Open 566: Murder on the Oriental Express (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

scrambles, your willingness to get into an indepth discussion about whether you have been arguing for the sake of arguing (which I don't even think is alignment indicative, just frustrating from a reading-the-thread standpoint), which is in stark contrast to your refusal to get into any type of discussion (besides a one-liner "wrong lol" and "wifom") about my suspicions of you, is suspicious in and of itself.

[acryon]

@GreenCrayons

What do you think of RoyalApe's reads? Especially near the end, there wasn't much from him, but specifically his reads in 327: "AFF, acryon and CKD in my goodish pile. chaos is in my scumish pile"

Ape himself didn't give much of a reason for his reads, so I take your question as simply asking me how do I feel about those players.

I was actually asking what you thought of his reads and how you think he got there, although I do actually greatly appreciate your insight on those players as well.

[scrambles]

scrambles, your willingness to get into an indepth discussion about whether you have been arguing for the sake of arguing (which I don't even think is alignment indicative, just frustrating from a reading-the-thread standpoint), which is in stark contrast to your refusal to get into any type of discussion (besides a one-liner "wrong lol" and "wifom") about my suspicions of you, is suspicious in and of itself.

This isn't about me, this is about you and your willingness to jump on a pallid buzzword accusation and push momentum.

[Green Crayons]

Hey, that sure is a sentence.

[scrambles]

Are you trying to rile me up? Is that your goal here? The sentence is clearly legible even if the comma should've been a period.

[Green Crayons]

Oh, no. It's a sentence alright. And perfectly legible, too. But that's all it has going for it.

Your sentence is an accusation that has no basis in reality.

[ChannelDelibird]

As for CDB, who replaced into the slot, I think his case on Amy was uninspiring. The fact that he walked away from that case, even though he failed to justify

why

he was backing away (I noted this back in Post 1087) does not look good. It's a town thing to say "hey, I'm not sure about my case, I recognize that it's not perfect, etc." CDB, on the other hand, backed away from his AFF case in Post 1046 even though he appeared to be still all about his AFF suspicions in Post 1045, and his justification for the unvote was simply because he wanted to hear alternatives (which doesn't require an unvote). Feels too manufactured.

Apologies for not making this clearer but, as I believe that I already alluded to while CKD was questioning me a couple of pages ago, a lot of my recent posting re: Amy has been as much about clarifying my thought process and showing that I'm not just pulling something out of my arse as it has been about mining every possible reason why Amy might be scum.

I'm someone who gets caught up in an argument and will keep going and going until my point is completely understood and am prone to falling into the trap of starting out making an argument about a person to convince other people to think as I do but ending up arguing at that person as if they can be convinced that I am right and they are scum (which, obviously, neither alignment would do, but that doesn't stop it being a natural impulse). You link post 1045 there but in that post, that's just me arguing because I need to argue, because the point hasn't been conceded, because I'm not being understood. Post 1046 is all about the fact that I'm realising that I may have lost sight of what I actually wanted to achieve, because in 1045 the things that I'm quoting from Amy aren't themselves more likely to come from scum than town.

And while that was happening I was becoming aware of the fact that my pushing of the Amy wagon had rather become the only thing happening at that point in the Day, something on which I've touched in my discussions of acryon last night. Amy's continued willingness to put up a fight to me, even if I was unsatisfied with what she was saying, was getting me paranoid, and if nothing else was being pushed then I became concerned that this was in fact a wagon that scum were happy to let me drive to completion. This is why I said that I wanted people to suggest alternatives; I wanted to force such scum to push something else, if that was indeed what was happening.

As for my current position on Amy, so that I'm clear about it: I'm currently conflicted. I still believe in much of what I said about her as good reasons to find a player scummy, but her continuing reaction to it has been so bizarre that I am finding it hard to get a read on her as a person, and that sort of thing creates room for mistakes. That, coupled with the feeling that I was being encouraged to push her lynch with nothing else happening, starts suggesting to me that I might have mistakenly opened up an avenue for a mislynch, and for now I am willing to give that reading of the game as a whole more credence than I am my reading of a player who is clearly somewhat alien to me. So I guess that, for now, I am operating under the assumption that she is probably town.

[scrambles]

hmm. As much as I hate to admit it, you're right. The only thing you were interested from me was my explanation for your analysis.
I dunno how I got that wrong. At the time, I felt like you were egging titus on.

[scrambles]

Well, great second game from me. Really making that good impression that I wanted to.
Sigh, what do you want from me green, I'll answer you and not argue.

[Green Crayons]

@acryon:

do you still want me to do that? I only skimmed what Ape posted on my read through, and haven't looked back, but I don't recall him posting in a manner that was particularly insightful to divine what he was thinking but not saying. I don't know how fruitful my attempt will be.

@CDB:

I hear what you're saying. It sounds reasonable. It does. Your explanation isn't alignment indicative, but I will submit that it lessens my suspicion of your play in particular. That said, you inherited the sins of your predecessor. If you've got a better argument based on Beli interactions than what I said about scrambles or what Toby said about chaos, I'm all ears.

