NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[Untrod Tripod]

Yes yes glrok and dgb are probs scum

Glad we're on the same page

[chamber]

inHim's entry into the game doesn't inspire any confidence.

Do you think that makes him scum?

[Glork]

Glork, you don't have more of a critical reply or anything? I gotta say your attack on me feels pretty lacking in enthusiasm and I'm not sure where that's coming from. I was feeling a little better about you after you outlined the reasons behind your suspicions, which seemed credible enough (I was also sort of swayed by your self-meta), and now you're undermining that again.

I've been busy. You're not off the hook or anything.

[Yosarian2]

MBL: I'm slightly less suspicious of CES than I was yesterday, but he's still on my radar.

Really? Why would you be *less* suspicious of CES then you were yesterday?

Personally, now that I know that LML was scum, and that CES totally ignored him all day while focusing entirely on the Bookitty wagon, I think CES is a lot more suspicious. If LML had flipped town, I'd be less suspicious of CES.

[inHimshallibe]

inHim's entry into the game doesn't inspire any confidence.

Do you think that makes him scum?

I'm not sure I've had the pleasure of playing much with VitaminR.

[MrBuddyLee]

MBL is asking way too many questions with much too little analysis.

If you're really feeling uncomfortable about my alignment at this point, feel free to ask me anything.. and I read everyone's posts carefully before asking those questions, which I think are all pretty relevant. If you see a question that you think sucks, why not ask me why I asked it instead?

[inHimshallibe]

I am in awe of the intricate and in-depth analysis you are putting on display.

Likewise.

[chamber]

Full disclosure; I was only isoing LmL, I really do need to do a full reread.

Are you trying to get a reaction out of me here? Trying to fish for my role? This is the scummiest post of the match thus far. FoS: GC The only reason my vote isn't changing is because I'm nearly positive that PJ will flip red. I'm not nearly as sure about you yet.

This stood out to me at a gut level, something just feels off about it

Here's who I have null on: Porochaz, CTD, CES, VitR, GC, Yos2, BooKitty (I feel like that wagon is incredibly manufactured... similar to mine), Kublai Khan

and then I noticed that this is pretty inconsistent with his early statement. I need to look at why he'd change that strategically, or if he perhaps just forgot.

[chamber]

inHim's entry into the game doesn't inspire any confidence.

Do you think that makes him scum?

I'm not sure I've had the pleasure of playing much with VitaminR.

Can people

please

stop answering question I direct at other people.

[Glork]

GC: I don't think anyone (myself included) is denying they I defended LML hard during D1. That said, I'm a rather bus-happy player (not quite to the "pathological" level that MBL suggests of LML, but probably not far off).

What specifically makes you think that I am LML's scumbuddy, and not just someone who was wrong and vocal on Day One?

This is the second or third time you've self-meta'd in defense of your actions. I don't find it persuasive, and actually find it suspicious for the very obvious reason that it's manipulable by the very person who seeks to use it as a defense.

To respond to the bolded, I could just link to my Post 1069 and call it a day. And I could do that because my points against you don't really line up with your mischaracterization of my suspicions -- that is, what I set out in Post 1069 wasn't that you were just "wrong and vocal." So I will simply indicate how each point does not fall under the umbrella of simply calling you "wrong and vocal."

1. Post 1069's Point (1): soft defending LML-scum on Page 5 nips suspicion in the bud while still being early enough in the game that you don't have any established connections for your defense to get linked to. This is a scum motivated action.

2. Post 1069's Point (2): your actions as described -- which notes that you go above and beyond merely being wrong about LML (of course, merely being wrong is not alignment indicative) -- is scum motivated play.

3. Post 1069's Point (3): your actions as described -- which notes your LML vote being opportunistic after being incredibly anti-LML-lynch all D1 -- is scum motivated play.

4. Post 1069's Point (4): this point does not describe your play, but LML's, and is therefore completely unrelated to your mischaracterization of my suspicions.

5. Post 1069's Point (5): this point does not pertain to your play in relation to LML, but instead notes that your play is pretty conservative and safe and scummy, and is therefore completely unrelated to your mischaracterization of my suspicions.

3/5 of your argument can still be explained by "Glork was town but wrong, and vocal about his opinion."

