Open 572: Nightless Vengeful Mayhem - Game Over

[Not_Mafia]

VC 3.03

Blair (0)-

Phillammon (1)-

Blair

Shaddowez (0)-

Thor665 (1)-

acryon

droog (0)-

YYR (1)-

Pillammon

acryon (0)-

Dyslexicon (3)-

Thor665, Shaddowez, droog

(L-2)

Bins (0)-

Not Voting (3)-

YYR, Dyslexicon, Bins

With

9

alive, it takes

5

to lynch.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2014-10-11 20:00:00)

- Oct 11th 19:00 GMT

[Thor665]

Again, it doesn't matter to me that you said you wanted a speed lynch on wgeurts; I still think it was bad and your vote should have been elsewhere given your comments regarding Blair. Your read on wgeurts included one action, while your read on Blair was much more meaty. By your own admission, you weren't sure that wgeurts was a more likely scum-flip than Blair, yet you left your vote on him?

Translating this;
Thor said Blair was scum
Thor also said wgeurts was scum.
I think Thor should have voted Blair.
I have Thor admitting that his read on them he was not certain that wgeurts was more likely scum than Blair.
Conclusion: obviously he should have voted Blair...which, by my same logic, would then have been scummy because he wasn't sure that Blair was more scummy than wgeurts and had a reason to be voting wgeurts and mentioned that he needed to be dead.

Since you are very concerned with the details of my read, I'll spell it out to answer your issues.

I don't really care - what I care about is you calling me scummy because I didn't create a pressure wagon on Day 2 when literally everything I said made it painfully clear that my goal for Day 2 was a speed lynch on wgeurts. Now, you can call *that* scummy if you wish - but to call me scummy for not doing something I was openly saying I had no interest in doing (and actively fought doing) is messed up.

*That* was scummy, and by extension, I think *you* are scummy.

You're changing your story here. I am still left unsure what your issue even is, and I believe it continues to make no sense.

If your issue is what I understand it to be - why are you not complaining that I'm voting Dyx right now instead of Blair?

[acryon]

Again, it doesn't matter to me that you said you wanted a speed lynch on wgeurts; I still think it was bad and your vote should have been elsewhere given your comments regarding Blair. Your read on wgeurts included one action, while your read on Blair was much more meaty. By your own admission, you weren't sure that wgeurts was a more likely scum-flip than Blair, yet you left your vote on him?

Translating this;
Thor said Blair was scum
Thor also said wgeurts was scum.
I think Thor should have voted Blair.
I have Thor admitting that his read on them he was not certain that wgeurts was more likely scum than Blair.
Conclusion: obviously he should have voted Blair...which, by my same logic, would then have been scummy because he wasn't sure that Blair was more scummy than wgeurts and had a reason to be voting wgeurts and mentioned that he needed to be dead.

Since you are very concerned with the details of my read, I'll spell it out to answer your issues.

I don't really care - what I care about is you calling me scummy because I didn't create a pressure wagon on Day 2 when literally everything I said made it painfully clear that my goal for Day 2 was a speed lynch on wgeurts. Now, you can call *that* scummy if you wish - but to call me scummy for not doing something I was openly saying I had no interest in doing (and actively fought doing) is messed up.

*That* was scummy, and by extension, I think *you* are scummy.

You're changing your story here. I am still left unsure what your issue even is, and I believe it continues to make no sense.

If your issue is what I understand it to be - why are you not complaining that I'm voting Dyx right now instead of Blair?

Not sure why you are having such a hard time grasping this.

Day 2, you left your vote on someone that you seemed to have 1 reason for voting for(wgeurts) and dismissed any notion that his lynch even needed to be discussed. Simultaneously, you had another player who you thought was pretty solidly scum (at least as much-so as wgeurts, but what appeared to be more-so), and seemed to have a lot to back it up yet never placed your vote on. Once again, townies try to lynch who they think is most scum. You, however, decided instead that wgeurts needed to die "because", rather than pursuing a lynch that certainly seemed a lot better from your standpoint. You can try to reduce what you did all you want, but I thought it sucked, and was scummy.