@scrambles:

I appreciate the step back, and I'll take a deep breath as well and say that I was just shooting from the hip when I posted my fiesty/arguing for its own sake thoughts -- it was just a stray observation that struck me in a time when posts were aflying. It might not have been based on an entirely accurate premise, but it certainly was how I saw your posts coming across at the time.

When I have a moment, I'll single out a few major points of my case against you and ask about your thoughts. I appreciate the fact that you're engaging me.

[acryon]

@acryon:

do you still want me to do that? I only skimmed what Ape posted on my read through, and haven't looked back, but I don't recall him posting in a manner that was particularly insightful to divine what he was thinking but not saying. I don't know how fruitful my attempt will be.

Since you and CDB showed how easy it was to explain the reasoning behind Titus' posts, I think you would do fine with Ape's since his posts are at least as insightful as Titus'. I think it may be helpful to clear up that half of your slot.

[Green Crayons]

@scrambles:

I'll pick out the strongest issues I have with your play from my case.

Point 1)

(a)

The basis for scrambles' Beli vote is solely: "I currently dont like belisarius at all for that "derp, I have no scumreads" comment." This is a surface read. It's not even a read. It's copying and pasting what other players said immediately prior to scrambles vote: acryon in Post 328 and farside in Post 337.

(d)

scrambles is willing to back of Beli (Post 359), but never actually does so (much less follow through this willingness to reevaluate his Beli-vote) because that would look REALLY BAD if he jumped off the Beli-wagon and a Beli lynch actually went through.

I'm combining these two points because they focus on your D1 Beli-vote justifications. You voted while using other player's reasonings, and then promised to reevaluate those suspicions but never appeared to do so. Were you actively influenced by other player's Beli-suspicions -- if so, why didn't you just own up to it, rather than appear to present your suspicions as original? What happened to reevaluating your Beli-vote?


Point 2)

(b)

The timing of the Bel vote is particularly cringe-worthy.

- Naked Jogger voted Beli in Post 314. That brought Beli up to 2 votes (Amy and Naked), putting the Beli-wagon just one vote behind the Chaos-wagon (3 votes) and the Skelda-wagon (3 votes).
- From NakedJogger's Beli-vote to scrambles Beli-vote, nobody else actually voted Beli. But it's clear that that's where the wind was blowing:
- Skelda, Post 316: "Of the people with votes, I am most likely to go back to Beli. I really do not think that Chaos is scum. I guess I could see acryon, not really sure. But I am not in the mood to die Day 1 again."
- acryon, Post 328: "I don't like votes without explanation (314 from NakedJogger), but 313 from Belisaurus really sucks IMO. Bel's entire ISO at this point is tunneling Farside and trolling. Follow that up with a "darn I wish I had more to go off of!" and he really doesn't look good to me."
- acryon, Post 332: "I would say I am between Bel and Skelda at this point."
- farside, Post 337: "Bel is another player that concerns me. I don't see a lot coming from him for reads. Those are still my top two scum reads."
- Dry-fit, Post 338: "Belisaurius is a wildcard for me. I still don't know what to think of him."

SPECULATION: scrambles saw that there were votes already on Beli-scum, and saw that there were plenty of players who were also willing (and almost ready) to vote Beli. Rather than being late to the party, scrambles got ahead of the Beli-wagon and preemptively bussed his partner.

QUERY: why bus a partner over, putting Beli-wagon at 3 votes, to tie it with the other two leading wagons (Chaos and Skelda)? Because scum like to bus their partners for some stupid reason. Because scrambles wouldn't have to explain away a bad vote on confirmed town Skelda, or likely town Chaos. Makes it easier to play.

Were you aware of this growing Beli-suspicion? (This is an admittedly Catch-22 question, but I'm more interested in the follow up question/answer for purposes of scumhunting.)


Point 3)

(a)

scrambles first D2 posts asks

chaos

, and only chaos, what chaos thinks about Beli. (Post 570, Post 574, Post 634.) Why the zeroing in on chaos? Why not try to get more of the thread on board? It looks like scrambles is making a half-hearted attempt to get people back on the Beli-wagon.

So what's the deal with chaos? Why were you focusing only on him to consider a Beli-vote?


Point 4)

(b)

scrambles reasoning for a Beli-vote have downgraded: no longer is it that Beli isn't actually giving good reasons, it's only that "there's something there," a "feeling," and some type of "vibe." (Post 574.) Holy smokes that's a horrible effort to justify a suspicion: "Hey guys, I totally am on board with this suspicion, but I'll let others fill out my nebulous accusations." Looks like scum recognizing that Beli-lynch might be inevitable for D2, but doesn't want to actually contribute to it at the beginning of the day just in case if suspicions go elsewhere.

