NY 170: Georgetown II (Game Over)

[emeraldemon]

Also how confident are we that there are only 3 scum? 4 is also possible yes?

[Huntress]

Vote Count 5.5

petroleumjelly (4) - Thor665, emeraldemon, kabooooom, Aegor
Thesp (2) - inHimshallibe, Rainbowdash
Rainbowdash (1) - Thesp
Sotty7 (1) - HighShroomish

Not voting (2) - petroleumjelly, Sotty7

With ten players alive, it takes six votes to lynch.

Deadline for Day Five is Monday, 14th April 20.00 BST, (in (expired on 2014-04-14 19:00:00)).

[Casso the King of Seals]

8.)

Thor665, I am going to politely ask you to stop being a Smurf towards me. (This also applies to Sotty7 to a lesser extent). You have been particularly dismissive towards my play, and it quite honesty makes me regret replacing in and encourages me to not bother putting my time into this game. I am devoting as much time as I feel I can devote to the game, and I am going about my play in the order that makes the most sense for me.

And I have expressed that I find it to be lacking. You have, in this pose, expressed that my predecessor should have posted more and made himself more readable. You did the same t multiple players, indicating that thier play was underwhelming or not active enough or too predictable and that they were not playing to a standard you found helpful for the town. As far as I can tell these are the exact same expressions.

Do you think you are a Smurf for saying that to them?
If not, then I do not understand how I am for saying the same sort of opinion back to you.

To answer your question, yes, I was (and still am) in the process of rereading. Because I am not completely oblivious to the game-state, I recognize that I may well be lynched before I finish my reread. I can even see an argument that I am stalling (as of Day Five, that is) because it has almost been a week and I still have not finished my reread (which is an argument I

can

understand, even though I know it is not actually the case). Therefore I decided it would be worth my time to explicitly argue why I am Town.

I massively and strongly disagree, and find your town case to be unhelpful to the town.

I get that you're gruff, grumpy, or whatever. But please tone it down -- it feels more like you are undermining me as a person than you are trying to scumhunt. I do not respond well to players who seem to be pushing my emotional buttons. Thanks in advance.

I would counter for you to quote me attacking you on anything other than your play.
I do think it is within my rights in the game to suggest that someone's play is bad - that's part of the game.
At that point you're basically treading a line of 'well, you can call my play bad and anti-town...but do so in a nicer way' and...well, I haven't dropped any curse words at you. I haven't attacked you personally. I *have* been present and constant in my expression that you are underperforming (a situation you yourself appear to be aware of) so...what is within my correct scope as town? Should I allow the underperforming slot I find scummy to pass without comment? Because that appears to be where this is edging.

If I offended you personally - I apologize.
But I do not apologize for pointing out how scummy and anti-town and stagnating, and bad I find your play. I need to, as a player, be able to express that to advance my wincon.

[Thor665]

8.)

Thor665, I am going to politely ask you to stop being a Smurf towards me. (This also applies to Sotty7 to a lesser extent). You have been particularly dismissive towards my play, and it quite honesty makes me regret replacing in and encourages me to not bother putting my time into this game. I am devoting as much time as I feel I can devote to the game, and I am going about my play in the order that makes the most sense for me.

And I have expressed that I find it to be lacking. You have, in this pose, expressed that my predecessor should have posted more and made himself more readable. You did the same t multiple players, indicating that thier play was underwhelming or not active enough or too predictable and that they were not playing to a standard you found helpful for the town. As far as I can tell these are the exact same expressions.

Do you think you are a Smurf for saying that to them?
If not, then I do not understand how I am for saying the same sort of opinion back to you.

To answer your question, yes, I was (and still am) in the process of rereading. Because I am not completely oblivious to the game-state, I recognize that I may well be lynched before I finish my reread. I can even see an argument that I am stalling (as of Day Five, that is) because it has almost been a week and I still have not finished my reread (which is an argument I

can

understand, even though I know it is not actually the case). Therefore I decided it would be worth my time to explicitly argue why I am Town.

I massively and strongly disagree, and find your town case to be unhelpful to the town.

