I...go and make a big case connecting my scum-buddy to another player who I know to be town (peanutman), further arguing that we can learn about the alignment of that player who I know to be town if we lynch my scumbuddy. Right. Then, at a certain point, AGM claims doc. And what's my response? Why, it's simple! I do

everything in my power

to derail the wagon on the doctor, instead pushing as hard as I can to move everyone over to my scum buddy! Brilliant!

Is this your current theory? I just want to make sure I fully understand your position.

[archaebob]

Oh, and btw, my vote is definitely that the cop investigate Sanjay. I cannot even describe to you how much that would help me in this game, to know for sure one way or the other what his alignment is. If you pay attention to my positions, all my wacky flip-flopping back and forth has been mostly a result of my getting a strong scummy gut read on Sanjay, and trying to come up with ways that he could be scum, despite the fact that I'm lacking in hard evidence. If one could remove that element from the game, I think it's reasonable for me to claim that I could become a very strong pro-town contributor again.

@ MordyS and Sanjay - why does what the cop think trump what the town thinks is best?

@ MordyS - you never commented seriously on either of my cases against Sanjay. I'm dropping the Chinaman vs. Muffin argument, but I'm wondering as to whether you agree with any of my points against him.

In fact, I just went through your iso, putting Sanjay in the "find" box in my browser, and looking at when you've mentioned him, and I didn't notice you EVER seriously giving an opinion on him. In fact...practically every you addressed him it was to engage in some bit of banter, or to gently inform him that he was making some minor mistake.

[archaebob]

Stop trying to discredit me. Or at least find something good to discredit me with. Your cases are a waste of time.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. Hope you can forgive me for my rudeness.

So while I've got you guys here, is it just me or is archaebob reacting kinda hysterically to being attacked? Rather badly, I'd say.

Mind explaining this one? Or will you only pursue this if someone else does in fact confirm that it's not "just you"?

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

You are explaining why you think my reaction to you is hysterical, rather badly you'd say.

I don't see anything particularly confusing about my case, Mordy. I suggest you go back and reread the end of Day 1, if you would like the context. I know I write coherently, and I haven't seen anyone else complain about my case being incomprehensible. In fact, you haven't made any complaint about it either. If my case made your head explode, why didn't you mention it when you first read it?

[archaebob]

@ Foilist -

Sanjay attacked Mordy exactly once in the thread, for what he at the time thought was a bad argument against AGM. You should go read it, it's eerily similar to the tone that he used in his similar fake attack on Gambor Day 1 of Newbie 846.

But that's just me being paranoid.

Sanjay's relationship with Mordy is a null-tell, as far as I'm concerned, but it definitely pinges my gut as being very possibly a scummy one. I encourage everyone to pay attention to this.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

- MordyS's points against me are sloppy and weak at best. A few, I'm find borderline dishonest. If you disagree, choose one that you think holds up.

- I don't really buy that MordyS thinks I've been scummier today than Cruelty.

- Mordy seemed very intelligent and pro-town yesterday. I don't believe that this is him legitimately trying to continue his scum-hunting.

- My gut went "OH MOTHERFUCKER" when I read the post that he voted me in. Instead of going off the deep end, i'm taking things slower this time, to make sure I'm not being OMGUSy, or falling prey to confirmation bias.

- I'm noticing a connection between him and you. More on that later as well.

Fucking a, it's 2 am. I really need to go to bed.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

That will have to wait for tomorrow. I'm really going to bed this time.

I have a suggestion for you, regarding the case that made your head explode: go back,

actually

read the thread, and pay especially close attention to who is saying what.

When you've realized who it was that

actually

made the argument that apparently made your head explode, then I think you will understand my reasons for doing this:

vote: MordyS

HoS: Sanjay

Good night.

[archaebob]

confirm vote: MordyS

[archaebob]

I believe Peanutman's claim. I think the risk of claiming a PR with one member of a scumteam already dead is too high for average scum to try (too much chance of a counter-claim). I don't think that tells us anything about his sanity (so AlmasterGM could still be scum), but at this point I'm willing to admit I was wrong -- Peanutman probably isn't scum. The good news is that if AlmasterGM *is* scum, he can't kill Peanutman tonight or it'll become clear that he was faking his doctor role. If he isn't scum, we'll still get one more night of investigation and hopefully it'll help clear someone / help establish his type of sanity.

Anyway, taking those two off the table, the two other super possible lynches for today are archaebob + Cruelty. I trust Papa Zito's opinion after the Muffin lynch, which could be a good heuristic for a Cruelty lynch, but the presence of AlmasterGM + foilist13 (scum/mistake makers) dissuades me.

I could be down with an archaebob lynch, tho. His recent material has me a little flummoxed, and his protest against the Muffin lynch actually isn't a bad recent to lynch him. He's at least bad at reading players (thus he protested so vigorously) if not scum himself.

Also, I'm guessing at least one scum player WASN'T on the lynch. That leaves Gammagooey, Peanutman, Archaebob, and cruelty. I'm not lynching Peanutman today for above stated reasons -- so it's between Gammagooey, Archaebob + cruelty in my eyes. Archaebob has risen the most red flags for me (tho before the day ends I'm gonna read Gammagooey in iso again).

Thus:

Vote: Archaebob

It all began with this. I wasn't really sure why at the time, but this post pinged on my scumdar pretty significantly. It just seems so weak and flimsy, especially the part that I have bolded, and this contrasts with his earlier play. It sounds like he already decided that I was the one he wanted lynched, and constructed a seemingly logical thought process around that assumption. He gives us this whole progression of what appears to be logic, narrowing down his range of possible candidates to Gamma, cruelty and me (surprise surprise), and then arbitrarily decides that I've risen the most red flags. Why is that, Mordy? Why am I scummier than cruelty? If you had some reason for thinking me scummier, it isn't even remotely clear from the thread. I also don't understand why you left foilist out of your list of possible scum candidates.