[Thor665]

Day 2, you left your vote on someone that you seemed to have 1 reason for voting for(wgeurts) and dismissed any notion that his lynch even needed to be discussed.

Quote any attempt at conversation from anyone that I quashed as it related to wgeurts? I don't recall it even happening.
I did try to quash conversation about *other* lynches (specifically ones I agreed with) but that is not the same as what you're saying here.
I will agree that I had 1 reason on my case to lynch wgeurts.

Simultaneously, you had another player who you thought was pretty solidly scum (

at least as much-so as wgeurts, but what appeared to be more-so

), and

seemed to have a lot to back it up

yet never placed your vote on.

Well, first off 'never placed vote on till Day2.
Also all the commentary in bold is pretty opinionated and doesn't actually match with anything I said - as long as you agree that you're projecting those thoughts onto me I am fine, but let's be clear about that part of your case.

Once again, townies try to lynch who they think is most scum.

Agreed.
You have failed to show that I thought Blair was more scum than wgeurts.

You, however, decided instead that wgeurts needed to die "because",

"Because I thought he was scum"
Agreed.

rather than pursuing a lynch that certainly seemed a lot better from your standpoint.

Even though you have no reason to think this other than your own opinion of my thoughts, that also requires me to be lying about what I said I believed.

Thoughts?

[acryon]

Day 2, you left your vote on someone that you seemed to have 1 reason for voting for(wgeurts) and dismissed any notion that his lynch even needed to be discussed.

Quote any attempt at conversation from anyone that I quashed as it related to wgeurts? I don't recall it even happening.

It was an active dismissal that discouraged any discussion. The way you flippantly referred to the wgeurts lynch such as "this can go through", "after wgeurts", and "which must go through today" created a picture of inevitability, and I think your loud voice as town helped cement it as such.

Simultaneously, you had another player who you thought was pretty solidly scum (

at least as much-so as wgeurts, but what appeared to be more-so

), and

seemed to have a lot to back it up

yet never placed your vote on.

Well, first off 'never placed vote on till Day2.

Not sure what this is referring to?

Also all the commentary in bold is pretty opinionated and doesn't actually match with anything I said - as long as you agree that you're projecting those thoughts onto me I am fine, but let's be clear about that part of your case.

I didn't say I was dissecting your words, so I am completely okay with a little projection. I am dissecting your character and alignment, and that almost always requires at least a little imagination.

Once again, townies try to lynch who they think is most scum.

Agreed.
You have failed to show that I thought Blair was more scum than wgeurts.

I disagree, and if I have, I think anyone that looked through your ISO would see that this is almost certainly the case.

You, however, decided instead that wgeurts needed to die "because",

"Because I thought he was scum"
Agreed.

Clearly you thought he was scum on some level, but I question the idea that you thought he was actually more likely to be scum than Blair, and your conversation seems to imply that. For someone that you thought was scum, you didn't really have anything to say about why he was actually scum apart from your first comment. Blair, on the other hand, you had plenty to talk about.

rather than pursuing a lynch that certainly seemed a lot better from your standpoint.

Even though you have no reason to think this other than your own opinion of my thoughts, that also requires me to be lying about what I said I believed.

Thoughts?

It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that the idea that you had more of a scum-read on Blair than wgeurts has no bearing. Anyone who reads through your ISO can get there. It's obviously way too much to quote, but I already quoted some of the more important bits in my previous posts.

[Phillammon]

Okay. I'm going to temporarily ignore the Thor/Blair issue to take a proper look at Dyslexicon again, given the wagon seems to be gathering steam.

So, having gone over Dyx's ISO, some initial thoughts. These posts are basically alternating between walls of text and fluff. I can't really fault that, though I'd prefer for something approximating moderation between the two, though that's non-indicative of alignment. Also hypocritical of me, given my posting history so far. I' mostly going to be zeroing in on #178, #286 and #321, as the three main walls of text and likely where useful stuff is going to be, if anywhere.