I get that you're gruff, grumpy, or whatever. But please tone it down -- it feels more like you are undermining me as a person than you are trying to scumhunt. I do not respond well to players who seem to be pushing my emotional buttons. Thanks in advance.

I would counter for you to quote me attacking you on anything other than your play.
I do think it is within my rights in the game to suggest that someone's play is bad - that's part of the game.
At that point you're basically treading a line of 'well, you can call my play bad and anti-town...but do so in a nicer way' and...well, I haven't dropped any curse words at you. I haven't attacked you personally. I *have* been present and constant in my expression that you are underperforming (a situation you yourself appear to be aware of) so...what is within my correct scope as town? Should I allow the underperforming slot I find scummy to pass without comment? Because that appears to be where this is edging.

If I offended you personally - I apologize.
But I do not apologize for pointing out how scummy and anti-town and stagnating, and bad I find your play. I need to, as a player, be able to express that to advance my wincon.

[kabooooom]

For that matter how is he only voting him in two VCs, the entire game?

Garmr was voting bulba in about 6 VCs, from 1177 to 1466. For most of that time the only other vote on bulba was inHim. This was day 2, when the big fight was Nobody Special vs. ABR. So my point really had nothing to do with Bulba interacting with garmr, I'm saying Garmr (and somewhat inHim) were trying unsuccessfully to get a bulb wagon going when that was not a popular opinion to have. Also in the end Garmr gets so pissed off at bulba that he replaces out. Is that really how scum buddies would interact?

I think garmr was banned and so he had to replace.

[kabooooom]

Who is casso??!!
is that your second account thor??!!

[kabooooom]

@pj- I will tell you tmr!! I m busy today!!

[Thor665]

Who is casso??!!
is that your second account thor??!!

It's a hydra.
That's why I repeated exactly what it said and posted it under this account immediately afterwards - I'm not sure how that's confusing.

[kabooooom]

Its not confusing. I was just asking.

[Thor665]

Use less exclamation points if you don't want to seem like you're freaking out?

[HighShroomish]

Damnit Thor. I was trying to be sneaky.
PJ- well, you came in saying stuff and analyzing, then you don't give us an results from that, but you just start flat out defending yourself, when giving us a good thought process and seemingly well thought out results probably would have helped you more.

[Sotty7]

Sotty are you going to vote someone?

Yup!

I was gonna just leave it at that but I realized that is pretty lame. I was torn at the start of the day on who to vote, at least before I had real targets now it's down to the last little push and I need to figure it out. Right now I'm holding back my PJ vote, mostly because I'm not ready to end the day yet.

Just reiterating - If Thesp and PJ are town, its Sotty or Thor as the last scum

So you were just arguing that no scum wouldn't be on at least one of the scum lynches. Lets flip it and say what are the odds of scum bussing both partners in this kinda game?

(This also applies to Sotty7 to a lesser extent)

I'm sorry! I was never trying to be an ass to you, I apologize if I came off that way, I get frustrated sometimes. <3

Also how confident are we that there are only 3 scum? 4 is also possible yes?

Pretty sure we riot if there are four scum.

Had a long day but I have tomorrow and weds off (getting a tooth pulled :sadness: ) So I will commit to reading though PJ's latest post again and seeing if I am missing something big. I understand inhim's issues, but I would love to hear more from him as well before the day ends.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Thor665, there is a very obvious difference between your attitude towards me and my attitude towards others. After I presented my reasons for preferring No Lynch, your general response was:

1. Psssh.

Followed by the absurd statement that we should obviously No Lynch until LyLo ("Whoop de doo"). On the topic of No Lynch, you state:

PJ has presented his thesis and if people like it they can start voting 'no lynch'.

Currently people are voting PJ, so...

Basically, an appeal to majority and sweeping my arguments under a rug. The fact that people are voting for me does not invalidate my argument. I then continue to argue the No Lynch point -- while

also

expressing my views on the game as I was rereading -- and your take on my post was:

I will see if I can put up more content related to players tonight as I get back to reading.

This is pretty much the tl:dr of the above.