I start to question him on his reasons for voting me, and these are the responses I get:

Why do you trust Papa Zito's opinion more than you would normally, and why do the presence of AGM and foilist dissuade you?

Papa Zito was right about Muffin. Effective scum-hunting goes a long way in my book. AGM + foilist13 are either scum (a reason to distrust them), or have displayed poor playing this game. Both are good reasons to be skeptical of their scum-hunting. I'm using a heuristic to try and figure out who might have a good read on who the scum are -- this was simply me demonstrating it in short-hand.

How is my protesting against a quick-bandwagon on someone who I didn't think was a smart move for the town to lynch a good reason? I still don't think that was a smart move. It was lucky that that wagon hit scum at all, and had Socio flipped town, we wouldn't have gotten any information whatsoever.

You go read the thread, Mordy. My resisting that wagon was utterly consistent with my play, and I have no doubt I'd be under quite a bit more heat had I suddenly just hopped over to the big wagon like everyone else.

I really am not liking the casual way you voted Archaebob. You didn't specify any reasons, except that he has raised "red flags" and that he protested the Sociopath lynch yesterday. I think that his protest was consistent with his earlier play. I haven't ever seen Archaebob do things casually, and he requires ample reason to do anything.

Yes, it was consistent. But he also protested a wagon on scum that lynched scum. It's unfortunate if he turns out to be town that was just trying to do the best thing, but he still protested a scum wagon. SpyreX (our martyred townie) said as much: If Muffin flips scum, it's time to look at archaebob again. I was hesitant to do so before because I thought I had stronger scum reads on Peanutman. In the absence of that read, though, it's time for me to acknowledge that he was absolutely correct.

Whether it's internally justifiable or not, you still protested a scum lynch. That's something to take a second look at.

What are you basing this guess off of?

The speed of which the wagon formed plus the predominance of other wagons during the day. If I were scum, I'd hold off the wagon in the hope that I could get one of the other candidates lynched instead. I think it's reasonable to think that if there are two scum (presumably aligned, but I really don't know), even if one got on the wagon in time, it's unlikely that two of them lynched their partner.

Especially since two people staying off the wagon and on a different wagon could've theoretically forced a different lynch. It's a probability play, but I think it's cool.

Oh, and why is this exactly?

Read above. Also read my response to your "I'm starting over" post which raised all kinds of red flags for me. Actually, now I'm wondering; What if foilist13 + archaebob are scum partners? Archaebob defended foilist13 on Day One and foilist13 just came to his rescue today. Idle speculation, but would actually totally diminish the town-tell that archaebob gave on Day One.

Mordy basically has 4 main points:

1) Cruelty is suspicious because Papa Zito found him suspicious, and MordyS trusts Papa Zito's opinion as a result of him having lead the wagon on Muffin.

This is completely and utterly bogus, especially since Papa Zito has said himself several times that he didn't actually have a strong scum read on Muffin. That Papa Zito happened to hit scum is no indication whatsoever of how good his read is on the game, since he never claimed to have thought Muffin was scum, meaning that Muffin's flip doesn't make PZ "right". And even if it did, this is an extremely lazy reason to find someone suspicious.

2) I'm suspicious because I wasn't on the socio wagon.

I haven't heard any arguments for this being the case, but the one that MordyS presents is down-right ridiculous. In the quote, he explicitly states his agreement that my play has been consistent, but says that I should be lynched anyways since I protested a wagon on scum. So what's your theory then, Mordy? Lynch everyone who is wrong?

Equally disturbing is his deliberate use of Spyrex's "martyrdom" as justification for his vote on me. Spyrex said, according to Mordy, that if muffin flipped scum, I deserved a second look. Well...I'd say I already got that second look, at the beginning of this day. If, in your second look, you were still unable to find anything inconsistent about my play, then I expect you'd want to move elsewhere with your positions. How about a third look? What if I'm still consistent then?

Especially keep in mind that this isn't even Mordy's argument, this is Spyrex's. And it seems like he thought that should mean something, given that little insert about Spyrex being our martyred townie. It's the same thing twice in a row now, first with PZ, and now with Spyrex: Mordy doesn't actually have any good arguments for suspecting cruelty or myself, but he thinks he can get away with just head-nodding to the arguments made by townish players.

The second to last sentence however, pretty much trumps it for me. Basically, it doesn't matter at all if my protest of the wagon can be justified from a pro-town mindset, the fact that it hit scum means I must be scum as well. I mean, you're kidding right? What about people who lead wagons onto mislynches? Will that logic apply to you after I flip?

3) The wagon "probably" didn't have both remaining scum on it, so it seems "reasonable" to assume that at least one of the scum stayed off the wagon. This is because the wagon moved way too fast, and the two scum could have probably gotten somebody else lynched instead.

First of all, this logic is bull-shit, as demonstrated by Phaerie. Second of all, this is a bull-shit reason to want to lynch me. Look especially closely at that last sentence, which I've bolded. Mordy thinks that though it's a probability play (and a bad one at that), it's still "cool". This is a down-right absurd justification for a vote, even worse than anything I've seen from AGM this game.

4) My post raised all sorts of red-flags (he still hasn't talked at all about why). Oh...and a random, idle thought...what if foilist and AB are scum buddies?

I'm especially interested in this notion that foilist and I might be scum-buddies. First of all, I've already shown why this is idea is retarded, which I'll link to here. Secondly, if Mordy actually was still entertaining the idea of foilist being scum (even

despite

the fact that foilist was on the socio wagon), it makes no sense at all that he would leave foilist out of his list of possible scum candidates in that first post I quoted just now. This is a major inconsistency.

I'm going to leave you with that for now, as I have hw, but there is more. And by more...i mean

MOAR

(and this time, baby, it's for reals).

Any thoughts on this so far?