#178

First two quote blocks say "I don't get it" as their main points, on the subject of something that's been debated to death at that point. Not the best of starts...

Being puzzled by the move to quickhammer interests me, particularly given the next quote block asks the question of whether Thor thinks Cheetory would have been lynched if not for the quickhammmer. Part of the problem with it was that discussion was starting to turn when the hammer happened, hence the possible scum motivations for the hammer.

That said, the last quoteblock raises a good point from what Johnny said day 1. So #178 isn't all bad, as far as things go.

I'm going to have to break things up, sorry, real life, #286 and #321 later.

[Not_Mafia]

Fink replaces YYR

[Fink]

Hi guys, I'm going to try to read the whole thread today, I've got the day off and it's short. I'll post a couple intermittent thoughts as I go along, will try not to run off at the keyboard too much.

This is my first game on Mafiascum but I've played a bunch in real life. I've read a few games on here and read some of the strategy articles and forum posts. Thanks to Not_Mafia for taking a chance on me, I'll do my best not to be an idiot. Thanks for having me.

[Thor665]

It was an active dismissal that discouraged any discussion. The way you flippantly referred to the wgeurts lynch such as "this can go through", "after wgeurts", and "which must go through today" created a picture of inevitability, and I think your loud voice as town helped cement it as such.

...so, basically by me saying 'we have to lynch this guy' I destroyed the ability of anyone to discuss anything else?
Fascinating considering that I TRIED not to discuss Blair, yet somehow that one happened.
Almost as though I don't have magical mind powers to control the conversation in the thread.

Once again, townies try to lynch who they think is most scum.

Agreed.
You have failed to show that I thought Blair was more scum than wgeurts.

I disagree, and if I have, I think anyone that looked through your ISO would see that this is almost certainly the case.

Clearly you thought he was scum on some level, but I question the idea that you thought he was actually more likely to be scum than Blair, and your conversation seems to imply that. For someone that you thought was scum, you didn't really have anything to say about why he was actually scum apart from your first comment. Blair, on the other hand, you had plenty to talk about.

1. No one asked for my thoughts on wgeurts.
2. Did *you* not understand my case on wgeurts? Why didn't you ask me about it at the time then?
3. I had plenty to talk about on Blair because someone demanded that I explain my case on Blair - almost as though when asked to provide a case, I provide a case. It's sort of a strange habit I have.
4. Please refernce the comment abouve that I responded to with a and then note in explaining it you are admitting to drawing conclusions that are based on supposition with no actual support.
5. This case is scummy, it's not just bad.

It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that the idea that you had more of a scum-read on Blair than wgeurts has no bearing. Anyone who reads through your ISO can get there. It's obviously way too much to quote, but I already quoted some of the more important bits in my previous posts.

I agree that you posted me discussing a scum read on Blair.
I disagree that you have done anything to support the stance that it was stronger beyond trying to not pay attention to why I was saying the things you are using as evidence.

[acryon]

It was an active dismissal that discouraged any discussion. The way you flippantly referred to the wgeurts lynch such as "this can go through", "after wgeurts", and "which must go through today" created a picture of inevitability, and I think your loud voice as town helped cement it as such.

...so, basically by me saying 'we have to lynch this guy' I destroyed the ability of anyone to discuss anything else?
Fascinating considering that I TRIED not to discuss Blair, yet somehow that one happened.
Almost as though I don't have magical mind powers to control the conversation in the thread.

Ugh, you can reductio ad ridiculum all you want, but I hope the rest of the town doesn't fall for it.

Clearly you thought he was scum on some level, but I question the idea that you thought he was actually more likely to be scum than Blair, and your conversation seems to imply that. For someone that you thought was scum, you didn't really have anything to say about why he was actually scum apart from your first comment. Blair, on the other hand, you had plenty to talk about.

