NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[DrippingGoofball]

UNVOTE: DGB

Don't know who to vote for. How disheartening.

I can't tempt you to vote for PJ? mathcam? STD?

Do you have reasons NOT to vote for UT or ABR?

[DrippingGoofball]

There is no point lynching Glork, unless he hasn't been NK'd by his game expiration date.

[Glork]

UNVOTE: DGB

Don't know who to vote for. How disheartening.

Glork.

You're pushing a case that you yourself admit is a "stretch" of a possibility.

Are you scum or just incapable of sound logic?

[Porochaz]

Not very well atm. Ill try and make a proper post tomorrow.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I made that list to find and analyse NEW suspects. Why would I include mathcam if he was already on my suspect list?

Because if you're town, you're looking to find scum, not a nice group of suspects you can smear?

So if I don't want to vote Poro, PJ or STD today, and if a bunch of us have this nagging feeling that undo could just as easily be stubborn, dumbass town as stubborn dumbass scum, what's the play?

Still undo. Just look at what I just quoted; he's pretty much literally admitting he has no interest in finding scum.

[undo]

That said, I appreciate that he tried hard. I imagine it's fun going through all that formatting to make a pretty looking post that gets brought into question by a one-liner, an emoticon, and a snarky follow-up post.

Don't worry, I'm fairly used to make pretty looking posts and I like to do it. Also, that post wasn't exactly directed at you, so your reaction shouldn't make much difference. It actually comes as a bonus, because you saying my forth point is an "outright lie" only helps my case.

Well crap.

Undo, if I may ask you one two-part question in complete good faith:

How exactly do you define "making a case" and why is the absence of "cases" an indicator of scumminess?

Making a case: to construct a sound, logically valid argumentation based on a personal intepretation of several verifiable game-facts and events.

As you know, it is difficult for scum to make solid cases based on thorough reads, because they already know the other player's alignments. It's much easier for scum to be around and vote for ad hoc reasons, as you do, since that doesn't involve analysing a person's play as a whole.

So if I don't want to vote Poro, PJ or STD today, and if a bunch of us have this nagging feeling that undo could just as easily be stubborn, dumbass town as stubborn dumbass scum, what's the play?

I know you are disappointed to realise your case against me wasn't as good and accurate as you thought, but resorting to name-calling makes you look sad and desperate.

I made that list to find and analyse NEW suspects. Why would I include mathcam if he was already on my suspect list?

Because if you're town, you're looking to find scum, not a nice group of suspects you can smear?

Once again: I was looking to find scum among that group; I never said all scum was contained in that group, and I never said all my previous suspects were cleared.
Seriously, it's not rocket science. Not that hard to understand.

[Glork]

Okay, yeah, vote's not moving.

[Glork]

Not only is your definition of "make a case" inconsistent with your Point 1 and 4, but your definiton of what makes it scummy indicates that you should be looking at like half a dozen other players who have "failed to make a case" just as much as I have.

Instead, you're trying to cram an argument to fit where you want your vote to be. You're putting the cart before the horse. Even in your response to my question you tried to phrase it in a way that would champion your own argument. And that's a big ol' scumbaggo move.

[DrippingGoofball]

@ undo

Please list all players that have failed to make a case, and tell us how this makes them scummy, or not.

Thanks!

[Glork]

@ undo

Please list all players that have failed to make a case, and tell us how this makes them scummy, or not.

Thanks!

Bingo.

[chamber]

With that definition of a case I hope he lists everyone. What a terrible way to play.

[Glork]

That's the second half of it.

The first half is that I have posted the "argumentation" that resulted from at least four separate "personal interpretations" of players based on "verifiable in-game facts and events."

Yet he claims I did no such thing, and that I have only done it once on Day Two.

[Glork]

And actually, if you want to include cases FOR people in addition to ones AGAINST them, I'm pretty sure I interpreted Bookitty's, LML's, and DGB's play and presented argumentation supporting my analysis.

[Sotty7]

Sotty, I find your recent case against me fairly disturbing. Not so much that you're eyeballing me as a potential LML-buddy, but that you prepared this line of attack yesterday in the absence of an LML flip and under the pretense of "trying to get a read on Yos and [me]".

Actually I forgot about it until my re-read. I regret not following up on it in the moment.

You're right I didn't commit to an LML read. You are not right that I was "much ado about nothing where LML is concerned", I had him on my radar and my ISO reflects that. Please point out where my play was pro-LML (i.e. trying to help him out/trying to benefit from his lynch/trying in any way to push a scum agenda) or stop this nonsense.

I never said you were pro LML, just that you posted little about him before the hammer. There's a difference. I do appreciate the clarification RE: the differences between this game and the last though, that does make me feel a little bit better about that whole section of the game.

The amount of defending I did towards LML (I even refer to myself as "The Whitest Knight" because I was so certain he'd flip town that I thought I'd come under suspicion for white knighting him) means that bus-vote or not, I was going to be suspected. If I were scum, there's nothing to gain by bus-voting him while continuing to protest. Literally every other option available to me is a better alternative.

This is pretty much my gut reaction to a lot of Glork's play. It just doesn't feel like a natural way for him to defend a buddy. Day one looks a lot like Glorktown getting it wrong.

