Open 572: Nightless Vengeful Mayhem - Game Over

[droog]

@Droog: What's weird about Dys' post specifically?

She says she is not willing to entertain the wagon
"Yeah, no"

Then joins it

[Thor665]

I think you're misreading here there.

[Bicephalous Bob]

dys states that I've only done two sort of scummy things (both aren't scummy), puts forth a few unlikely scenarios in which I could be scum she doesn't really seem to believe herself and then votes me anyway

if I could decide on the three-player town block that would secure our win if correct, it'd be fink/bert/droog

-----

phil what does it take to get you to respond to this post

phil:

also please reread day 1, pay attention to thor's tone when interacting to different people and tell me what you think of this:

In RVS, thor did everything in his power to keep the pressure low in his interactions with johnny, whom he didn't have a clear read on, while his interactions with literally everyone else were aimed at blandly generating responses. Even his push on johnny was phrased as a suggestion to cheetory so johnny wouldn't have to defend himself.

-----

Phil is my top scumread. Bob's terrible coming in so strongly sure that Thor was scum based on

nothing

on page 2 and talking about Thor's grand scum plan just seems so manufactured that although I was torn both ways on Blair, that makes him pretty damn scummy in my eyes and catapults him to scumread #2.

I'm not claiming to be incredibly sure of my read, I just think the scummiest things in the game were done by thor in the first few pages

I did pay more attention to the first two days than day 3, but that's because day 3 was a lot of repetition and mutual misunderstanding

I think a big part of everyone's scumread on me is a result of me not giving a lot of value judgments to little arguments to explain my weaker reads

as for my read on phil, I'd like him to answer my question first

[Fink]

@Bob, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my Phil case even if he hasn't got back to you (if it gets to around 5PM U.S. Eastern time and he still hasn't responded.) Because I'm going to hammer you before I leave, seeing as we need a lynch and I don't know if I'll be online tomorrow.

I'll post it here if and when I can lock down a solution for tomorrow.

@Thor: I actually did think of one last thing I wanted to ask you: You townread Phil, so why do you think he's repeatedly misrepresenting my chances of getting him lynched yesterday? A majority had said they weren't lynching him and he keeps going back and denying this.

I've stopped arguing with him because I take it to be a scum-motivated attempt to derail everything. What town motive do you see for it?

@Bob: If you have thoughts on the above question I'm posing to Thor, please address that in a few hours as well.

[Thor665]

@Thor: I actually did think of one last thing I wanted to ask you: You townread Phil, so why do you think he's repeatedly misrepresenting my chances of getting him lynched yesterday? A majority had said they weren't lynching him and he keeps going back and denying this.

I have often been of the opinion that one of my strongest skills in the game is being able to tell who is or is not lynchable.
I note that other people often have trouble with this.
I do not find it unreasonable to believe that you and he are of differing opinions as to the lynchability of a given player.

[Fink]

On why PHil was unlynchable yesterday, again

Blair, Dys, and I were willing to vote Phil. 2 more were needed for lynch. Which 2 of these do you think Phil is unclear on.

DCLXVI:

I'm not interested in letting Acryon off the hook, and I'm seeing the potential for that. I'm not very high on a Phil lynch either right now.

Shaddowez:

when I first did my reads list I did feel acryon was scummier than Phil. My read on Phil is partly PoE, and based more on his lack of scum hunting and following up on things. My read on acryon is actually based on things he is saying/how he is saying them, along with his interactions with other people. Additionally, I'm still suspicious of Dys (where my vote was before I moved it), and I see Dys/acryon being a more likely team than Dys/Phil. Since Phil and acryon were the two viable wagons, since I moved my vote off Dys I'm going to move it to who I see as her partner.

Thor:

He's obligated to do this due to the hardline stance he took about me (even though it's only a presumption on his part who I suspected more and not anything I said, but, still, he's obligated)

To answer your question - no, I am unlikely to vote Phil, I feel I have made that clear.

Acryon:

The pressure on Phil will still be there after I die; the pressure on Thor won't. If I die with my vote on Thor, then at least that will remain as something to be referenced. Moving my vote to Phil will only help add to a wagon that has plenty of momentum on its own.