[archaebob]

EBWOP:

2)...

I haven't heard any

good

arguments for this being the case...

[archaebob]

@ Gammagooey -

I believe Peanut's claim at this point, largely because I think i've caught both remaining scum.

I originally thought two things regarding that post: 1) It is a horrible argument against foilist13, since it in no way indicates that foilist "knew" anything about Sanjay's alignment. 2) If Sanjay

actually

believed this horribly bad argument all along, then he would have done something about it when it first came up, not randomly, pages later.

MordyS has basically concurred with my point 1, that it is a ridiculous argument to make for foilist being scum. He even went so far as to say that the logic was bad enough to make his head explode. Of course, he did this when he was under the false impression that it was

I

who had posted that argument:

In fact, you haven't made any complaint about it either. If my case made your head explode, why didn't you mention it when you first read it?

Because I didn't pay much attention to it the first time you posted it. I glanced over it, it wasn't compelling, and since my attention was elsewhere I didn't follow up on it. I'll spell out why it's dumbassery tho. The crux of the case is that Sanjay easily should've realized foilist13 was scum because foilist13 "knew" Sanjay was town and only scum could know that. Of course you ignored the possibilities that, a) foilist didn't "know" Sanjay was town, but had a town read on him, b) he did "know" Sanjay was town, but Sanjay didn't realize he "knew" it and assumed he had a town read on him. That's why it made my head explode.

Naturally, I quietly informed that he was wrong:

@ MordyS -

That will have to wait for tomorrow. I'm really going to bed this time.

I have a suggestion for you, regarding the case that made your head explode: go back,

actually

read the thread, and pay especially close attention to who is saying what.

When you've realized who it was that

actually

made the argument that apparently made your head explode, then I think you will understand my reasons for doing this:

vote: MordyS

HoS: Sanjay

Good night.

And what's his response? To sweep everything under the rug, and casually ask how close we are to lynching me:

Well, I reread the thread. It was actually worse than I thought. At least the way I initially read it, archaebob was making a case. A bad case, but a case. On reread I see that he actually just made up a reason for why Sanjay voted for foilist13 that had nothing to do with what Sanjay actually said.

Reading Sanjay in iso it makes perfect sense why he switched to foilist13.

Anyway, how close are we to lynching archaebob-scum?

Interesting. Did that argument we were just talking about actually make Mordy's head, explode, or did it? If it did, then it shouldn't matter who posted it. Saying that Sanjay's reasons for voting foilist made perfect sense

immediately after

everything else he had just finished saying are what have me convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that he is scum. I see no scenario that is remotely possible in which the above could be Mordy-town's genuine response to having discovered who made the argument he didn't like.

[archaebob]

@ Cruelty/AGM-

Can I trouble you for an opinion on me vs. Mordy?

[archaebob]

The main thing that is giving me pause about archaebob is that if he is scum it really surprises me to find him in such a compromising situation. I'm pretty much calling up "too scummy to be scum" here. scum-archaebob shouldn't need the pep talk MordyS just gave.

That's kind of WIFOMy and a little bit meta influenced, I know. But still.

MordyS, does knowing archaebob is actually a pretty capable scumster change your read on the situation?

I have to reread that game to see if he was ever really attacked seriously (he kind of skated through to LYLO without people even being worried about him if I remember correctly, but I wasn't in the game so I might not), but

archaebob's attack on you just seems so ill-advised I'm really surprised he's making it as scum

.

You still believe all of this is an accurate representation of the situation, Sanjay?

[archaebob]

As far as you go, yes.

Looking over my foilist13 vote, I can see why you think it was/thought it was busing.

That being said,

your logic today has been ridiculous

, and I don't think MordyS is scummy for going after you, especially when cruelty has been seeming pretty town today and his main choice claimed cop.

In your opinion, MordyS's logic is sound?

I challenge you to back up the bolded with something other than an assertion.

Also, where is your vote?

[archaebob]

MordyS, you didn't respond to all of my points. Some of them you have quoted, and simply ignored, and other's you selectively left out completely. Would you like to remedy this, or should I repost my case?

[archaebob]

EBWOP: "others" (no apostrophe)

[archaebob]

know that I am perfectly willing to repost my case, with all the things you ignored bolded for the viewing pleasure of the town.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS-

Why is that, Mordy? Why am I scummier than cruelty? If you had some reason for thinking me scummier, it isn't even remotely clear from the thread.

I also don't understand why you left foilist out of your list of possible scum candidates.

You also need to show where I have been hysterical, and have reacted badly, rather than asserting that I have.

And a big question. You indicated that the following argument is a bad one, so bad in fact, that it made your head hurt:

Argument: Because foilist mentioned Sanjay's support of his timeline specifically while defending himself, foilist clearly put stock in Sanjay's opinion. Clearly, foilist must have somehow known that Sanjay was town, which means foilist must have been scum.

You said the above argument was a terrible one. I agree. Let's look at your post again:

. I'll spell out why it's dumbassery tho. The crux of the case is that Sanjay easily should've realized foilist13 was scum because foilist13 "knew" Sanjay was town and only scum could know that. Of course you ignored the possibilities that, a) foilist didn't "know" Sanjay was town, but had a town read on him, b) he did "know" Sanjay was town, but Sanjay didn't realize he "knew" it and assumed he had a town read on him. That's why it made my head explode.

You very thoroughly demonstrate why this is a bad argument, and say that is made your head explode. You also demonstrate, despite what you have tried to represent, that you do in fact totally understand the argument we are discussing. The only thing you have failed to understand at this point is that it was Sanjay, not me, who was making this argument in the first place.

And here's the problem.

Well, I reread the thread. It was actually worse than I thought. At least the way I initially read it, archaebob was making a case. A bad case, but a case. On reread I see that he actually just made up a reason for why Sanjay voted for foilist13 that had nothing to do with what Sanjay actually said.