I then explicitly pointed out that you are discouraging me from playing. I am busy, I have real life issues, and I am putting what time I can into this game. Your posting has pretty much treated me in as dismissive a manner as possible. Even after me telling you that are discouraging me, you continued:

Going back to rereading now.

Is this part still on the docket? I'm just wondering how long the PJ town case discussion will be and when the more interesting stuff will show up.

It is one thing to call a player scum and "pursue your win condition," but you are doing so in a way that is very clearly designed to put me down and make my efforts feel like a waste of my time.

My comments on Aegor, kabooooom, emeraldemon, and Brian Skies being

difficult to determine their alignment

because of the lack of posting or predictability is precisely that. I am not calling their efforts in the game bad, wasteful, or not worth reading. You, on the other hand,

have

been taking such a stance towards me. And you are encouraging others to take the same dismissive attitude towards me and my posts.

In addition, your emphasis on "playing towards your wincon" today is getting heavyhanded.

2.)

I actually think Garmr (Thesp) looks Town. His interactions with Bulbazak over a long period of the game are convincing enough that I am not easily seeing a Garmr-Bulbazak pairing in particular. A few posts come to mind, but the unlikelihood of the pairing hit home when Chevre pointed out a particular interaction in Post 1259 (where Garmr tried to instigate a Bulbazak v Garmr back-and-forth). While I can see scum planning this sort of thing in a QT, explicitly talking about in the game in the alleged hopes of being nightkilled (which would in reality require Bulbazak lynch followed by Garmr surviving the rest of the game?) just isn't making sense to me. Of course scum can distance (and it seems improbable scum would not distance at all in a Mountainous game on its face), but this is striking me more as Garmr being annoyed with the case on him and trying to put an end to it by forcing a confrontation with Bulbazak.

So for now I have three Townreads, leaving a pool of six players with four lynches to go.

3.)

PJ, I can understand wanting to reread everything, but you're not even through day 1 yet. At the rate you're going you definitely won't finish rereading before deadline, much less finish in time to help choose a lynch.

Friendly reminder: I prefer a No Lynch, and I have been arguing for a No Lynch. I am not in a rush. We don't get bonus points for finishing the game more quickly. Also, I was actually done with Day Two by the time you made this post, and I just finished Day Three tonight. I am still mulling over a few interactions I have taken note of (perhaps the most obvious thing being Thor665's meta case on Albert B. Rampage), and I hope to get through Day Four tomorrow night.

[petroleumjelly]

...

Eh, will just be direct, been mulling over this post in particular for a while now:

4.)

Leaning towards Sotty7 being Town as well, in large part because of her Day Three opener:

Vote: ABR

This guy really needs to die.

Bulb is also probably scum at this point. His whole interaction with fonz/Tebow on day one was really off. Fonz pours the heat on him and at one point Bulb makes a comment about how he was barely paying attention to him when all he had done for posts before was reply in their little back and forth. Their whole interaction just really struck me as off. Throw on his weak suspicion of emo that he just keeps falling back on and we have scum.

I still need to think how likely it is Sotty7-scum would post something like this at that particular stage of the game. The biggest wrench of doubt is that this was Sotty7's entrance into Day Three, and so by this point scum likely had a fair idea of how the game was going to pan out (presumably with Albert B. Rampage being lynched soon, and Bulbazak being lynched down the line given his loud confrontations with emogirl123-Town and potentially Garmr-Town), in which case Sotty7 would do well do distance.

I know this was actually something that made me suspect Sotty7-scum on Day Four (

before

the Bulbazak flip, such that the post seemed like Sotty7 may have been trying to help herself in future Vote Count Analyses while actually trying to get a Townsperson lynched). But now that Bulbazak turned out to also be scum this would, in effect, require Sotty7-scum to be simultaneously distancing from both of her partners for a period of time.

[Thesp]

Still following along, still happy with my vote on RainbowDash. I haven't seen anything from petroleumjelly to change my town read on him, and he's seeing similar things that I did on my re-read. I agree with the Sotty7 townread (for the same reasons petroleumjelly states).

