MINI 1688 — BEES!!! — game over

[Tammy]

Your push on why frogger was pushing and questioning lala was overblown because what he was doing was extremely standard for the early game. You were essentially getting after him for playing mafia and in the process didn't let him get a read on lala organically from that. Most people don't think they've caught scum for sure in the first few posts of the game and are trying to get a read. And because it's the nature of the game that early posting isn't going to be strong, hypocrisy is going to be actually a common thing. As the game progresses hypocrisy still isn't a scum tell.

By needling him the way that you did, you gave lala no reason to actually start producing content because the person who was pushing her to try to get a read on her was being attacked and questioned by you for playing the game. You didn't let it play out.

I didn't say that you hadn't prodded anywhere else. I said a whole lot of it, and it is objectively true that you have not prodded everyone else in the game in the same manner you prodded frogger in the first few pages of the game, which makes my early observation of what type of player you are not as strong.

Now I'm going swimming!

[Tammy]

*to avoid any misunderstandings. I'm not calling you a not strong player. I formed an observation of what type of player you might be from that early page interaction and your consequent play weakened my original observation.

[KayP]

Tammy posted a lot of words! And some of them were words that made sense and felt okay, and then some of them were words that felt purely driven by her desire to get Glork lynched... and that desire feels motivated for purely defensive reasons. I'm reading through it now, and basically everything Tammy said seemed to come from a place of "Glork attacked me and therefore he is scum".

I'm trying to put my finger on the specifics of what feels 'off' about it but I'm finding it difficult. Just sort of writing all stream-of-consciousness style here then I'll clean it up into something more structured later... Glork's push on me never felt really serious, as I mentioned above. His suspicion of me was also pretty early in the game, like page 5? It's weird that Tammy seemingly doesn't like early game serious reads (as evidenced by Tammy's point about my early questioning of Frogger) but is willing to jump all over Glork having a fluid read that early. I just went back and looked and remembered that Glork voted for me early because he felt like I was jumping on a weak link (Frogger)... we had some dialogue about it in which we both explained ourselves... then he hopped on to other things. That felt pretty natural to me. In general, Glork's play feels like a movie reel where we're only getting the core/juicy parts of the scene and not the boring lead-in/exposition. It's like snapshots of a full read, which is weird. He doesn't explain every detail but I feel like I can usually deduce why he arrived where he did even if it requires some sleuthing? It's annoying, maybe, but it hasn't stood out as disingenuous to me. My early argument with him rubbed me the wrong way but not in a particularly mafia-like way.

I don't think voting for Bella after 130 is bad. I got frustrated with that post too, and while I didn't vote Bella for it, I'm also way more curmudgeon-y with my votes than the rest of the people here. I generally only vote when I'm sure enough that I'd be okay with a lynch. I've noticed several people in this game flinging votes around at people as sort of "warning shots" or something. Tammy is really trying to paint a picture here where Glork is voting for Bella because of a "joke post" (don't worry, bee happy) but that isn't the case at all. Just like Tammy wants us to see that there's some clear subtext to Bella's projected path towards laying down a vote on me, there's

actual

clearly defined evidence for why people were frustrated with Bella at that point, and if you're viewing the votes this game as firestarters rather than proclamations of sure lynches, anyone with half a brain can see why Glork decided to vote Bella at this point! Bella had been useless, useless, useless, useless... then popped in to be even MORE useless than normal, and with the heat between myself and Glork dying down, he decided to put his vote elsewhere to appear more useful. At least, that's what I saw in this whole exchange, and Glork can speak for himself, but there's just something still nibbling away at me about Tammy's post that rubs me the wrong way.

Tammy also seemed to address her whole post towards the rest of the game and not towards Glork. It didn't seem like she wanted Glork to actually respond so she could suss out his alignment... again, this comes back to the whole "motivated purely by defensiveness" thing I mentioned earlier. Her post specifically asks the rest of the game to engage her on these points. "Does this make sense to anyone?" in relation to Glork's attack on Bella for the "joke post". "If he was still scum reading KayP..." is referencing Glork in the third person, instead addressing the rest of the game. I also find it weird that Tammy is busting Glork's chops over the "attacking the joke post!" episode, but when Glork is jokey by saying he'll come back to "bust some scums", Tammy drives that home as "bullshit" "bravado" and claims that as yet another reason Glork is mafia.