Reading Sanjay in iso it makes perfect sense why he switched to foilist13.

Anyway, how close are we to lynching archaebob-scum?

Here, you say that Sanjay's foilist vote makes perfect sense. Let's look at Sanjay's foilist vote.

A lot of people have posted since I started typing this. I'm just going to pretend that they didn't if that's okay.

@Sanjay - I've got a vague town read on you right now. I haven't seen anything that looks to me like a scum slip so far, but that doesn't mean I'm not looking. @Archaebob - I'm not saying that there are questions that have gone unanswered other than the ones you just posted, but his choice has been to simply disappear and hope that I get myself lynched, where as I am actively trying to defend myself. And if you are not tunneling, then what other players have you seriously considered besides me and Almaster? @Almaster - Why shouldn't we lynch you? Is it just because you've said you were the Doc, or is there something else you have to offer?

Ha ha, foilist13. I can't believe you are accusing someone of tunneling in the same post as you continue your ridiculous policy of only having eyes for AlmasterGM. Here's a question: Why did you consider it important that

I

considered your timeline plausible? I didn't notice it at first, but I think this is a scumslip on your part. Here's why? Why is me finding something you said is plausible a point in your favor? For all you know I'm scummy scum trying to get the town to do my dirty work by having them lynch the power role so I don't have to. From what you know of my scum meta, I know you can trust me to

never

do that as scum, but you never know if I have changed my scum meta. I think you listed me finding your defense plausible as a point in your favor because you know my alignment. This probably would have been a better zinger if you had said you have a neutral or scummy read on me, thus making you valuing my opinion totally bananas. But oh well. I think it is a good point anyway. Anyway, AlmasterGM's recent defense is a little head-scratching, but it actually makes me feel better about lynching foilist13 than AlmasterGM. If nothing else, it takes away the only reason foilist13 had for us not lynching him.

Vote: foilist13

I want to see one of these two flip and I'm just fine with it being foilist13.

The main justification that Sanjay gives for switching his vote here is exactly the argument above that you just finished proving wrong. I've noted your statements regarding Sanjay having expressed prior suspicion about foilist, making his vote less surprising. However, he decided to join the AGM wagon at first. Whatever else he said, he had determined that AGM was scummier, and that he'd rather lynch him than foilist. It's not scummy that he voted foilist

at all

, what's scummy is that

this

horrifyingly bad argument was the central justification for his switch onto the foilist wagon.

And you said nothing.

This predates my ever-so-convoluted case against Sanjay, so you can't claim that this argument was too confusing, either.

This means you are scum because:

1) You were perfectly willing to attack the argument when you thought it was mine.
2) You didn't notice this argument or say anything about it when it was posted.
3) You apparently read Sanjay's iso recently, and decided that it all made perfect sense.
4) Your reaction to my bringing this disparity to your attention was not "oh shit, let me reassess my position" but "i'm just going to gloss over this and casually ask how close we are to lynching archaebob". You decided to ignore this last point in my case against you; maybe know you will feel a need to respond to it.

I know a broke the deal, but I got myself on a roll, and wanted to clearly flesh out this argument for everyone to see.

[archaebob]

Additionally, archaebob, you now have three outstanding questions that I've asked you and you have not yet answered: 1) Why did you decide scum was on the Muffin wagon? 2) Please quote the attack Sanjay made on his scum buddy the last game, quote the one he made this game, and show the tone similarity 3) What do you think of Peanut's claim on its own merits. Not because you have a town read on him out of PoE?

1) I never decided this. I said I was becoming increasingly more suspicious that this might be the case. This is because I didn't feel like I could reconcile the speed and randomness of the Socio wagon with only town players having been involved. However, I've never pursued this seriously as an argument, so I'm rather surprised that you need to me answer it so badly.

2) I specifically said that this was a null tell. I'm not going to quote it and anlayze it for you, because it was based purely on a gut read. I haven't pursued this argument as a point of any kind, and i find this ridiculous.

3) That's not how I operate. I immediately decided that lynching peanutman was a very poor idea, so my mental energy shifted elsewhere. I honestly can't say what I think about it, since I can't imagine what it would be like if i didn't think lynching peanutman was lunacy. I can only guess that I'd be rather skeptical.

[archaebob]

@ Papa Zito -

i wasn't downgrading your scum-hunting, I was simply saying that the socio lynch was not an example of it. You have since indicated that this is incorrect, so I retract the statement.

But even all this aside, I still find the fact that MordyS used your suspicions of cruelty as a reason for suspecting him, because he "trusts" you, to be weird. Do you?

If you don't mind me asking, how are feeling about Mordy vs. me in general?

Also, you never answered this:

@ everyone

: does the fact that Muffin was trying to get cruelty lynched Day 1 at all mitigate the chances of his being scum?

@ Sanjay -

Nice try.

And props for finding a person you could drop your vote on without needing to take a stand in this little battle.

@ peanutman -

You don't like me. I follow you. Please don't let that blind you. I haven't been inconsistent with my play. MordyS has. At least look carefully at everything I and he are saying before making your decision.

Regarding foilist:

Not sure what the hype is about, besides the fact that he's the only one who agrees with me. I agree that his saying that this is down to just me or Mordy is stupid, but being stupid is consistent with his play. How is this suddenly a big deal, when he have long gotten over all the stupid things he said yesterday?

@ PharieM -

I'd love some input.

@ AGM -

Don't even think about trying to lurk right now. Who do you find most suspicious and why?

[archaebob]

Some things on their own (like if you made the argument) aren't as troublesome in the context of a larger case. Sanjay had been attacking foilist13 all day. One slightly iffy case didn't raise my suspicions because of that broader context. If you had made that case, it would be scummy tho because it would be one piece.

That's the answer. Now keep to your deal. And answer my questions.

You skipped all the points you ignored the first time yet again.