[Thor665]

1. I am sorry that I don't find your contributions worthy of encouragement? Okay, fine, you work really hard for them. You find my contributions to be mean and dismissive, I consider my contributions functional and pointed. Everyone looks at the world through their own viewfinder. Frankly, it hasn't been till you've gotten annoyed at me that I felt you started talking straight...which is probably one of the reasons I've developed a confrontational style. I *am* attempting to downplay and dismiss your no lynch concept. That is my flat out openly stated goal, because I disagree with the strategy. Conversely, you are trying to still advance your strategy and keep suggesting that I am bad for not advocating it. Both of us are, again, doing the same thing. This is how the game works.

2. I agree.

3. Advocating 'no lynch' is not a justification for slow playing as way to try to bribe through your 'no lynch' preference.

4. You don't actually reach enough of a conclusion for me to offer feedback here. At least you have only another 800 posts or so to go.

[Thor665]

Still following along, still happy with my vote on RainbowDash. I haven't seen anything from petroleumjelly to change my town read on him, and he's seeing similar things that I did on my re-read. I agree with the Sotty7 townread (for the same reasons petroleumjelly states).

Yeah, for me it's more a contest between the two to try to be less helpful. I do agree it's probably one of them. I don't feel PJ actually gave a Sotty town read, he gave a town lean and then mealy-mouthed it, and none of it much matters until seen in perspective of the rest of his reads. I will agree him dropping the Sotty scum case feels generically good at this stage though.

[Thor665]

Arguing that it is "namby" is vacuous.

Also, just clicking back.

My 'psssh' reply responded to a post that included this.

PJ finds me going 'psssh' to be insulting to his efforts this game.
Him calling me and/or my beliefs 'vacuous' is fine.

The thing is, I think both replies are fine.
But in his world only I am being harsh and dismissive.
Psssh

[Thor665]

I am an aggressive guy, aren't I?

[Thesp]

HighShroomish, who is your next vote after Sotty7? Presuming that wagon doesn't materialize, since most people think he's town. Like the Aegor one you were on before it today.

[emeraldemon]

Rainbowdash, why did you stop pushing Thor? You seemed pretty adamant yesterday.

Petroleumjelly, am I right that your reads look something like:
town - sotty, inhim, highshroomish, thesp
null? - aegor, kaboom, emeraldemon, thor
scum - rbd
??

Also, what do you think about what I said in 2432?

[HighShroomish]

HighShroomish, who is your next vote after Sotty7? Presuming that wagon doesn't materialize, since most people think he's town. Like the Aegor one you were on before it today.

PJ.

[Rainbowdash]

Rainbowdash, why did you stop pushing Thor? You seemed pretty adamant yesterday.

Still think there is a good chance he is scum. In light on Bulb flip I think that Thesp is more likely scum though by a bit because of what I previously said. If it was Thor vs PJ today im not too sure who I would vote (gut says I would vote Sotty before either of those two).

Just reiterating - If Thesp and PJ are town, its Sotty or Thor as the last scum

So you were just arguing that no scum wouldn't be on at least one of the scum lynches. Lets flip it and say what are the odds of scum bussing both partners in this kinda game?

Pretty high, especially if you are talking about the chance of scum hard bussing at least one partner at some point in the game.

Do you think that scum would never bus at any point in a mountainous game? Especially with ABR and Bulb as scum?

For that matter how is he only voting him in two VCs, the entire game?

Garmr was voting bulba in about 6 VCs, from 1177 to 1466. For most of that time the only other vote on bulba was inHim. This was day 2, when the big fight was Nobody Special vs. ABR. So my point really had nothing to do with Bulba interacting with garmr, I'm saying Garmr (and somewhat inHim) were trying unsuccessfully to get a bulb wagon going when that was not a popular opinion to have. Also in the end Garmr gets so pissed off at bulba that he replaces out. Is that really how scum buddies would interact?

