Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[JordanA24]

Anything else to add?

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, pickemgenius
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, JordanA24
Guardian (1): somestrangeflea
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Erg0
ryan (2): The Fonz, Numenorean7
somestrangeflea (4): Guardian, NabakovNabakov, Adel, Ether


Not voting (5): darko, Zindaras, Sacred, Jalyn, Sir Tornado

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch. At deadline, the one with the most votes is lynched.

[NabakovNabakov]

<snip>

but I see him generally as wagoning and toadying

Wagoning, I can get. Toadying makes absolutely no sense to me

as a word

. Explain please.

but allows others to make the actual cases for him

I have no defence for this because it's true.

incredibly scummy that he spouts the "It's a good lynch even if he comes up town" line.

Apart from Sarcastro, who I've changed my mind about, I haven't actually said this

about

anyone.


Adel didn't put any reasoning for her vote in her post, so I'm not sure what that's about.

I was essentially accusing you of being sycophantic and uniform. You had a tendancy to buddy up to Zindaras in particular, and had a tendancy to just nod-along with whatever the prevailing viewpoint was (especially if it were to get somebody lynched). It's not even so much that, as it is making encouraging little comments along the way ( in a "Zindy wins the Thread" manner)

Do you also admit to being antagonistic of those under the gun?


Hmm... many apologies, I definitely remember somebody doing that recently, but going over the thread kills that. Let's just chalk that up to taking 3 hours to make that post.


Regardless, saying that you can't make cases or think for yourself isn't going to cut it here. It's very easy for the scum to hide in popular opinion or on the popular bandwagons. Even town who find themselves more swayed by the opinions of others then by their own opinions should have more to add than you have.

@Sir T: I'm not saying you blatantly commit fallacies for your own gains, but sometimes I don't find myself agreeing with the wordings of your premises or conclusions. It's nothing major, and I generally get town vibes from you.

More later

[NabakovNabakov]

Nevermind, I found what I was looking for:

@The Fonz: An excellent analysis, but to address the point about "Lynching roles vs lynching players". I feel that this is just a difference in playstyles. You play from the perspective of "I only want to lynch people I feel are scum", whereas I play from the perspective of "I want to lynch people I feel are scum, but if you're not helping us, you shouldn't be here." That said, I am feeling better about Sarcastro that I did earlier.

Even if this was just in refrence to Sarcastro, it's a stupid/scummy position to take, and (if you are to be trusted) the fact that you took it on Sarc indicates that you had

no reads

at the time which is utter bullshit.

@Num: I was basically referring to this:

I'm barely keeping up in my games. I am reading every post. I am partial to Guardian and PEG being scum together but not being lovers together. I could vote to lynch either today. Both seem the type of player who are very active when they are scum, the posts they direct at each other strike me as very careful. I think each could be scum individually of the other.

Now who's talking about relationships between living players? And bringing up lovers, no less!

and the bruhaha that followed. In my eyes, a single contradiction of that nature does not constitute an entire case (which is why I though Pickem was also being silly and sniperish.) You also seem the most concerned with pointing out those who haven't posted yet (even if they've gone on vacation). Not necissarily scummy, but definitely trying to throw the suspicion around without really committing to anything.


To adress a few minor issues in the game that I missed:

Guardian's questions to Adel were loaded, I can understand why she didn't want to answer them, it seemed like him fishing for a case.

No matter how many rolleyes he put in, Ryan's comment was still made with definite intent. Even a sarcastic statement can effect the game and the way people feel, and yours was aimed at getting you off the hook if Guardian turned up town. Stop trying to claim that it meant nothing.

[ryan]

NabakovNabakov: I'm not going to argue with you, I've stated on numerous occasions it was a response to Sir T made in jest, but anyway............

[Sir Tornado]

NabakovNabakov: I'm not going to argue with you, I've stated on numerous occasions it was a response to Sir T made in jest, but anyway............

Was that a response to my comment? If I remember correctly, that was in response to a comment made by The Fonz.

[ryan]

NabakovNabakov: I'm not going to argue with you, I've stated on numerous occasions it was a response to Sir T made in jest, but anyway............

Was that a response to my comment? If I remember correctly, that was in response to a comment made by The Fonz.

I think it was a sort of combined effort, I'll have to go back and look

[ryan]

Post 683 and 684. You said I'd be more likely to be scum if Guardian was scum.

[Sir Tornado]

Post 683 and 684. You said I'd be more likely to be scum if Guardian was scum.

I've been saying you are likely to be scum in Guardian comes up scum for something like forever. (Actually since after you defended Guardian way back)

[The Fonz]

NabakovNabakov: I'm not going to argue with you, I've stated on numerous occasions it was a response to Sir T made in jest, but anyway............

Was that a response to my comment? If I remember correctly, that was in response to a comment made by The Fonz.

I think it was a sort of combined effort, I'll have to go back and look

ST thinks Guardian is scum, and you're his buddy defending him.
I think Guardian's town, and you're scum buddying up to him.