C'mon people, this should be right around the time where I start convincing you. Look at MordyS's reactions to my attacks on him. Does this seem like town?

I've got moar, much much moar, but i don't want to flood the thread until everyone is caught up. Can everyone stake out their current position, and vote? We are nearing deadline after all.

Side note: if everyone's current position is still to lynch me, then I guess i'd actually prefer if you don't ALL vote at once. L-2 is fine though, for reals. I want to see the landscape of opinions, as it is now.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS-

Why is that, Mordy? Why am I scummier than cruelty? If you had some reason for thinking me scummier, it isn't even remotely clear from the thread.

I also don't understand why you left foilist out of your list of possible scum candidates.

You also need to show where I have been hysterical, and have reacted badly, rather than asserting that I have.

Ok, here's the question format, just for you.

1) Can you explain the contradiction in your stance regarding foilist, as outlined in the wall which the bolded quote is from? Can you also explain why you ignored this point twice? I find it difficult to believe that you missed it.

2) Can you please do what I said you should do in that last sentence.

There is no way you missed that, they were the first things in my last long post about you Mordy. Why so dodgy?

[archaebob]

I'm especially interested in this notion that foilist and I might be scum-buddies. First of all, I've already shown why this is idea is retarded, which I'll link to here.

Secondly, if Mordy actually was still entertaining the idea of foilist being scum (even despite the fact that foilist was on the socio wagon), it makes no sense at all that he would leave foilist out of his list of possible scum candidates in that first post I quoted just now. This is a major inconsistency.

You totally ignored this second point.

[archaebob]

@ Sanjay -

You've said my logic today was ridiculous. The only example you've cited was my interpretation of the Chinaman/Muffin dialouge. I agree, that was a little ridiculous. But you'll notice that i've since retracted that argument, at the expense of a significant amount of face, and "political capital", which I supposedly covet so much. Is this the extent of things you find illogical about me?

You can appeal to my emotions as much as you want, Sanjay, but you haven't demonstrated in any capacity why my attacks on MordyS are at all invalid. If you think I'm ridiculous, prove it. I'm inviting you to defend Mordy, since you've decided that he's town. Until you have explained why you aren't at all irked by the contradictions I have brought up in Mordy's play, i consider every assertion you have made regarding my being "ridiculous", "illogical", or even "wrong" to be a scum-tell.

And i really don't buy your foilist vote. Again.

[archaebob]

Well, I want to lynch someone who wasn't on the wagon. I think I've said that a number of times. That's why I wasn't considering foilist13 for today. As for as acting hysterically, though you may actually not be able to see it,

you've made a lot of awful cases and bad arguments

-- which suggests to me that you're discombobulated. This is what I've been observing throughout the last couple pages.

This is seriously the big thing I've dodged, dude? I haven't dodged a thing. You need to read more carefully. Actually, can I recommend you read over this entire day? If you're town, I suspect you'll have a post in about twenty minutes about how you need to reevaluate everything you've thought.

Almost everything you've said has been hysterical

.

Show of hands, how many people actually agree with the bolded?

I'm just curious.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

And I'm not going to be re-evaluating anything at this point. Not this time.

Your post at the top of this page is the scummiest concession of guilt I have ever seen in a response to a case.

Everyone, read my big post at the bottom of the last page, and Mordy's response at the top of this one. Please.

@ Sanjay -

I especially want to hear your comments regarding Mordy's response at the top of the page. [/b]

[archaebob]

Re: Archaebob, let's not lynch a townie just because he screwed up. I still have a solidly town read on him (much having to do with his defense of foilist) and I think he authentically believed Muffin was town. It doesn't make any sense to me that at L-1, with a lynch all but guaranteed, Muffin's scumbuddy tries to defend him. That's the time to bus (and bus, I believe, happened). In fact, I'm willing to bet that among the people attacking Archaebob at the moment, there are scum. So I think cruely and peanutman would each make a good lynch today. They're both trying to take advantage of what looks - to me - like innocent townie error - and turning it into a mislynch. If I'm right about who is scum, that would make one of them a fail townie and the other scum. (If they're both scum, well, yay.)

What happened to this, Mordy? And i'm not talking about between then and

now

. I'm talking about between then and the time you first voted me.

[archaebob]

@ Mordy -

Interesting.

Re: Archaebob, let's not lynch a townie just because he screwed up.

I still have a solidly town read on him (much having to do with his defense of foilist) and I think he authentically believed Muffin was town. It doesn't make any sense to me that at L-1, with a lynch all but guaranteed, Muffin's scumbuddy tries to defend him. That's the time to bus (and bus, I believe, happened). In fact, I'm willing to bet that among the people attacking Archaebob at the moment, there are scum. So I think cruelty and peanutman would each make a good lynch today.

They're both trying to take advantage of what looks - to me - like innocent townie error - and turning it into a mislynch. If I'm right about who is scum, that would make one of them a fail townie and the other scum. (If they're both scum, well, yay.)

If the bolded was true, then why on earth would you flip a coin when peanutman was removed from the picture?

[archaebob]

And this is all totally inconsistent with the whole "you deserve a second look for having protested a wagon on scum" bull-shit you were trying to pull before. You seemed pretty convinced here that I was town, so why drop your own opinion for someone else's, like you did?

[archaebob]

You guys, for reals. What more do I need to prove to you?

Sanjay, it's bus time, and you know it. Hop on board.

Everybody, really read the last few pages of the thread carefully, checking facts, and paying attention to who is making which statements when. I think Mordy is just about obvscum now, and I'd like to see a wagon form.

[archaebob]

good night.

[archaebob]

@ PharieM and Papa Zito -

Where are you guys at?

@ Mordy

You are ignoring that both Gammagooey and peanutman said they would hammer after the claim. This means that had you and Sanjay not been on the wagon, they surely would have, putting foilist up to six, and socio up to five.

