Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[AlmasterGM]

Things I find amusing that the last two pages have been entirely about MordyS and archaebob, but cruelty comes in and starts talking about Foilist.

[Sanjay]

I agree with cruelty.

foilist13's "Yeah, let's make this MordyS vs archaebob!" is anti-town at best.

[Gammagooey]

To start out, neither of cruelty or archaebob actually answered my question on whether they think peanut is real or not. Yes, it does matter, and I will explain why as soon as you answer the question.

ARCHAE VS. MORDY

-Archae's only real defense of foilist was that quote, and he could have changed to voting AGM at pretty much any time, instead pretty much tunneling on foilist.

-Above is the thing archae was talking about. Sanjay did vote for foilist, but archae didn't understand why he didn't notice the post that it was based on earlier and made some not completely thought through theories about how and why Sanjay is scum.

-Archae, from what I can tell, you thought Sanjay was mafia for voting foilist later than you thought he should have for thinking foilist knew Sanjay was town because he was scum. I am not at all suprised that someone would be confused by this.

-Archae you've just gone from a town read on two people (Mordy and Sanjay) to a vote for one and an HoS on the other. Not only this, but it was immediately after another complete reversal on Chinaman/Sanjay in which you said you got a pro-town read after you went back over day 1.
What in the hell? More explanation for the double reversal on Sanjay is definitely required.

-Right now I don't think Mordy's reasons to vote you were the best but your reaction makes me just "bwaaa?" You really do seem panic-y in your first defense, and although your recent post explains your new read on Mordy I still haven't seen why Sanjay deserves the HoS too.

[Gammagooey]

Since there were more posts, the second item under Archae vs. Mordy is on the previous page, not above the post.

[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.

[cruelty]

Things I find amusing that the last two pages have been entirely about MordyS and archaebob, but cruelty comes in and starts talking about Foilist.

Posting from iPod, quick response.

What is wrong with that? I specifically said why I wasn't addressing bob and mordy, I'll do this when I get home. As far as I'm concerned, foilist has displayed bad logic and a willingness to be led. This is post worthy. But let's make this about you, where's your contribution?

[Sanjay]

MordyS, why do you think I switched to foilist13?

[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?

[Sanjay]

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.

[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?

[MordyS]

And here begins a long-ass response.

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'm going to tell you a secret. You were scummier in the beginning because I picked you at random out of the two. I couldn't see a reason to vote one over the other and I wanted to vote for someone who wasn't on the wagon. Gammagooey by contrast strikes me as more townie than either of you. So I picked you, and you made me feel really good about my choice when you went insane. The indications of that insanity will be explored in this post. Read on.

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)

I'm going to be blunt here. Prove that I decided I wanted to lynch you and then formed an argument. Like I said, I wanted to attack someone who wasn't on the Muffin wagon. It was between you and cruelty. I picked you. You have your odd posts, like everyone else (many of them catalogued in the beginning of the day - your change in style, your disappearance - many from Day One) and that seemed like a good thing to hone in on. Here's a secret about scum-hunting, sweetheart: You pick someone you think might turn up scum and you hunt them. I didn't have a 100% read on you being scum when I chose you. Your response, by contrast, has been illuminative. If you want to compare/contrast this to Day One, look at how I picked at foilist13 + AlmasterGM. Neither of them did anything on the face of it that was scummy (AGM pushed a silly case on Gammagooey, foilist13 accidently voted for the wrong person). What made them scummy was the way they reacted to the prodding and pushing. This is similarly what makes you scummy. If you have some kind of belief that I've tunneled on you and am persecuting you (as your "surprise, surprise" comment seems to indicate) explain why I consistently defended you in Day One (and in Day Two while I was hunting Peanutman).

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.

I've made this comment before, and the fact you still haven't processed it suggests that you're either a) not reading carefully or b) ignoring it. Not having a strong scum read does not mean you have no scum read at all. Some people consistently lynch scum while never having a strong scum read. They intuit scumminess, or feel it in their gut. If Papa Zito says, 'It was a total coincidence that I started the wagon on scum,' then I'll concede your point. As is, tho, you're making a distinction by graduation and pretending it covers the issue.

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?

