Mini 945: Mafia in Bawlmer - GAME OVER

[Ythan]

My real name is Ethan so just go with that. My distraction is leaving town at 5:30, I'll run a train on this thread later on tonight.

[Konowa]

Flavour added into D2 opening scene.

Chuckle.

[MacavityLock]

I'm still suspicious of Sidekick/Ythan but I'm going to a) see how Ythan answers the points against him and b) go back and read DC's thoughts on people.

Re: (a) - What are the points against Sidekick that Ythan can answer for?

*evil stare at apayah*

What's this all about?

[Cyberbob]

Re: (a) - What are the points against Sidekick that Ythan can answer for?

I'm leaving the manner of his response entirely up to him but I do want

a

response. Thanks for the coaching lesson though!

FOS: MacavityLock

[StrangerCoug]

Re: (a) - What are the points against Sidekick that Ythan can answer for?

I'm leaving the manner of his response entirely up to him but I do want

a

response. Thanks for the coaching lesson though!

FOS: MacavityLock

I'm leaning more towards MacavityLock's question being legitimate, not coaching. It is rhetorical, though—Ythan cannot read Sidekick's mind.

[Cyberbob]

I am well aware of that, but like I said - I still want some kind of a reaction. I despise the trend of letting replacements off the hook for actions their predecessors took just because they can't read their minds. Actions stay with the playerslot for the duration of the game as far as I'm concerned, no matter how many people end up filling it.

[Ythan]

I hate to see a replacement try to slip by entirely no matter how scummy their predecessor was because they "can't do anything about it". I'll do a read through with comments now folks.

[Ythan]

DC did that thing where he called SC the cop. Then SC led (I think, not really important) a wagon on him that ended in a lynch. Then Ophanim, who SC had been in a spat with D1, dies instead. I hope you guys weren't trying to set up a safe position for SC with a planned bus.

[Ythan]

My predecessor has eight posts.

0 Confirmation.
1 I don't know one way or another so I personally wouldn't have asked, but ok good relevant question if you think so.
2 Blah stuff about xvart's signing of his posts.
3 EBWOP
4 Justifiable response since it was ML's first post after confirming.
5 I don't think SC was defending dram so much as attacking Oph, if this was about what I think it was about.
6 Right about DC, asks the lynch-to-be to claim. Don't know why she waited this long to call dram's miller claim WIFOM.
7 EBWOP

[Ythan]

I disagree with dramonic's WIFOM claims that he must be town because scum would have nothing to gain in claiming miller. I'm also curious as to why he voted DC since he never explained himself.

[Ythan]

Regarding xvart, is iso3 your explanation for the vote in iso1? Also a tip, bold the part of a post you want to talk about rather than striking everything else out. Iso7 is trying to stall a wagon with no good reason why it shouldn't go through. Iso10 is part defending scum and part accusations sans case.

[Ythan]

Lock's iso1 is a terribly hypocritical vote. 2 is riding Bob's coattails. 4 is a soft accusation he doesn't take anywhere. Starting in 8 he keeps pushing a wagon on my pred even though he never added anything to his initial reasoning. In 9 he adds another flimsy case to his portfolio, on Chevre. 10 he wants to wait for DC to answer questions made by other players before he decides how he reads him. In 11 he finally explains why he's suspicious of SK while blowing off the fact that he's taken so long to back up his accusation. And it's for pretty much what Lock himself is doing plus something with a vote.

[xvart]

Regarding xvart, is iso3 your explanation for the vote in iso1? Also a tip, bold the part of a post you want to talk about rather than striking everything else out. Iso7 is trying to stall a wagon with no good reason why it shouldn't go through. Iso10 is part defending scum and part accusations sans case.

I hope this helps clarify; let me know if you want more information. At the time of my ISO3 I was terribly mistaken about the order of events. I won't explain why my recollection was so bad because, well, as the say excuses are like assholes... When I first read this post it peaked my interest because it seemed to be a vote for reason but a stated "random" reason. Then, when I sat down the morning of my ISO3 I thought that post had occurred after the massive quote walls/pyramids about dramatic making me think a case had been built, but he was still voting because of a random reason.