Your right, Sanjay's socio vote does look relatively townish, but that's a null tell. Sanjay is good at that.

Your vote, however, does not look townish at all.

Here's Mordy's initial reaction to the sociopath wagon:

Sociopath has posted more recently (Nov 17, 2009 6:05 pm) than AlmasterGM (Nov 16, 2009 5:37 pm), if we're talking about lurking close to the deadline.

Someone or another posts about how socio has posted no content of any kind. Not sure how you missed that, or could have thought otherwise. The above is entirely irrelevant to whether or not Socio is "lurking".

You sheepishly follow up with this:

Well, Muffin is my third choice for scum, so it won't pain me too much if we lynch him.

Muffin was your third choice?

Wait a sec, Mordy. Weren't just saying that the lynch wasn't inevitable, and that you could have easily stayed on any other wagon you wanted? If Muffin was only your third choice, and there wasn't actually any strong pressure to switch onto the socio wagon...then why did you?

It seems like you didn't really have a good reason yourself:

Oh, what the hell.

Unvote, Vote: Sociopath

This came immediately after Sanjay's vote. I don't find it at all implausible that you took his lead in carrying out a joint bus on your useless Godfather, who you had just made a poor attempt at defending, and who you knew (or thought, rather) would give you permanent town cred for lynching.

Read MordyS's Day 2 in iso, guys. His flip-flopping position on me without any explanation is crazy, and the three posts I quoted above just absolutely reek of scum.

[archaebob]

e="MordyS"]

Re:

Archaebob, let's not lynch a townie just because he screwed up. I still have a solidly town read on him (much having to do with his defense of foilist) and I think he authentically believed Muffin was town. It doesn't make any sense to me that at L-1, with a lynch all but guaranteed, Muffin's scumbuddy tries to defend him. That's the time to bus (and bus, I believe, happened). In fact, I'm willing to bet that among the people attacking Archaebob at the moment, there are scum. So I think cruely and peanutman would each make a good lynch today. They're both trying to take advantage of what looks - to me - like innocent townie error - and turning it into a mislynch.

If I'm right about who is scum, that would make one of them a fail townie and the other scum. (If they're both scum, well, yay.)

Anyway, in summary: I'd prefer lynching peanutman, but I'm down with the cruelty too.[/quote]

And you can't deny that I was key early on in getting the Godfather lynched. I'm not saying I should be obv-town because of it, but it seems useless to build a case against me based on that.

I've seen scum buddies play "key" roles in getting their partners lynched,

and I've played a game where my scum buddy did to me what I'm suggesting you did to yours (verbalize a push for lynch without committing a vote -- either as part of a gambit or to create distancing). I don't think you did tons for that lynch, I think you're overplaying your role in it, and your post doesn't address what I'm accusing you of doing. The timeline supports my argument -- and you still haven't answered why you didn't VOTE for Muffin when you made your case.

There is no one in this game that I take for granted are town. Sure, there are some I would rather not see lynched based on faulty or illogical cases or more important issues, but I wouldn't want to be blinded by evidence against someone because I have a "solid town read" on them. And I say this because you seem to be completely ignoring Bob's different playstyle since the Muffin BW. What do you make of this? Also, you say that he screwed up? How so? How would town-Bob have screwed up in Day 1? I can see how scumBob screwed up, but enlighten me on the town-Bob scenario.

Town-Bob sincerely believes AlmasterGM is scum

(as do I).

No one has made a strong case against Muffin (I hadn't even posted my case, just alluded to it), and suddenly everyone is voting for Muffin. He gets flustered, doesn't understand the vote, rails against it. I suspect coming into today, his behavior changed because he remains flustered. I think he's fairly newbie, and probably thought what you (and/or Cruelty) thought: He's going to be an easy lynch to push because of his vocal skepticism of the Muffin lynch. That's how I read it.

The italicized was inaccurate at the time it was posted. Just pointing that out.

The bolded is hugely, and I mean

hugely

inconsistent with what Mordy has been saying as of late.

If Mordy believed that my abstaining from the wagon was justifiable as strongly as he seems to have here, then why would I be his second pick after peanutman?

It seems that he just forgot he was supposed to have all this suspicion of cruelty, and decided for completely arbitrary reasons to vote me. Pure scumminess. Were he town, I'd expect a progression in his thought. Not only was there not one of any kind, but when i questioned him, trying to make him examine his points against me, he confirmed that it was really just because. Recently, he has blatantly stated that choosing me was completely randomly:

My peanutman case disappeared?

You're asking why I didn't default to cruelty? I basically flipped a coin after peanutman claimed cop to determine my next target. You came up

. So I pushed a little and you went nuts.

Well, no. I was using that as a turn of phrase.

I did pick archaebob freely. I couldn't say exactly why, but my gut said attacking him might turn something up. But very a miniscule feeling. It was practically 50/50 in my head.

I cannot fathom how town Mordy would have not defaulted to questioning cruelty, given some reason for having not done so, or at least remembered that he had at one point suspected cruelty, and felt like he needed to explain himself better. i don't believe he every actually suspected cruelty, I believe his play was opportunistic, and he spent so much time questioning peanutman that he forgot he had pretended to have a strong town read on me earlier.

Please respond to this, everyone. This is the most directly scummy contradiction I have seen from anyone all game.

[archaebob]

EBWOP:

Re: Archaebob,

let's not lynch a townie just because he screwed up. I still have a solidly town read on him (much having to do with his defense of foilist) and I think he authentically believed Muffin was town. It doesn't make any sense to me that at L-1, with a lynch all but guaranteed, Muffin's scumbuddy tries to defend him. That's the time to bus (and bus, I believe, happened). In fact, I'm willing to bet that among the people attacking Archaebob at the moment, there are scum. So I think cruely and peanutman would each make a good lynch today. They're both trying to take advantage of what looks - to me - like innocent townie error - and turning it into a mislynch.