I think that Bulb was actually trying to bus him but he couldn't ever get it going, kept bouncing off him and then back onto emo. I just think it was a complete failure on his part to be able to pull the bus off. All Bulb was trying to do was tie emo and Garmr. I don't see scum do nothing but try and tie together two town the entire game. Trying to tie together town to scum makes sense, especially with the really bizarre relationship between Garmr and Bulb. Being aggressive towards a partner really isn't all that abnormal either, it tends to far more be personality clash than anything else. Not sure I have seen players that get along as scum and then hate each other as town.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

I am not counting Sotty7 as a Townread. But in the event I am lynched I do not want my last words on Sotty7 to be that I think she is scum. I still think there is a good potential she is scum, but I find it less likely than I did before.

2.)

Arguing that it is "namby" is vacuous.

Also, just clicking back.

My 'psssh' reply responded to a post that included this.

PJ finds me going 'psssh' to be insulting to his efforts this game.
Him calling me and/or my beliefs 'vacuous' is fine.

The thing is, I think both replies are fine.
But in his world only I am being harsh and dismissive.
Psssh

I honestly cannot tell if you are being serious.

My point is that "namby" is just throwing out a word with a negative connotation that you were attempting to use to to counteract my theory discussion. You did not explain

why

you think No Lynching is bad; you just paired it with a negative word. You were not making an actual argument, but you were acting like you were. That makes it vacuous.

3.)

Petroleumjelly, am I right that your reads look something like:
town - sotty, inhim, highshroomish, thesp
null? - aegor, kaboom, emeraldemon, thor
scum - rbd
??

Also, what do you think about what I said in 2432?

A bit more like:

Town: inHimshallibe, HighShroomish, Thesp
Leaning Town: Sotty7
Hard to Read: Aegor, kabooooom, emeraldemon, Thor665
Leaning Scum: RainbowDash

And I still think you are looking at No Lynching the wrong way. The "town pool" is not a set thing. What matters is that the scum have to get four people mislynched to win. The less options they have, the better for Town. I fully expect the most Townlike players are most likely to be nightkill, especially at first. But after that, it gets more difficult to have solid Townreads, and when the game reaches that point, scum are suddenly having to nightkill players they might have been able to get lynched otherwise. Additionally, No Lynching drastically increases our chances of catching scum if the scum is widely viewed as Town.

4.)

So Day Three is pretty weird in retrospect. The top three wagons by the end of the day were Albert B. Rampage, kabooooom, and Aegor. Neither Albert B. Rampage nor Bulbazak seemed to push on kaboooom at all (despite that being the best chance for staving off an Albert B. Rampage lynch). What is weird is that of the three, kabooooom would seem like the most natural player to be bussed; and so if he were scum, it would suggest the scum were effectively protecting themselves all around. But if that is the case, then kabooooom's vote on Albert B. Rampage does not fit very well into that strategy.

5.)

Wow. Just noticed that Matias was modkilled

directly before

the opening of Day Four, so my whole theory on potential Thesp-scum does not hold water. Conjecture retracted.

6.)

I think I have read enough. I am not confident enough to add another Townread to my pool, but after reading through Day Four:

Vote: RainbowDash

.

I actually think the scumteam in this game played an all-out "defend your partners" game. Bulbazak explicitly defended Albert B. Rampage several times, questioning the case against him continually. Bulbazak also defended RainbowDash. RainbowDash similarly defended Albert B. Rampage on Day Three, and Bulbazak on Day Four. I would not be surprised if, upon scum QT reveal, this game was potentially meant to be an example of scum solidarity winning the day over bussing as some sort of statement against site meta.

If I had two other lynches I would look at kabooooom (see above; it is very hard to see why both Albert B. Rampage and Bulbazak would give kaboooom such a wide berth unless they thought kaboooom would get himself lynched without getting their hands dirty, while risking Albert B. Rampage's lynch in the process) and Thor665. I am only going to bother constricting myself to three lynches, given that I expect my slot to be lynched if the game actually continues beyond a RainbowDash lynch.

I would prefer to vote No Lynch, but if a No Lynch occurs I expect it will be for the lack of reaching a majority rather than people voting for No Lynch.

[kabooooom]

Pj- I meant post 2210. You havent replied to that post.