1. No one asked for my thoughts on wgeurts.

Oh wow, I didn't realize I was working with someone who doesn't ever act of their own volition, but only as a response to inquiry. Oh wait a second.

2. Did *you* not understand my case on wgeurts? Why didn't you ask me about it at the time then?

Work made me unable to be around except for a very brief part of D2.

3. I had plenty to talk about on Blair because someone demanded that I explain my case on Blair - almost as though when asked to provide a case, I provide a case. It's sort of a strange habit I have.

See my response to point 1.

4. Please refernce the comment abouve that I responded to with a and then note in explaining it you are admitting to drawing conclusions that are based on supposition with no actual support.

I won't admit that it is based on no actual support. The whole point of this game is putting together pieces that seem insignificant to create something significant. The key point there is creation. Almost every case, especially early in the game is on some level based on assumptions, and this one is no different.

5. This case is scummy, it's not just bad.

Wrong twice.

It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend that the idea that you had more of a scum-read on Blair than wgeurts has no bearing. Anyone who reads through your ISO can get there. It's obviously way too much to quote, but I already quoted some of the more important bits in my previous posts.

I agree that you posted me discussing a scum read on Blair.
I disagree that you have done anything to support the stance that it was stronger beyond trying to not pay attention to why I was saying the things you are using as evidence.

I suppose we agree to disagree then.

[Thor665]

Oh wow, I didn't realize I was working with someone who doesn't ever act of their own volition, but only as a response to inquiry. Oh wait a second.

When your case on me is "made a big issue on Blair but didn't on wgeurts"
and my response is "I made a case on neither until asked to make one on Blair"
Then...YEAH that is an issue. For you.

The rest of your post was empty nothingness, but this line was scummy cover up.

[Fink]

Okay, 10 pages in out of 20, I guess I should post some rough thoughts/reads:

Thor665: Crazy and/or scum, Initially I was thinking crazy town, then scum, then crazy scum and at this point I'm kind of back to crazy town?

Droog: Initially I had him as scummiest, but during the annoying Thor fight, he seemed pretty pro town, so he's back to normal at this halfway point, leaning town.

Shaddowez: Town Lurker, I got a sort of town read on him early, and the wgeurts vote doesn't change that for me.

Acryon: slightly scummy, was out of it for the first day, so not too sure on this

Phillammon: Towny once he finally started talking

Blair: Initially I thought pretty towny, then seemed like maybe scummy trying to exploit a crazy Thor, and now I'm kind of back to even.

Dyslexicon: No real read one way or the other.

Bins/Fokem: Still hasn't said anything.

So yeah, these are all changing as the page goes on, I'll have more final thoughts in a couple hours, but figured I should post at least

something

at the halfway mark, and it's nice to have a record for myself of my current feelings. May as well make it public.

[acryon]

Oh wow, I didn't realize I was working with someone who doesn't ever act of their own volition, but only as a response to inquiry. Oh wait a second.

When your case on me is "made a big issue on Blair but didn't on wgeurts"
and my response is "I made a case on neither until asked to make one on Blair"
Then...YEAH that is an issue. For you.

The rest of your post was empty nothingness, but this line was scummy cover up.

I wouldn't exactly call posts like the one below you "only talking about it because you were asked".

You

made the initial posts indicating you thought that Blair was scum. So don't act like you only talked about it because people asked you about it.

I am moving Shadow and YYR to likely town.
I'd like to do the same for Blair, but...eh...

[droog]

Is acryons terrible argument a plot to get us to town read him

Does anyone understand his argument
I can't see scum making it otherwise

[acryon]

Is acryons terrible argument a plot to get us to town read him

Does anyone understand his argument
I can't see scum making it otherwise

What is terrible about my argument? ISO Thor and tell me it isn't almost certain that he scum-read Blair more than wgeurts. You can't possibly.