Plus some more, I think everyone agreed I badgered Acryon

too much

about Phil, didn't they?

Droog:

To Acryon

seeing your thought process explained
1) i still think its naively wronng
2) i sympathize with it more which means im leaning more town on you

not enough of a shift to make me think you arent the best lynch option right now

666 why are you piling on the acryon case
he's getting lynched that's not changing

It's past hammer time

So yeah, Thor (and to a lesser extent Droog and Phil), where were those 2 votes supposed to come from exactly?

[Fink]

And more significantly, Phil hasn't just been arguing that it's

possible

for me to have got him lynched yesterday, he was arguing that I should have been confident enough in my ability to get 2 of the above to vote for him that I shouldn't have changed my vote.

I've been saying this was bullshit since like my first post of the day, and no one has been agreeing with me for some reason. Why not?

[Thor665]

You are ignoring the point of what I said and asking me to argue I stance I don't care to for a purpose that is meaningless to your goal.
Theoretically your goal is to show why he is scum.
Showing that you are, debatably, more right about something fails to accomplish that goal.
Trying to sell me that Phil's case on you is bad (something I have never argued with - and I have openly claimed you as a stronger town read) is equally meaningless.

And the answer would be Shadow and Acryon or Droog - but it doesn't matter.

[Fink]

I'd been avoiding getting into this more since your earlier, similar advice. But it's been driving me nuts that people are just ignoring it.

It's not about me being more right about something, it's about Phil knowingly pushing a bad case and trying to engage me on this stupid thing repeatedly, especially after it became clear it was something I'd like to get into but was trying not to. It's about him

misrepresenting me

and my entirely reasonable belief that a Phil lynch wasn't happening. Fundamentally I'm trying to show that it was reasonable of me to give up on lynching Phil, but the thing is this isn't about defending myself from Phil's case, it's about pointing out that Phil is making up an entirely different game state than the one that existed in order to push his bad case. It's about lying and misrepresenting the facts.

And it's about his repeatedly bringing this up because it's a good way to derail me. And a good way to get people to "remember" things in a way different from how they happened.

And it's also about Droog's unquestioning agreement with Phil on this.

[Thor665]

There is a difference between a bad case and a scummy case.
I will agree his case is bad.
That said - your arguing with it comes across as an equal level of badness in my opinion.
I don't think the case is so inherently bad that it has to come from a scum perspective, and even if it was - you're arguing that in a weird way because you're debating the logic rather than discussing the motive.

In a somewhat related point - I am starting to be of the opinion that Phil is less scummy than Droog, quite frankly.

[Bicephalous Bob]

fink, I think other points in your bullet point case are stronger than that one, especially the one pertaining to the weird air of shallowness that's hanging around him

also, I've seen some things you misunderstood about my case in your ISO

hold up

VOTE: phil

[Bicephalous Bob]

Thor's second post (immediately after the first) seems to be supporting his vote in his first post as a serious vote. The "claimed scum" thing is over-the-top (as has been discussed

ad nauseum

) but he does appear to be legitimately pressing a scum read. He's just doing it antagonistically.

So here's Bob's elaboration on this later (regarding Thor's first post):

I've talked to you about anti-town behavior and mafia principles, which is what this is all about
You had a way more self-righteous attitude when talking about it in md
It's hard to say why your attitude isn't
Why should page 2 reads be easier to explain than page 40 reads? I find them equally hard to articulate.

that's an elaboration on this his attitude on the wtgeurts lynch

[Not_Mafia]

VC 4.13

Bicephalous Bob (4)-

Thor665, droog, Phillammon, Dyslexicon

(L-1)

Phillammon (3)-

Shaddowez, Fink, Bicephalous Bob

(L-2)

Shaddowez (0)-

Thor665 (0)-

droog (0)-

Fink (0)-

Dyslexicon (0)-

Bert (0)-

Not Voting (1)-

Bert

With

8

alive, it takes

5

to lynch.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2014-10-21 20:00:00)

- Oct 21th 19:00 GMT

[Fink]

that's an elaboration on this his attitude on the wtgeurts lynch

My bad. Yes it is. I was copying and pasting together a big list of quotes and must have copied the wrong thing. Hold on a sec and I'll post the one I meant.