Actually, I didn't "explicitly state" my agreement that your play has been consistent. What I said was, "whether it's internally justifiable or not." You may be familiar with this rhetorical trope. It means that even if you can justify your many protests, I still believe you deserve a second look. I actually don't care if your protests are internally convincing. Scum can also make internally convincing arguments for protesting scum wagons. It's not hard to make an argument. Yours in particular doesn't excuse you at all. Your argument is that the wagon was random and you wanted to vote for someone more likely to turn up scum. Except the wagon wasn't random. There's a lynch all lurkers policy in Mafia for a reason, not to mention that I had a scum read on Muffin long before the lynch. There's was nothing random about the lynch. Your insistence that it was random, and your insistence that its randomness exculpates you, is terrible. And no, if you read carefully, I didn't say "lynch everyone who is wrong." I said take a second look at the most vocal opponent of a scum lynch.

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?

You're no longer consistent. You're making bad arguments and tossing around faulty accusations. So you can drop that little line there. As for SpyreX, I already explained why I used his opinion. This is yet another case where you failed to read carefully. I said that SpyreX has been proven townie. I can implicitly trust that what he said was pro-town. Do you understand what this means? It doesn't mean he's 100% right about everything he says but it means that since I trust his scum-hunting abilities, and I know he's for sure town, I can put some stock in his opinion. Let's try this in an easier format so you can't ignore it again:

1) I trust SpyreX's scumhunting abilities, but...
2) I don't know he's town, but...
3) He flipped and now I know he's town, therefore...
4) I can implicitly trust his scumhunting.

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.

Actually, PhaerieM just demonstrated that two scum couldn't totally change the lynch of the day. She didn't demonstrate the psychology of scum players and why I feel the wagon probably didn't have both remaining scum on it. Read my response to her. Read it again. Read it a third time. Stop ignoring the things I write to make a strawman case against me. It's a great probability play, and I'm happy to play it.

I'm especially interested in this notion that foilist and I might be scum-buddies.

It was an idle thought. I said as much when I wrote it. The fact that you've responded so poorly to it (arguing strenuously that there's no possible way it could be true) rings strange to me. If it's not true, just say as much in one sentence. This is the second post you've brought it up in. It sounds like I struck a chord.

I agree with cruelty.

I do too. Foilist13 jumping on that case like that was really something weird.

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

What does this mean? If you hadn't "caught" both remaining scum, would you not believe Peanut's claim? How about on its own merits cause -- guess what -- you suck at scum-hunting if you're town (if yesterday is any indication, and I personally know you're sucking at it today). So don't decide to believe him because you've "caught both remaining scum." Evaluate the claim on its own.

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.

You may have a point here. It's a bit too convoluted for me to unravel, and I'm going to show you why that argument was wrong for a different reason, but here's what happened. I read the case you made on Sanjay, but it was worded inarticulately and I had no idea what you were trying to say. (I actually just wrote 500 words trying to parse out what I think you were trying to say, but I'll skip that. If it's important, we can come back to it.) If your argument is that scum Sanjay noticed foilist13 thinking he was town and decided to distance from him, and your argument is predicated on him noticing too late for your tastes, there's a simple issue: there's no reason scum-Sanjay would notice foilist13's comment any later than town-Sanjay. Anyway, I'm willing to take the hit for this. I really don't understand archaebob's argument against Sanjay from here fully, which may indicate that there isn't much of a good one. This is probably the reason I barely noticed it the first time (which would explain why I didn't comment on archaebob's case against Sanjay). If it becomes really important, I'll sit down and reparse it. It looks really specious to me, tho.

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

Uh yeah. Whatever.

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.

MordyS, why do you think I switched to foilist13?

This is actually really easy. Go read Sanjay in iso. His voting for foilist makes perfect sense to me. Look at his 8th post in iso ("foilist13, here is my main question: WHAT THE HECK?"), where he recommends his lynch in post 10, attacking him in post 14, his FOS in post 26, his concern in post 39, and then in 48 the major discussion from which you make your inarticulate argument. But the entire game Sanjay has been suspicious of foilist13 (with the brief exception of his timeline post). I was absolutely not surprised that he voted for him and do not believe it was scummy.

MordyS's logic is sound?

Unfortunately for you? Yes.