If I'm right about who is scum, that would make one of them a fail townie and the other scum. (If they're both scum, well, yay.)

Anyway, in summary: I'd prefer lynching peanutman, but I'm down with the cruelty too.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

can you summarize the reasons you think I'm scum again?

bullets are fine, I won't try to straw man you based on an oversimplification.

from what I can tell, the only point you've made that at all remains intact is that you think i've reacted hysterically to your pressure. am i missing anything else?

[archaebob]

@ Peanutman -

The only thing I can say to that is if I do happen to be town, and if I do happen to be right about my current suspects, you are doing a serious disservice to the town by silencing me.

I submit for your consideration the possibility of you voting for someone else, and then inspecting me tonight. I'd still prefer that you investigate Sanjay, especially since he tried to deflect the investigation before, but whatever. Unlike him, I gladly welcome a cop investigation, because it has the potential for dropping a lot of information. For example, if I investigate as scum, then I know for a fact that there is scum between you and AGM, which the rest of the town will know as well after I flip.

At the moment, i consider my case against MordyS to be a tip-top priority, and I don't think the town will be left with much to go on when I flip town. So, though i somewhat can understand your position, I'd

really

appreciate not being lynched.

NOTE TO ALL:

If we lynch Mordy today, and Mordy flips town, then you can quicklynch me tomorrow, and I will not protest AT ALL. Mordy flipping town would indicate that i really have no clue how to play this game.

[archaebob]

ok, thankyou Mordy. I'll respond in full when i get home later tonight.

one question...have you read my town meta (Newbie 846)?

[archaebob]

If we lynch Mordy today, and Mordy flips town, then you can quicklynch me tomorrow, and I will not protest AT ALL. Mordy flipping town would indicate that i really have no clue how to play this game.

If you're in fact town, this is a horrible thing to write. If town lynches me today and then quicklynches you tomorrow, you'll be doing everyone a grave disservice. If you are town, then yes, you really have no clue how to play this game. But we have a win condition. If somehow you push a lynch on me, then I expect you to defend yourself tomorrow. Not to concede to a quicklynch.

The fact that you're certain enough about me being scum that you're willing to be quicklynched tomorrow if you're wrong tells me two things:
1. Either you're scum and you're hoping you'll get me lynched and then somehow divert being lynched tomorrow. (Perhaps by making a too-scum-to-be-scum argument.)
2. Or you're town with awful hubris in addition to your poor play. I'm not even 100% convinced you're scum. I happen to think you're the best candidate at the moment, but if you flipped town I wouldn't be willing to just be quicklynched. Unless you're a confirmed sane doctor you never absolutely know the alignment of another player. The fact that you believe you absolutely know my alignment is cause for concern. And should be cause for you to reevaluate what you think you know in this game.

Fine, point conceded, it was a stupid thing to write.

[archaebob]

Go look at it again. I'm curious what you'll make of it.

[archaebob]

@ MordyS -

Do you want to take a breather with me for the next two days or so so that everyone can catch up? I think it's worthwhile, and I've got a major paper to write in two classes anyways that I've been neglecting in favor of this game.

I hereby declare myslef

V/LA

until Friday night.

[archaebob]

@ Papa Zito -

Please answer this honestly...have you read my posts about MordyS, seriously, and thoroughly? I don't blame you if you haven't, as I understand how annoying a flood of words can be to sift through, but your current opinion sounds a little uninformed. If you still entirely reject the case on Mordy, I'd like to know why you aren't bothered by the multitude of points I have brought up against him.

@ MordyS -

Honestly, I don't have time in the next two days to respond to you properly, and I think what I post next about you is going to be the most important post I've made this game. And I want to do it properly.

You know what? Fuck it. Foilist13, you can't make your own case, you can't deal with information in the thread, you've been playing terribly/scummily since day one, you jumped onto the wagon after my cut-off point, you're indicating archaebob's "super strong case" which I have totally dealt with and dispersed. I don't know if Archaebob is scum or not. He's certainly been scummy, but at this point, you're practically a policy lynch. I don't really care how this makes me look either.

Unvote
Vote: foilist13

Jesus, Mordy, what's the problem? You sound...hysterical. With only two votes on you, I don't understand why you are responding so poorly to pressure.

[archaebob]

Everyone please note

that MordyS's last few posts entirely invalidate any arguments he might have had about my reacting poorly (or "hysterically") to pressure.

i mean jeez, the ad hominem is just

heartbreaking

.

[archaebob]

Note: I don't think that MordyS's frustration is a scum-tell. Mordy is cracking under pressure, and I've seen it happen to town. However, he's still scum for all the other things I've brought up, and I do find his latest foilist vote to be absurd.

[archaebob]

Mordy, you can keep spitting as many platitudes as you want about me, but the fact is, my arguments haven't been ridiculous, you have not responded to them satisfactorily, and your arguments against me do not hold up to the facts.

I'm going to avoid instigating anymore at the moment, as I have a lot of respect for Phaerie's complaints about the output of this thread.

[archaebob]

listen people, like I've said, I have major papers to write today. If you're going to hammer me before i can respond, then god bless you, but I don't have time to do this today, as I've already stated. Right now, I'm the dead-line lynch, so you have no reason not to give me a day to defend myself properly.

I claim vanilla townie.

I'd be very wary of anyone who tries to force this lynch through before hearing what I have to say, as there is no good reason for it.

AGM, that last vote is making me doubt my read on the entire situation. It looks like you just waited to see who was going to win out in Mordy vs. me, and then dropped your vote on the person who seemed like they were going to get lynched. That was L-1, dude, without any justification or comments. Really?

If I die, when you see my flip, vote MordyS/Sanjay. I hope you guys won't just assume that I'm crazy, because I'm not. Look out how Sanjay has danced around this conversation. Him reverting back to me after it became clear that I was ultimately the under-dog is EXACTLY what I was expecting from him.