[Guardian]

Guardian's questions to Adel were loaded, I can understand why she didn't want to answer them, it seemed like him fishing for a case.

That's odd, since she *did* answer them when I provided her with them, and she said she didn't answer them because she didn't have time to find them .

How was I fishing for a case? I was trying to get inside her head. It seemed like *her* post that started the exchange was fishing for a case.

No matter how many rolleyes he put in, Ryan's comment was still made with definite intent. Even a sarcastic statement can effect the game and the way people feel, and yours was aimed at getting you off the hook if Guardian turned up town. Stop trying to claim that it meant nothing.

qtf...

[Jalyn]

OK. I'm not sure if you people are trying to kill me or get me fired, but I've completed my initial read through.

Something that occured to me partway through the thread and I think perhaps everyone should spend a little time thinking, though not necessarily talking, about (especially the 5 loving lovers) is that, based on the wording of the PMs in the OP, I don't think that the main mafia group knew who the treacherous lover's partner is before the day started. The mafia PM states who the treacherous lover but not who their duped partner is. For the moment, the mafia have a vested interest in keeping the duped partner alive - a one for one trade leaving four confirmable innocents (well, four confirmable innocents that it would take them two nights to dispose of) is not a good move for the mafia.

OK, now it's time for a targetted read with analysis. I'll be back.

[Guardian]

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

[Sir Tornado]

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

Nice try Guardian...

[Guardian]

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

Nice try Guardian...

?? If the mafia could talk pregame Jalyn's theory is negated. Some mods let the mafia talk pregame, some don't.

[Sir Tornado]

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

Nice try Guardian...

?? If the mafia could talk pregame Jalyn's theory is negated. Some mods let the mafia talk pregame, some don't.

It is not mentioned in the rules... so I am not sure whether they were allowed to talk during N0.

However, the scum were allowed to talk in N0 all the other games in which I have participated so far... (although it was mentioned clearly in the rules they were allowed to do that in those games)

[somestrangeflea]

I was essentially accusing you of being sycophantic and uniform. You had a tendancy to buddy up to Zindaras in particular, and had a tendancy to just nod-along with whatever the prevailing viewpoint was (especially if it were to get somebody lynched). It's not even so much that, as it is making encouraging little comments along the way (in a "Zindy wins the Thread" manner)

Oh, that actually makes sense. I never noticed it myself before, but I can see why you would think that I was attempting to buddy up to Zindaras. As for the "Zindie wins the thread" fiasco, (which I really didn't think would make as much of an impact as it did) that was merely poor repetition of a joke, which shows my poor skills as a comedian more than anything else.

Do you also admit to being antagonistic of those under the gun?

I can only really pick out being antagonistic towards darko early on in the thread, and I will admit to that, but I don't really know who else you could be referring to.

Regardless, saying that you can't make cases or think for yourself isn't going to cut it here.

A fair point.

It's very easy for the scum to hide in popular opinion or on the popular bandwagons.

If I may, a counter-example. During the fiasco regarding Adel and pickem, I feel that, on this occasion, I was going against popular opinion on this matter quite heavily. Whilst I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, it is a valid defence, however small.

Even town who find themselves more swayed by the opinions of others then by their own opinions should have more to add than you have.

Again, another fair point.
----

Even if this was just in refrence to Sarcastro, it's a stupid/scummy position to take, and (if you are to be trusted) the fact that you took it on Sarc indicates that you had no reads at the time which is utter bullshit.

I never voted though. I was testing whether or not lynching players would "fly" in this game, since some towns dislike it as a tactic, and some towns do. Clearly, this town doesn't, so I'm not going to try and push a "not useful" lynch.

This post was interrupted by the Simpsons Movie, which was reasonable. The interruption is marked with a handy ----

[Sir Tornado]

I never voted though. I was testing whether or not lynching players would "fly" in this game, since some towns dislike it as a tactic, and some towns do. Clearly, this town doesn't, so I'm not going to try and push a "not useful" lynch.

I am wondering if this sentence alone is enough to lynch the Fleaboy...

If I may, a counter-example. During the fiasco regarding Adel and pickem, I feel that, on this occasion, I was going against popular opinion on this matter quite heavily. Whilst I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, it is a valid defence, however small.

Actually, no. It was Me, You, Erg0 v Guardian and PEG, with The Fonz agreeing a bit on both the sides and Xdaamno providing the distraction.

[somestrangeflea]

If I may, a counter-example. During the fiasco regarding Adel and pickem, I feel that, on this occasion, I was going against popular opinion on this matter quite heavily. Whilst I realise that this doesn't disprove your point, it is a valid defence, however small.

Actually, no. It was Me, You, Erg0 v Guardian and PEG, with The Fonz agreeing a bit on both the sides and Xdaamno providing the distraction.

Oh? My mistake.