DGB

- what moved me into the townie pile on your re-read? I see nothing that would bump me unless it is the early interactions I had with LML

[DrippingGoofball]

DGB

- what moved me into the townie pile on your re-read? I see nothing that would bump me unless it is the early interactions I had with LML

(4) & (5) under your name.

[Green Crayons]

I can't tempt you to vote for PJ? mathcam? STD?

Do you have reasons NOT to vote for UT or ABR?

Just shooting from the hip:

PJ: I finally decided to put him under solid town after rereading D1. It's a mental roadblock to do a 180 and go ~*~ NOPE WRONG ~*~ that I would need to go and re-reread D1 to get past, barring some really scummy post yet to come.

mathcam: I'm pretty ambivalent about mathcam. I had a pretty solid town read on mafiaSSK, but mathcam has been present but pretty unobtrusive -- which strikes me as scummy, as it's allowing him to fly under the radar. Like, I don't remember how mathcam plays, but it really feels like he's making an effort not to play. So, I guess he's in my "would be willing to vote for" pile.

STD: Out of all of the options of who LML was bussing because LML has a Weird Thing About Being Right, I would guess STD. I remember lots of folks (myself included) saying that STD posting was super town, and just around that time LML was like "NOPE because of these horrible, horrible reasons!" and wouldn't let up. But that's really the only justification I can readily pull out of my butt to vote STD.

UT: Because he's playing town.

ABR: Because he's playing town. The only point that I think is valid is his jump off from the LML vote, but I don't see a reason not to take ABR's justification at face value -- that is, the rest of his play strikes me as town, so I don't have a reason to attribute it to scum motivation.

[mathcam]

it really feels like he's making an effort not to play.

Really? I feel like I've been one of the most active players today, and with reasonably content-filled posts. I think I'm more willing than most to say "I don't have a read on suchandsuch," but I wouldn't call that not playing. *shrug*

There is no point lynching Glork, unless he hasn't been NK'd by his game expiration date.

Can someone explain this?

[DrippingGoofball]

UT: Because he's playing town.

ABR: Because he's playing town.

How, exactly?

[DrippingGoofball]

PJ: I finally decided to put him under solid town after rereading D1. It's a mental roadblock to do a 180 and go ~*~ NOPE WRONG ~*~ that I would need to go and re-reread D1 to get past, barring some really scummy post yet to come.

Why don't you read Day 2? Maybe then you'll see the light and vote him.

Please explain your town read.

[DrippingGoofball]

Can someone explain this?

Glork is usually top priority for the NK.

Everyone should call him UNLYNCHABLE TOWN.

If he's still alive on Day 4 with everyone refusing to ever lynch him... he's scum!

[petroleumjelly]

Not very impressed with DrippingGoofball's analysis, actually. From the looks of it, she starts with reads and then uses her reads to justify her reads while looking at vote counts and making statements about the make-up of those wagons (and the statements of the wagons are largely based on the reads she started with). It's largely circular.

1.)

I feel like PJ isn't having fun, which is weird considering we caught scum D1.

Then you don't remember me very well. I do not have fun in mafia games. Mafia is more of a chore for me than a game. I have had rather explicit discussions with you on this exact topic in the past.

Why would you think this game is fun for me? Why is it "weird" that it is not?

2.)

DrippingGoofball, I do not have time to attempt a full meta of you, nor did I claim I was trying to figure out your meta. My concern (and why I looked into that game) was whether you are willing to be so blatantly antitown and defensive of your scumpartners when you are scum -- and you are.

Nevertheless, I actually bothered looking into another game where you were Town tonight, Mini #1512, Bipolar Mafia. In it you claimed a player was a Cop (he was a Bodyguard) and suggested another player was a Mason (they were Mafia).

So apparently I pretty much dislike your play across the board.

3.)

It is Day Two and almost page

sixty

. This is disgraceful. Deadline is Saturday, but we do not have to wait until the Deadline to lynch people (

again

).

4.)

I do not like the attitude behind undo's posting, but I do not believe he is scum.

5.)

Glork, why are you

still

swearing? Do you feel like you swear more as Town or as Scum? It is not becoming.

6.)

PJ, do you think that ABR and DGB are scum together?

Did you think this at the time you moved your vote from DGB to ABR?

I do not find the pairing particularly likely.

My votes today have not been born of whether living players might be partnered with each other. The only potential partnerships I am concerned with at the moment are whether players may have been partnered with LoudmouthLee. My suspicions are generally not interrelated. My Albert B. Rampage vote was placed a time where I thought the (unexplained) pressure might get a semi-informative reaction from Albert B. Rampage. I moved back to voting DrippingGoofball after reading through the latest and thinking she had the best likelihood of flipping scum.

7.)

chamber, what do you think of Porochaz's Post #1212?

[Patrick]

SpyreX replaces inHimshallibe.

[SpyreX]

Sup everyone.

Unless there's something hugely pressing or shenanigans writ large I dont know about I'm gonna take a bit of time to catch up.

[chamber]

7.) chamber, what do you think of Porochaz's Post #1212?

Very little.

[chamber]

I just never find posts like that very useful or convincing, I just gloss over when reading them a lot of the time unless there is something particularly egregious in them.