I'm going to have the most epic wall of my life on this thread tomorrow night. Do yourselves a favor and let me post it.

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

Don't ever self-hammer. You are doing the scum's job for them.

And please stop defending me. Every argument you use in my defense is one that I can no longer use myself, as my attackers will just interpret it as me nodding in agreement with other people who step in for me. The town needs to see that my views are consistent, and they need to see the explanations come from me, without help from others.

I won't be on anymore tonight, as I need to write this paper. I am pleasantly surprised to see myself still alive. Give me 24 hours from now, and I'll post the deluge that Mordy has coming to him. I appreciate the patience, really.

[archaebob]

Actually, town just wants you to answer the questions. I don't really care who said it first.

I'll be honest though, I'm losing patience. It's taking lots of selfcontrol not to just hammer you.

I completely believe you.

[archaebob]

jesus, Mordy, I must really have you terrified.

I actually have to get offline now. Good luck town.

[archaebob]

Let the record read officially that Sanjay was online at the time that this took place.

[archaebob]

Ok...this is ridiculous. I am literally too irresponsible to go offline.

Mordy, you are being completely and utterly inaccurate. I have said consistently, every time that I have mentioned taking time off from the game, that I was going to be gone

until Friday night

. Go check yourself, I'm even officially on V/LA at the moment.

You guys, this is so ridiculous. Cruelty, do you have nothing to say about Mordy trying to hammer me just now? I've said explicitly that I need more time, as I have RL commitments (which I am currently procrastinating on, with very poor judgement). How can Mordy's vote possibly come from town?

Ok. I really do

actually

have to stop this nonsense and write a paper. But I swear to god, town, if you let the scum get away with hammering me tonight, I'll never forgive ANY of you. It's completely absurd.

I am going to have to resort to pulling out my wireless adaptor now...the fate of the town is in your hands.

[archaebob]

you bastards you.

I don't care that i'm lynched, I hereby put a curse on any member of this town that doesn't immediately vote MordyS and Sanjay tomorrow. Look over my posts again, everything you need is right there. And this just now...so beyond stupid.

you can consider this my bah post.

[archaebob]

bullshit, Sanjay. Bull shit. And that was pretty low.

[archaebob]

we can hug it out later, but only because I know that YOU are scum.

[archaebob]

Mordy, that hammer was so ridiculous. If this town lets you get away with that...blah.

Anyways, I'm lynched, so I need to stop cheating.

Good luck town.

[archaebob]

oh, well ok then.

Sanjay, I thought I was hammered with Mordy's vote. That's why I said that.

And it is entirely ridiculous for you to pretend like you thought I had "given up", or that I would still have "given up" upon realizing that I wasn't actually hammered. If you have no reason to lie, then don't lie. But wait, you still do, because everything you say is still being read by the town, and your survival depends on convincing the town that this was actually what happened.

Out of respect for the integrity of this game, I'm going to discontinue this line of conversation, as it puts Sanjay's win condition at odds with RL stuff, and that isn't fair.

[archaebob]

@ Mordy-

you have no idea how much I would love to do that. unfortunately, the truth is, I do

actually

have big fucking paper to write tonight, and it's now 11:42 PM.

So congrats, you managed to stop me. Unfortunately for you, I think you gave yourself away in the process.

And now, for

reals

, good night.

[archaebob]

Just feel lucky that i'm not immature enough to hammer you in the other game out of spite.

[archaebob]

right. just "remind everyone". very subtle.

if peanutman inspects Mordy and says that he's town, then he's confirmed naive cop.

[archaebob]

@ mordy -

c'mon man, i'm not dumb. you won't kill AGM tonight. if peanutman says your scum, then you say that he's insane, and get AGM lynched. if he say's your town, then you say that he must be sane or naive. You might even still try to get AGM lynched. you're good for at least another day, and it's not like you can avoid the cop inspection tonight anyways, so why not appear townie by seeming like you're trying to draw it?

[archaebob]

Good game scum.

This obviously was something of a humbling experience for me...I was wrong about scum for the whole game. Also, I reread Day 2 a few times after it happened, and I can see why I got lynched. I still think Mordy was a darn fool in the way he played though, and that I had totally legitimate reasons to go after him the way I did. I just went overboard, I guess.

sorry Sanjay for tunneling you.

daykill: Sanjay

for hammering me.

I don't think I blame Mordy for losing. I'm impressed that foilist was actually right in the end, but it didn't seem believable that he had changed his mind that quickly, especially with the vote.

Gammagooey had me duped, though I was tunneling other people, so I don't know if that's because of good play on his part, or bad play on my own. I definitely never suspected him though.

Papa Zito...I suspected you a lot after you didn't attack Mordy for hammering me. That contradiction was glaring, and I'm surprised no-else picked up on it. Unfortunately, I was already dead...

I will take credit for preventing AGM from being lynched Day 1, and preventing cruelty from being lynched Day 2 (even though that didn't work out so well). Both of those town read turned out to be right; other than that, I sucked, my bad, I'm sorry, see you next time. This town deserved to lose this game for assuming that bussing the godfather day 1 confirmed you as town. That was a big blunder, and it cost the game. Hats off to PZ for the the biggest scoop ever with that socio wagon; twas a brillliant move, especially since no one in the town had the brains to see through it.

I look forwards to seeing most of you in the future...if you have any comments about my play this game, I'd love to hear them.

[archaebob]

yeah, I want to see that too

[archaebob]

my problem, mordy, even though what you say makes sense, is that all of that is extremely applicable to you. How can you justify hammering me like that, without letting me post my explanation? I might have realized I was wrong in the process of going back through the thread, or you might have realized that I actually had good reasons. It was a ridiculously lousy thing to do.

that being said, I appreciate the feedback, and I completely agree with what you said about foilist.

[archaebob]

hmm. I wonder who's multi this is?