To be honest, I have no idea what to think about Glork, and he had been mostly under the radar for me because I liked that he was mostly agreeing with my reads. But I see NO WAY that Tammy's overly defensive, self-contradicting reasons on Glork are coming from town... and the style in which she went about it makes no sense if Glork is her mafia partner (he had no momentum on him at all).

VOTE: Tammy

And now that I've overshot my lunch break by 15 minutes... Gotta run!

[Tammy]

That's fine.

I'm a vanilla townie by the way.

Just make sure to actually read what I said about Glork tomorrow.

[Tammy]

Also, please don't lynch me until I get back from swimming, which I'm really going to now, and give my thoughts on the rest of the players.

It will suck if I replaced into a game and actually read it to get lynched without giving you my thoughts.

[KayP]

Your push on why frogger was pushing and questioning lala was overblown because what he was doing was extremely standard for the early game. You were essentially getting after him for playing mafia and in the process didn't let him get a read on lala organically from that. Most people don't think they've caught scum for sure in the first few posts of the game and are trying to get a read. And because it's the nature of the game that early posting isn't going to be strong, hypocrisy is going to be actually a common thing. As the game progresses hypocrisy still isn't a scum tell.

By needling him the way that you did, you gave lala no reason to actually start producing content because the person who was pushing her to try to get a read on her was being attacked and questioned by you for playing the game. You didn't let it play out.

I didn't say that you hadn't prodded anywhere else. I said a whole lot of it, and it is objectively true that you have not prodded everyone else in the game in the same manner you prodded frogger in the first few pages of the game, which makes my early observation of what type of player you are not as strong.

Now I'm going swimming!

My pushing/questioning was overblown? No, my pushing/questioning was proportional to Frogger's stated conviction and reasons for voting lalaladucks after a page and a half of gameplay! If you want to talk about overblown, perhaps it should be in Frogger's direction. I don't know what's standard and what's not for early game, but me picking apart his terribly concocted and empty reasons for SERIOUS voting someone (note: not a joke vote or random vote) is not the problem, here. Read our exchange. Hypocrisy was part of it, maybe. But I don't mean hypocrisy in the sense of contradicting yourself... I understand as the game goes on, you may wind up contradicting yourself as reads change and evolve. But on PAGE TWO of a game, to be cherry picking reasons to get all righteous and serious when you yourself are guilty of those reasons? How is THAT less egregious than me needling every detail?

[KayP]

That's fine.

I'm a vanilla townie by the way.

Just make sure to actually read what I said about Glork tomorrow.

Why are you claiming?

[Tammy]

You put me at L-1.

[KayP]

Oh! My vote put you at L-1.

UNVOTE: Tammy

I didn't realize it was that close to a lynch this early, I apologize. I still think you're scum but on the off-chance you're not, I think letting you state your full thoughts would be useful information to have.

[Fro99er]

That's fine.

I'm a vanilla townie by the way.

Just make sure to actually read what I said about Glork tomorrow.

Why are you claiming?

I'd assume because that was an unannounced L-1 vote by you.

God...this whole Bella (now Tammy)/KayP thing now is seriously setting off alarm bells.

[Fro99er]

pedit: there ya go

[SleepyKrew]

Bees. Goddamn.

[Marquis]

(expired on 2015-06-26 20:30:00)

(Fri Jun 26 @ 8:30:00 PM EST)

VOTECOUNT 2.04

• (4)

  Tammy

  —
  Fro99er, Green Crayons, Glork, Bob Loblaw
  (L-2)
  
  
  (0)

  Bob Loblaw

  —
  
  
  (0)

  Fro99er

  —
  
  
  (1)

  Glork

  —
  Tammy
  
  (0)

  Green Crayons

  —
  
  
  (0)

  KayP

  —
  
  
  (0)

  SleepyKrew

  —
  
  
  (0)

  lalaladucks

  —
  
  
  (0)

  Shadoxx8

  —
  
  
  (3)

  The Bulge

  —
  Shadoxx8, Untrod Tripod, lalaladucks
  (L-3)
  
  
  (0)

  Untrod Tripod

  —
  
  
  
  (3)

  (NOT VOTING)

  —
  SleepyKrew, The Bulge, KayP
  
  With
  11

  alive
  , it takes
  6

  votes
  to lynch.
  