[Bicephalous Bob]

Bob when reading page 2 is already approaching this from the presumption of scumThor. I have to agree this looks like a read generated fabricated to justify a vote that has already been decided. Which is the same thing I'm accusing Phil of, but Bob is doing it worse.

you have to understand that these were my page 2 reads and I didn't expect them to be a big part of my catch-up post when writing them

would you mind if I'd made that statement and quickly retracted it if it'd been part of a small essay

I had no idea that day 1 was only four pages long, that there were very little interactions with johnny, that day 2 would be mostly policy lynch talk and miscommunication and that by day 3 the discussion had become so convoluted that I didn't even feel like paying attention anymore

[Fink]

Okay so I posted the part of the quote I wanted to delete and vice versa. And then I reread it and revised some stuff, which made it a bit more muddled. Here's what I meant to quote as your response.

I think you correctly assessed this town as likely to quickhammer. I'm not against quick L-1 wagons, but you really give me that feeling.

And "I townread droog" just sounds really mechanical after that L-1 speech.

Which is what my comment: "Bob doesn't really elaborate on why he finds Thor's first post so scummy." was actually about.

Speaking of which, 2 questions
1: Why were you so sure of your read so quickly. I get that you had a read, but you seemed to be considering it in exclusion of everything else from a point in the game that is absurd?

2: Could you actually quote the MD self-voting policy lynch thread post(s?) that made you think Thor would react differently?

[Fink]

you have to understand that these were my page 2 reads and I didn't expect them to be a big part of my catch-up post when writing them

would you mind if I'd made that statement and quickly retracted it if it'd been part of a small essay

I had no idea that day 1 was only four pages long, that there were very little interactions with johnny, that day 2 would be mostly policy lynch talk and miscommunication and that by day 3 the discussion had become so convoluted that I didn't even feel like paying attention anymore

Yes, if that had been part of a small essay, I would have received it differently. But that's assuming the small essay had similar supposition about "scumDroog would be motivated to do X because Y, and scumBins would have addressed Z." It wasn't the speculation on Thor, it was the speculation being limited to Thor, implying to me that was all you cared about.

And the fact that you wrote so little necessarily puts more focus on what you

did

write.

Also, the fact that you then built a case on this reasoning also made it more central.

It never was just a comment, that's the problem. And I get getting frustrated with Blair v. Thor (as I mentioned, I've read it 3 times and was pulling my hair out on the last one) but the disinterest in things in the later part of Day 3 like DCXVIwhatever-(did I just get that right for once?), Thor vs Dys, me and Thor and Dys vs. Blair, the Acryon wagon etc. only served to make it look like you were more interested in driving a Thor (mis)lynch than finding scum.

[Bicephalous Bob]

that's what I was talking about here:

Bob when reading page 2 is already approaching this from the presumption of scumThor. I have to agree this looks like a read generated fabricated to justify a vote that has already been decided. Which is the same thing I'm accusing Phil of, but Bob is doing it worse.

you have to understand that these were my page 2 reads and I didn't expect them to be a big part of my catch-up post when writing them

would you mind if I'd made that statement and quickly retracted it if it'd been part of a small essay

the post gave me pretty bad feelings and I tried to quickly explain it in my page 2 catch-up post

I kept defending the reason for about one day, but I realized it was too abstract to explain after that

1: Why were you so sure of your read so quickly. I get that you had a read, but you seemed to be considering it in exclusion of everything else from a point in the game that is absurd?

I wasn't incredibly sure of my read by page 2, but it was strong for a page 2 read so I phrased it as a strong read. Most other stuff was about cheetory who I knew was dead.

2: Could you actually quote the MD self-voting policy lynch thread post(s?) that made you think Thor would react differently?

I'd expect most people to do this, but you in particular because

you're quickly irritated by anti-town people

, you're on a crusade to make all anti-town play disappear, you're very vocal about your opinions,

you don't want to be seen as the bad guy socially

and

you're really attached to your own arguments

.

you miss the bold incentives as scum

Which of the bold points didn't you get from the md-thread?