SUMMERY
I know people hate reading super long posts. Consider this post my manifesto against archaebob. In it I make two concessions (I admit that I didn't have a super scummy read on archaebob when my case on him started -- but I wanted to vote for either him or cruelty and I picked him. With the caveat that Sanjay might be right that insane-archaebob is still town archaebob, I have a mostly scum read on him at the moment. I also admit that I probably didn't understand archaebob's case on Sanjay that I was discussing. I do explain why I don't believe Sanjay was scummy for voting foilist13. It's very possible I'm still missing something in archaebob's case.). I also mostly re-explain everything I've already said. If you can read (ie: aren't archaebob), you can probably skim most of it. I've written it in posts before.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: Sorry, I attributed an archaebob quote to PhaerieM in there. It should be obvious which one I made the mistake with.

[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?

[Sanjay]

Remember how when you re-read Chinaman-Muffin for maybe the 18th time you finally realized that town vs. scum was a very real possibility despite you ruling that out? How did you feel about your logic then?

I have felt like that about your logic all day.

I see why you are tunneled on me, I really do. I see why you have been trying to make sense in your mind that I'm scum. But you've really been training to make that happen.

In my opinion, I can definitely see why town-MordyS might think that you are the right lynch today. I'll review his posts again and let you know how I feel about them in more detail if you'd like.

As for my vote, it's going on foilist13:

Vote: foilist13

peanutman claiming cop has really messed me up here. While being aware of the danger of Batman secretly being Palpatine or whatever, the fact is the Muffin lynch gave me town reads on a lot of people (who I already felt were town before the lynch). Additionally, cruelty has pulled a town read from me out of nowhere, and Gammagooey and archaebob have always seemed townish to me.

So I guess the choice for me today, is between foilist13 and AlmasterGM, funnily enough. I pick foilist13 both because he feels more likely to be scum AND because lynching AlmasterGM today is strategically silly.

The added benefit is that a foilist13 flip is probably the most interesting flip as far as increasing town knowledge goes.

EDIT: It looks like I'm getting ninja'd by MordyS's monster post. I'll respond to it in a later post.

[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.

[MordyS]

Make you a deal. Write any case I've left unanswered against me. But write each case next to a number, and write it in three sentences or left. I thought I answered all of them, but I might have missed one. (Do make it quick tho. My macbook cord just died and once I'm out of battery, I'm going to be afk until I can get it replaced tomorrow afternoon.)

[Sanjay]

archaebob, take a step back.

Imagine for a second that you are completely sure that MordyS is town.

You remember Newbie 846 where you were so completely tunneled on Python you didn't see the big picture? Did scum manipulate you into doing that? No. You did that to yourself.

I know you have a scum read on me or whatever and you think I'm MordyS's scumbuddy so you might not take this from me that well, but seriously, try and see things from a MordyS is town perspective.

I mean, EVEN IF MordyS is scum, he is saying a lot of accurate stuff here. You know he's an intelligent guy. Not everything he says is going to be a lie regardless of alignment.

[MordyS]

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?

[peanutman]

Archaebob, you are digging your grave with those kinds of responses.
A) You say this without any supporting evidence, examples (which you coincidentally accuse others of doing)
B) You don't address Mordy's comments.

I get the feeling you are hoping that people will grab onto your quick disregarding comments and avoid re-reading longer cases to just take what you say at face value, such as Foilist has admittedly done already. This is doing nothing but confirming that I want you lynched today.

[foilist13]

@Archaebob - There is a lot of content here. Post what he left out, and some of this MOAR. If you are holding on to it to make sure that MordyS digs himself into a hole, then fine.

@MordyS - How was that a manifesto against Archaebob? You didn't post any points against him, you just defended yourself against specific points of his. I don't even think you called him scummy, there was just a bunch of OMGUS, and insults. It's hard to be convincing when you sound like an asshole.

[MordyS]

@foilist13 - Explain why you accepted archaebob's case against me (w/r/t not mentioned Sanjay) without actually looking up the evidence yourself. The manifesto was explaining why his cases are bogus, which forms the crux of my current argument: archaebob responded to pressure very poorly. Now explain. Now. Please. Thank you.

[MordyS]

EBWOP:

I don't even think you called him scummy, there was just a bunch of OMGUS, and insults.

OMG LOL. Do you realize I attacked archaebob first? Are you even following the fucking thread?

[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.