Why the shift in your justifications in a Beli-vote? On D1, you had pretty solid accusations. On D2, they devolved into a "feeling" and a "vibe."


Point 5)

(d)

scrambles then ignores Beli for the remainder of the day, up until Beli is L-1. Only then does scrambles jab at Beli in Post 861. scrambles literally did not talk to Beli at all, did not try to pursue or explore his suspicions, until the Beli lynch was sealed.

I did not see you directly interacting with Beli during your time voting for him up until this post. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) What was your thought process behind simply stating a basis for your Beli-vote without ever attempting to actually engage Beli?

[acryon]

I've been interested in looking back over some people. First up is Chaos:
-63 from Chaos didn’t feel genuine at all. First part is parroting and the second is a total strawman.
-Said he would post a reads-list several times and never really delivered. This isn’t inherently scummy, but it’s worth noting.
-236

sounds

ok, but at the same time, it is still delightfully vague. Again promises a reads-list.
-294 is the best of his posts so far by a long-shot. The statements on Skelda being town, as well as NJ being scummy both make sense.
-500 is now a step in the wrong direction. He looked to be trying to stop the Skelda wagon in 294, but is unfortunately voting Skelda here and for a pretty weak reason IMO. Also throws out a weak defense of Beli.
-511 I really did not buy at all. To me, it definitely didn’t seem like scum giving up, and I have probably seen town give up just as much as scum in the face of a wagon.
-568 actually has a pretty decent reasoning to vote AFF. Since a lot of Chaos’ posts are so far apart, it’s hard to tell where his mindset was that causes his reads to change. This makes him overall a bit difficult to assess.
-572 is bad, especially looking back after the Beli flip. His reasons for defending Beli have all been really weak and vague IMO.
-630: I don’t really like how he backed off of the AFF vote so easily when confronted by her. Total lack of pressure.
-631 is another weird post. Now says that he sees how people think Beli was scummy, but still doesn’t think we should vote him. Why exactly?
-635: Just said that he sees how people think Beli is scummy, but then asks for another run-down on why. This just seemed off to me.

I am interested especially in CDB's thoughts on this.

[ChannelDelibird]

I haven't got time to make or fully read a big post at the moment (at work) but I can already tell you that I won't be going into detail on my predecessor. I do not have anything that he left over for me to read of his thoughts and I cannot speak to how he thinks. All you would get from me is an attempt to read a player whose alignment I already know and in whose being defended I have a vested interest. You're going to have to make your own conclusions about the two of us though, for what it's worth, I can confirm that our slot is town.

[acryon]

Riddleton:
-726 is what makes me think Riddleton is almost definitely town. Good analysis of someone who turned out to be scum.
-801 he questions one of my comments about Beli being scummy, but is still voting Beli. This reads very town to me. He doesn’t have anything to gain as scum by disliking someone else’s argument on the person he is already voting for.
-803 is all pretty astute analysis on CKD IMO.
-825: He prods Titus for real info, which I also wish I would have done earlier.

This one is pretty quick, especially since your replacement slots said approximately nothing. The things they said that were even a little scummy I will happily write off as newbie given the content you have provided.

Riddleton is my top town-read.

[acryon]

I haven't got time to make or fully read a big post at the moment (at work) but I can already tell you that I won't be going into detail on my predecessor. I do not have anything that he left over for me to read of his thoughts and I cannot speak to how he thinks. All you would get from me is an attempt to read a player whose alignment I already know and in whose being defended I have a vested interest. You're going to have to make your own conclusions about the two of us though, for what it's worth, I can confirm that our slot is town.

Fair. At the very least, I know it is easy for us to forget about the previous play of replacements, so I think it's important to bring it back up for the sake of proper discussion.

[ChannelDelibird]

Yeah, I'm all for paying proper attention to predecessors and obviously I'm aware that Chaos is widely seen as having incriminated himself so you should certainly keep his actions in mind. Such is the burden of the replacement.

[curiouskarmadog]

wtf, thread blew up...have not really read anything since last I posted. will post on Friday or Sat.

[Amy Farrah Fowler]

V/LA until Saturday k thx

[farside22]

Prod dodge.
I've had only few minutes to read things.
Tomorrow I can catch up.

[scrambles]

Gc ill get to you around noon tomorrow hopefully.

[Titus]

Scrambles and acryon are still scum.

[acryon]

Scrambles and acryon are still scum.

Can you at least explain your reasons for thinking I am scum so I can debunk them?

[acryon]

@CKD: Something I'd like to know when you are back.
Early on, one of your big issues with Skelda was how he kept calling people town without reasoning. Do you think this is dissimilar to what Titus has done, and if so why? If you think it is similar, what do you think of it this time around?

[ChannelDelibird]

Gonna look to sit down and make some decisions this evening. People whom I'm pretty sure that I don't want to lynch Today are farside, CKD, Titus, GC, Amy and Toby so that does helpfully narrow things down but I need to have a better look at the case on scrambles.