[Xdaamno]

and Xdaamno providing the distraction.

My attention span diminishes with some many players >.>

[Numenorean7]

@Num: I was basically referring to this:

I'm barely keeping up in my games. I am reading every post. I am partial to Guardian and PEG being scum together but not being lovers together. I could vote to lynch either today. Both seem the type of player who are very active when they are scum, the posts they direct at each other strike me as very careful. I think each could be scum individually of the other.

Now who's talking about relationships between living players? And bringing up lovers, no less!

and the bruhaha that followed. In my eyes, a single contradiction of that nature does not constitute an entire case (which is why I though Pickem was also being silly and sniperish.) You also seem the most concerned with pointing out those who haven't posted yet (even if they've gone on vacation). Not necissarily scummy, but definitely trying to throw the suspicion around without really committing to anything.

I see. As far as Adel, I saw the contradiction and thought it would be worth bringing it up and pressuring her on it, especially because a similar inconsistency had been a big topic of irrelevant discussion for the last several pages. I thought and still think it was scummy, but I agree that it does not constitute a good case. That's why I'm not voting her anymore.
As far as inactives, I want them to either speak up or be replaced, not lynched.

[Adel]

unvote: Guardian vote:SomeStrangeFlea

My second pick is now ryan. I could vote for either of them.

I'm putting a lot of trust into NabNab in this game, but now he seems really townie to me in this game to me.

His explanation for what is going on makes more sense to me than what I was looking at.


And I wasn't very happy with my vote on Guardian.

I know I'm supposed to lookup new evidence or present a new case, but I don't have one, and I don't really have one against Guardian either, so i figure it balances out.

So we could easily see this vote as following correct? As cautious as you usually play I'm very interested in how you let a new person replace in and went right with him on your vote selection.

By "new person" did you mean NabNab or Tar? I am following NabNab, for sure. My understanding of the game isn't very convincing even to me, and his makes a lot of sense to me. I have more trust in him being town

and

picking out the right scum for a lynch than I do in me picking out scum in this game's day 1. So, I'm following NabNab. I don't have a good read on Tar, and I think I voted for SSF before he did anyway. I am not following Tar.

[Adel]

As far as inactives, I want them to either speak up or be replaced, not lynched.

Agreed. I think that either tomorrow or possibly even the next day, we need to make flushing lurkers a priority. Letting lurkers lurk through to endgame or even just late in the middle game strikes me as negligence that is almost criminal. I favor the "don't lynch lurkers, just wagon them to -1 until they get replaced, cause a misstep, meet our conditions, or break" metagame.

[Sir Tornado]

unvote: Guardian vote:SomeStrangeFlea

My second pick is now ryan. I could vote for either of them.

I'm putting a lot of trust into NabNab in this game, but now he seems really townie to me in this game to me.

His explanation for what is going on makes more sense to me than what I was looking at.


And I wasn't very happy with my vote on Guardian.

I know I'm supposed to lookup new evidence or present a new case, but I don't have one, and I don't really have one against Guardian either, so i figure it balances out.

So we could easily see this vote as following correct? As cautious as you usually play I'm very interested in how you let a new person replace in and went right with him on your vote selection.

By "new person" did you mean NabNab or Tar? I am following NabNab, for sure. My understanding of the game isn't very convincing even to me, and his makes a lot of sense to me. I have more trust in him being town

and

picking out the right scum for a lynch than I do in me picking out scum in this game's day 1. So, I'm following NabNab. I don't have a good read on Tar, and I think I voted for SSF before he did anyway. I am not following Tar.

Tar? Who is Tar? Is Tarhalindur playing this game and I absolutely missed him?

[NabakovNabakov]

^^ Well I'm not replacing in either. Oh well.

@Guardian: She didn't have time to answer your questions because it takes time to answer a questions like " Don't you think you gave me evidence I obviously was going to be looking for?" and "Terrible arguments, flip flopping, and buddying up are scummy. Do you think you are or are not guilty of these things? "without looking scummy, no matter what your role.

@Num: Fair enough, at most my position on you is an IGMEOY because you seem a bit different in this game. I'd just like it if you took a broader view.

@Adel: I'm glad that you find my analysis informative, but I feel the same things I said about Zindy apply just as much to me. At least say you're following my cases, because it's disconcerting when you say you're just following me.


@SSF: I would say you've been quite the jerk to Guardian, and lynching players before roles never "flies" unless the mafia has the town completely under it's thumb. I'll give you a rhetorical tip here, conceding points is only to your advantage if it allows you to win a few down the road. All I'm getting from you right now is, "Yup, I've been pretty scummy so far." No explanation other than playstyle, and no real attempts to play better. I am exceedingly happy with my vote.

[Numenorean7]

Tar? Who is Tar? Is Tarhalindur playing this game and I absolutely missed him?

Tarhalindur is playing in Mini 458. Adel, NabNab, pickem, and I are all over there too. I expect Adel got the games mixed up.