Saying "You defended LML early. This is scum motivated" is no more valid than saying "Glork thought LML was town. This is town motivated."
I want you to distinguish between what

GlorkTownWhoWasWrong

would have done, and what

GlorkScumWhoInexorablyLinkedHimselfToTheMostSuspectedPlayerInTheGame

did.

Obviously SOME people who weren't on the LML wagon were town. But you're picking the loudest wrong person and just stating they're scum because they defended LML without actually analyzing WHY he did, or what he would have done differently if he were town.

In 4, you merely state that LML called me town and only mentioned me three times, and inexplicably include this as "evidence" that I am scum.
JUST LIKE IN YOUR FIRST THREE POINTS you just make an observation and conclude that I'm scum from it.

And in 5, you're describing a playable and flatly asserting that it's scum. Preeeeetty much the same as the other points.



There's really not anything here. You're gonna have to try harder, kid. You're trying to cram evidence to fit the conclusion you want people to believe. You need to be critically analyzing the situation and going "why would Glork have said and done these things if he were scum?"

[Glork]

GC, I also defended Bookitty really hard from a terrible wagon on her. Does that mean I'm scum with her, too? I was pretty vocal about that one, and it's consistent with what you claim is GlorkScum behavior.

[inHimshallibe]

GC, I also defended Bookitty really hard from a terrible wagon on her. Does that mean I'm scum with her, too? I was pretty vocal about that one, and it's consistent with what you claim is GlorkScum behavior.

Bookitty's scum?

[Glork]

GC, I also defended Bookitty really hard from a terrible wagon on her. Does that mean I'm scum with her, too? I was pretty vocal about that one, and it's consistent with what you claim is GlorkScum behavior.

Bookitty's scum?

If you take GC's

Hypothesis on how Glork Treats his Scumbuddies

to be true, then sure. Knock yourself out.

[Glork]

Guys, I'm pretty sure I said Porochaz can be town during Day One. Better check him out.

[Glork]

And oh yeah DGB is def scum because I once said she isn't.

[Yosarian2]

3/5 of your argument can still be explained by "Glork was town but wrong, and vocal about his opinion."

That's one possible explanation, Glork, but still, you defended scum. You have to understand that from the point of view of the rest of us, that is, in fact, evidence against you.

There's really not anything here. You're gonna have to try harder, kid. You're trying to cram evidence to fit the conclusion you want people to believe. You need to be critically analyzing the situation and going "why would Glork have said and done these things if he were scum?"

Why would hypothetical-scum-Glork try to stop town from lynching scum? Uh...because hypo-scum-Glork would be trying to get one step closer to achieving his win condition, obviously.

It's not conclusive, but it a point against you, and no amount of self-meta or WIFOM is going to change that. Accept it, and try to convince us you're town by your play from here on.

[inHimshallibe]

Glork, I liked your 1134. Your last 4 posts give me pause.

[Glork]

Yos, there's a difference between "X defended scum" and "X tied himself to the sinking ship that was his doomed scumbuddy."

I have stated on multiple occasions that tying myself to LML is A) not my style; and (more importantly) B) "TERRIBLE STRATEGY."

And yet the people who are coming after me are going "well A is self-meta so I have to ignore it" while summarily ignoring point B together. I'm pretty sure that most reasonable minds would at least consider that GlorkScum defending LMLScum is probably going to result in both of them being lynched pretty quickly and pause to consider that, yes, I am more competent than that.

On the flip side, I'd expect scum to find anything they can latch onto and try to trump up suspicion wherever they can.

IDK. Maybe that tells me where I should be looking for scums.

[Glork]

Glork, I liked your 1134. Your last 4 posts give me pause.

I'm on tilt. ;_;

[Albert B. Rampage]

Breathe in, breathe out, move on.

I voted mathcam because out of everyone who was on LML's bandwagon, mathcam looked the most like the one bussing, although CTD is a close call.

[Glork]

Vote: ABR

[inHimshallibe]

Breathe in, breathe out, move on.

I voted mathcam because out of everyone who was on LML's bandwagon, mathcam looked the most like the one bussing,

although CTD

is a close call.

If this cat is involved in anything fishy at all D1, consider my vote

strenuous.

[Kublai Khan]

Vote: ABR

Why Albert B. Rampage?

Why not DrippingGoofball?

[Glork]

I'm not going to vote you KK, because there's actually a pretty good chance you're town, but I am going to mime bopping you on the head for that comment.

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: DrippingGoofball
Vote: Albert B. Rampage