If it's "you don't want to be seen as the bad guy socially", that should be "you want to keep people on your side morally, even outside the game," and it applies more to people in general than to thor specifically.

[Phillammon]

phil what does it take to get you to respond to this post

phil:

also please reread day 1, pay attention to thor's tone when interacting to different people and tell me what you think of this:

In RVS, thor did everything in his power to keep the pressure low in his interactions with johnny, whom he didn't have a clear read on, while his interactions with literally everyone else were aimed at blandly generating responses. Even his push on johnny was phrased as a suggestion to cheetory so johnny wouldn't have to defend himself.

-----

I'm assuming you're referring to post #80 with that last part. Excluding that one, specific point, which I'm not convinced I agree is even related, I'm not seeing what you mean at all. He didn't have a clear read on Johnny day 1, this is accurate. And also true of everyone outside nine out of the twelve players in this game. His tone feels neutral, but generally townish, and it looked to me like he was going somewhere with that Cheetory suggestion anyway, until it was cut short by the obvious.

[Phillammon]

In short, I don't buy it.

[Fink]

Which of the bold points didn't you get from the md-thread?

If it's "you don't want to be seen as the bad guy socially", that should be "you want to keep people on your side morally, even outside the game," and it applies more to people in general than to thor specifically.

While that phrasing does clarify what you mean somewhat, it doesn't answer the reason I'm trying to get you to dig up a quote: you seem to have a very firm idea of how he'd react. The way you referenced that thread, I thought you were seeing something in particular there that I might have missed (it is kind of long after all). I broadly agree with your characterization of Thor, but I think the thing is, I broadly agree with Thor. i.e. I think I would lynch you if you self voted. I think I'd tell you to take the stupid vote off yourself first, but I wouldn't townread someone for it, and I might scumread someone for it.

So I'm wondering if your difference in thinking from me is what led you to think Thor would react differently, because he reacted in a way I'd expect him to. After all, he wanted to lynch wgeurts, and the whole point of a policy lynch (which we've agreed was not the entirety of the case) is that something is so anti-town you can't let scum get away with it, and you can't let town get away with it lest they then pull the same thing as scum later.

So Thor reacted the way I expected, and not the way you expected, I'm trying to pick your brain about our differences.

1. So am I correct in assuming there's no specific quote, just general attitude from the thread?

2. You said you expected him to be more self-righteous, and then that you expected him to listen to the pleas of a newbie. But that second expectation would seem to clash with your characterization of him. Isn't a recurring theme of that thread lynching people so they don't repeat their mistakes? So I'm still not clear about what you expected and why, and we've been talking around this for a week now.

[Bicephalous Bob]

I'm assuming you're referring to post #80 with that last part. Excluding that one, specific point, which I'm not convinced I agree is even related, I'm not seeing what you mean at all. He didn't have a clear read on Johnny day 1, this is accurate. And also true of everyone outside nine out of the twelve players in this game. His tone feels neutral, but generally townish, and it looked to me like he was going somewhere with that Cheetory suggestion anyway, until it was cut short by the obvious.

post 77 bugs me most

I'm clearly not saying that it's scummy that he doesn't have a clear read on johnny

do you think there is a difference in pressure and tone when thor is talking to players that are and aren't johnny?

[Bicephalous Bob]

that should be to and about

[Bicephalous Bob]

1. So am I correct in assuming there's no specific quote, just general attitude from the thread?

yes

2. You said you expected him to be more self-righteous, and then that you expected him to listen to the pleas of a newbie. But that second expectation would seem to clash with your characterization of him. Isn't a recurring theme of that thread lynching people so they don't repeat their mistakes? So I'm still not clear about what you expected and why, and we've been talking around this for a week now.

I'm not saying "listen", I'm saying "react"

he didn't explain to geurts he was partly lynching him as a lesson

[Bert]

VOTE: Phil

Regardless of how I don't agree with Bob's Thor read or how scummy Blair was when I read last week, I can't bring myself to vote for him after our past games. You can count on me being present when you are having a field day pointing out my bad play tomorrow.