I first quoted myself and scratched it out because someone pointed it out that I was wrong. Then I realized my whole post was totally wrong and uncalled for, which is why the updated scratch out of everything except the coincidence part that I mentioned earlier.

re: my ISO10 - I was obviously wrong about the failtown/scum call, and I would've stuck by that until the lynch was done had the claim not been so fishy.

xvart.

[Dizzle]

xvart - Did you vote DC solely for his terrible claim?

[MacavityLock]

While I generally agree with Cyberbob on not letting replacements off the hook, this is a situation where it seems to be a loaded question to Ythan. The points against Sidekick amount to:
1) Lurking.
2) Adding little of worth to legitimate discussion when posting.
3) Bringing someone who has since flipped scum to L-1.

Ythan can't answer why Sidekick did those things, and you're not going to get good answers from him no matter what. So, you can find fault with his answers no matter what. That's a pretty scummy line of questioning, to me.

----

Lock's iso1 is a terribly hypocritical vote.

It was a semi-random page 2 vote based on 3 worthless, contentless posts that didn't even contain so much as a random vote.

2 is riding Bob's coattails.

Yet asking different questions than Cyberbob.

4 is a soft accusation he doesn't take anywhere.

Because xvart has generally gotten better.

Starting in 8 he keeps pushing a wagon on my pred even though he never added anything to his initial reasoning.

Doesn't mean I didn't have reasons for it, most specifically the contentlessness together with the L-1 vote in record time, which I did clarify in my iso 11.

In 9 he adds another flimsy case to his portfolio, on Chevre.

And I've still got my eye out Chevre, thank you very much.

10 he wants to wait for DC to answer questions made by other players before he decides how he reads him.

Yup, you caught me, I want to hear answers from people before making decisions about them.

[Cyberbob]

So, you can find fault with his answers no matter what.

I think it's kind of significant that you leapt straight to this particular assumption rather than considering the fact that all I wanted to see was

how

he would go about dealing with such a tough question (this is something I have said before, mind). I think he did quite a nice job of it, all things considered, and I agree with a number of the other things he's said.

I've been procrastinating about reading back over people's behaviours towards DC, but I've got some time for it now so I might as well.

[MacavityLock]

So, you can find fault with his answers no matter what.

I think it's kind of significant that you leapt straight to this particular assumption rather than considering the fact that all I wanted to see was

how

he would go about dealing with such a tough question (this is something I have said before, mind).

That's why I asked you the question first, rather than accusing straight away. The fact that you attacked me for said question, and didn't actually respond to my question is why I feel more confident in my read that this wasn't on the up and up.

Also, do you really think that post 183 "answers for questions posed to Sidekick"?

[Cyberbob]

That's why I asked you the question first, rather than accusing straight away. The fact that you attacked me for said question, and didn't actually respond to my question is why I feel more confident in my read that this wasn't on the up and up.

What question did I attack you for, exactly? Oh, you mean the one that included an easy out for him in case he was having trouble finding a way to answer my question? Is that the one you're talking about?

Then you followed up with even more of the same in Post 189. Nice defence bro.

Vote: MacavityLock

Also, do you really think that post 183 "answers for questions posed to Sidekick"?

I think it does a good enough job of explaining why Sidekick might conceivably have made those posts without getting all overdefensive about it.

[dramonic]

This Cyber/Lock discussion looks like town butting head to me.

[xvart]

xvart - Did you vote DC solely for his terrible claim?

I didn't vote solely for his name claim; but I doubt I would have voted for him (unless a deadline forced me to) if it weren't for "claiming" a town roleblocker role.

xvart.

[Ythan]

I'm not terribly happy with Lock's part in the discussion between him and bob. Dram, can you tell me why it looks like town on town?

[MacavityLock]

You say I'm coaching, I say you're asking loaded questions.

By the way, if I am coaching Ythan, doesn't that mean that he's necessarily scumbuddies with me? Yet,

I think he did quite a nice job of it, all things considered, and I agree with a number of the other things he's said.

Glaring inconsistency.

Between the DC L-1 unvote and this inconsistency,

Vote: Cyberbob

.

[Cyberbob]

After all, scum never buddy up to townies. That is not an event that has ever occurred once in the history of mafia.

[Ythan]

vote MacavityLock

You're twisting the hell out of bob's words and buddying the hell out of me.

[MacavityLock]

Coaching != buddying. Cyberbob is twisting his own words.