  

  ---

  Awaiting prod response from: Shadoxx8

[Tammy]

Your push on why frogger was pushing and questioning lala was overblown because what he was doing was extremely standard for the early game. You were essentially getting after him for playing mafia and in the process didn't let him get a read on lala organically from that. Most people don't think they've caught scum for sure in the first few posts of the game and are trying to get a read. And because it's the nature of the game that early posting isn't going to be strong, hypocrisy is going to be actually a common thing. As the game progresses hypocrisy still isn't a scum tell.

By needling him the way that you did, you gave lala no reason to actually start producing content because the person who was pushing her to try to get a read on her was being attacked and questioned by you for playing the game. You didn't let it play out.

I didn't say that you hadn't prodded anywhere else. I said a whole lot of it, and it is objectively true that you have not prodded everyone else in the game in the same manner you prodded frogger in the first few pages of the game, which makes my early observation of what type of player you are not as strong.

Now I'm going swimming!

My pushing/questioning was overblown? No, my pushing/questioning was proportional to Frogger's stated conviction and reasons for voting lalaladucks after a page and a half of gameplay! If you want to talk about overblown, perhaps it should be in Frogger's direction. I don't know what's standard and what's not for early game, but me picking apart his terribly concocted and empty reasons for SERIOUS voting someone (note: not a joke vote or random vote) is not the problem, here. Read our exchange. Hypocrisy was part of it, maybe. But I don't mean hypocrisy in the sense of contradicting yourself... I understand as the game goes on, you may wind up contradicting yourself as reads change and evolve. But on PAGE TWO of a game, to be cherry picking reasons to get all righteous and serious when you yourself are guilty of those reasons? How is THAT less egregious than me needling every detail?

Frogger's quetsions and stances were fine. He didn't seem self-righteous or cherry picking to me. He looked like he was playing mafia. Everyone is going to be weak early game, and frogger was doing standard stuff. Someone has to be the person to push the game forward, you pick up on something that you know is weak, and you go from there.

You needled every detail for things that were pretty standard stuff, but you're new and you might just be the type. However, you didn't do the same type of needling for everyone throughout the game which threw off what type of player I was expecting you to be.

Like for instance, you haven't needled me for my thoughts and just posted a big ol case for why I'm the scum I'm not. And, bonus, in it you added some hypocrisy. You didn't post that case in way that was addressed to me but to everyone else. I want everyone else to read my Glork case; I'm trying to convince the town that he's scum not him.

He's free to address it and interact though.

Anyway, I didn't really read through your whole case, and I actually am going swimming now before I lose a lap lane.

[Green Crayons]

Go swimming already, jeeze.

If someone hammers that'd be cool because then we can QL them tomorrow.

[Tammy]

God...this whole Bella (now Tammy)/KayP thing now is seriously setting off alarm bells.

Hearing what you think about KayP is fine, but I'm more interested in hearing what you think of Glork?

[Fro99er]

God...this whole Bella (now Tammy)/KayP thing now is seriously setting off alarm bells.

Hearing what you think about KayP is fine, but I'm more interested in hearing what you think of Glork?

He's making me nervous, but I get there in almost the opposite way from you. You didn't like his D1, and his D2 gave you a bit better feeling (but not enough). I actually didn't mind his D1, but his D2 left me wanting. In retrospect, I can see his D1 as sort of cozying up to me. I'll explain more when I'm off mobile.

[KayP]

Frogger's quetsions and stances were fine. He didn't seem self-righteous or cherry picking to me. He looked like he was playing mafia. Everyone is going to be weak early game, and frogger was doing standard stuff. Someone has to be the person to push the game forward, you pick up on something that you know is weak, and you go from there.

Oh -- why does Frogger get a pass for pushing early weak reads/reasons because he's "pushing the game forward"... yet you attack me for pushing early weak reads/reasons because I was "needling and nitpicking"? Why does he get the "early game, it's okay!" pass but I don't?

You needled every detail for things that were pretty standard stuff, but you're new and you might just be the type. However, you didn't do the same type of needling for everyone throughout the game which threw off what type of player I was expecting you to be.

What were you expecting, exactly? Were you expecting that every post made by every player in the game would result in a follow up post with me breaking down every last detail? What would've met your expectations? If I had done it to one other player? Or maybe everyone? Somewhere in the middle? 5? 7? Where's the line for you? And what did me "throwing off" your expectations do for you in relation to the game? Stating that you expected me to be one way and I ended up the other has no actual application to the game itself, so please elaborate.