[droog]

Do you always vote your #1

[acryon]

Do you always vote your #1

Yes, unless it is nearing deadline and I can't get a wagon finished in time for my #1, then I may vote my #2 or #3 to avoid a costly no-lynch. Do you not always vote the person you think has the highest chance of being scum except in the scenario I listed? Because that makes no sense.

[droog]

ergo
under certain conditions town votes for #2 or lower

now tell me why thor's vote was not such a condition

[acryon]

ergo
under certain conditions town votes for #2 or lower

now tell me why thor's vote was not such a condition

No, I didn't say under certain conditions. I said under one condition, and it certainly didn't meet the criteria of that one. The only reason to ever not choose your #1 is if there is no time to complete a wagon. Otherwise, why would you ever go with the choice with a lower chance. That is completely illogical.

[droog]

What do you think of me not voting fins

[acryon]

What do you think of me not voting fins

Bins? It depends. Votes are generally used for two reasons. To pressure or intent to lynch. If your vote is being used to do the latter, like Thor's was, then it should be on your #1 scum-read, unless the scenario I discussed before is in play.

[Thor665]

Which brings us back to "how was wgeurt's not my top scum read"
Which comes to your "he made more points about Blair"
Which returns to my "I was asked to expand on my Blair case - I was not asked to do so for wgeurts"
Which returns to your...well...you actually haven't really done anything for that other than to provide a quote showing me stating three other reads and acting like that meant I was intentionally trying to talk about Blair or something...which it doesn't show.

[acryon]

Which brings us back to "how was wgeurt's not my top scum read"
Which comes to your "he made more points about Blair"
Which returns to my "I was asked to expand on my Blair case - I was not asked to do so for wgeurts"
Which returns to your...well...you actually haven't really done anything for that other than to provide a quote showing me stating three other reads and acting like that meant I was intentionally trying to talk about Blair or something...which it doesn't show.

I can't believe how crazy this is. Can someone

please

go through this man's ISO and realize that he was not simply providing Blair reads at gunpoint. You certainly started it. Don't act like that post I quoted is you just stating three ordinary reads. You listed two as town and one that you mysteriously can't move to town. Are you saying you honestly didn't expect that third to elicit a response?

[Fink]

Top of page 15 update (almost caught up!)

Droog has become my most solid town read, just all-around pushing things in the right direction, trying to curb some of the play that seems actively anti-town.

Phillammon looks much worse, seems stretching a lot for pushing any of several mislynches in #328, especially as reading through this, the several clarifications on the case on my predecessory were lost in the noise to me reading it, I find it hard to believe it's so obvious and unlikely to him that others could also lose that in the noise.

Thor665 has done much more harm than good in my opinion. Still can't tell whether or not this makes him scum, but he has made this catching up extremely painful and I think helped others to stay in the background without a lot to go on. I'm 50-50 on him being scum at this point, but I think he's certainly helping them, deliberately or accidentally.

[Thor665]

Vote: wgeurts

This can go though. As soon as we started talking about a Johnny lynch suddenly a quick hammer. No thanks.

Like, I stated this case.
It's a good case.
No one even so much as blinked at the case.
The wagon was put to L-1 and I *did* make repeated notes that we should hammer it.

How am I supposed to more strongly show that I want wgeurts lynched?
Was I supposed to go YEAH, GOOD JOB VOTING FOR WGEURTS!" after everyone voted him?
Was I supposed to go "HUZZAH, NO ONE IS ASKING ME FOR MY CASE ON WGEURTS NOR QUESTIONING WHY HE IS SCUM - I NEED TO EXPLAIN A CASE ON WGEURTS AND WHY HE IS SCUM!"

There was literally no reason to do any of that.
And you are calling me scum for not doing it.
That is why your case is scummy - because it's pointing out the absence of something that would have made no sense at all if I did it while also complaining that I offered other reads during the day instead of just being quiet and happy with a lynch I was pushing.
As far as I can tell you're pointing at me doing pro-town things and demanding I defend myself for not doing random things instead.