Like for instance, you haven't needled me for my thoughts and just posted a big ol case for why I'm the scum I'm not. And, bonus, in it you added some hypocrisy. You didn't post that case in way that was addressed to me but to everyone else. I want everyone else to read my Glork case; I'm trying to convince the town that he's scum not him.

If you cared to read at all, I pointed out that I was going through and posting stuff in a stream-of-conscious style and would go back and edit for structure/readability later. I wrote that out as if I was talking to myself, because I was. I find it comical that you are trying to throw hypocrisy back in my face right now after just getting done saying how hypocrisy isn't scummy and everyone will be hypocritical at some point... you're just choosing to go with the flow whenever it is convenient for you. Either you don't believe what you said about hypocrisy (and therefore lied), or you do believe what you said and are just chiming in with the hypocrisy comment now to throw poo at me and discredit me (and are therefore continuing to operate from a purely defensive stance).

[KayP]

God...this whole Bella (now Tammy)/KayP thing now is seriously setting off alarm bells.

Elaborate.

[Fro99er]

God...this whole Bella (now Tammy)/KayP thing now is seriously setting off alarm bells.

Elaborate.

It's in my ISO. 461 and 463 for starters as well as the last paragraph of 439 (and even ignoring the claim part which has already been debated, the association still pings). I can elaborate more when off mobile if needed.

[Tammy]

If you're looking at the game with associative a to me. You're going to come up wrong.

Frogged could you indulge me a little? What's your view of the game with me town? If I'm right about you town, after I'm lynched you're the only logical choice for the night kill, so it would be awesome to try to actually solve the game s much as possible before that.

I'll respond to the rest when I get home.

[Tammy]

If someone hammers that'd be cool because then we can QL them tomorrow.

Why would you just QL them tomorrow?

You're voting my slot for that silly vote reason, you haven't moved your vote since I replaced in which would suggest you still think my slot is scum, so why are you already preemptively suggesting that you'd QL the hammerer?

[Green Crayons]

If someone hammered you without you being able to give your thoughts on the wider game, that would be super scummy regardless of your alignment.

[Tammy]

Okay, I kinda like that answer. I was coming at the post that it suggested you knew I was town and therefore would be a mislynch that someone just tried to get rid of quickly.

[Tammy]

Tammy posted a lot of words! And some of them were words that made sense and felt okay, and then some of them were words that felt purely driven by her desire to get Glork lynched... and that desire feels motivated for purely defensive reasons. I'm reading through it now, and basically everything Tammy said seemed to come from a place of "Glork attacked me and therefore he is scum".

Glork never attacked me. He hasn't posted since I've been in the game. I happen to know the alignment of the person he did attack as I share the role pm - think of it as a quasi mason type relationship - and I don't think the attack looks genuine. IE I think Glork is better at analyzing the game than what he's put up against me or against BiBob.

I'm trying to put my finger on the specifics of what feels 'off' about it but I'm finding it difficult. Just sort of writing all stream-of-consciousness style here then I'll clean it up into something more structured later... Glork's push on me never felt really serious, as I mentioned above. His suspicion of me was also pretty early in the game, like page 5?

What didn't seem particularly serious about Post 95 or Post 101

So, you now accept that early reads aren't serious? I don't get that point. If you're referring to my point that he dropped suspicion of you from those posts so close together I still don't understand your point because it was early in the game, and he still said you were an okay lynch, but it felt like an afterthought. Here's the progression:

Spoiler: early day one interaction/read on kayo by glork

If hypocrisy had any correlation to being scum most of us would be scum in most of our games.

And I'm only very slightly exaggerating in that statement.

Hmm. If you say so. I'd still argue that me voting Frog for hypocrisy is a lot stronger than Frog voting ducks for "lack of engagement" and meta reasons after one page of the game.

Glork: You chastise me for going after frog, here. What about Bob & GC? You said me stating I agree w/ most of his post is bullshit, but what about

the person who made the post

? And what of GC, who also voted Frogger for similar reasons to mine?

Because throwing out a weak/shitty reason for a vote and then piggybacking someone else's list of reasons after the fact is hella fucking scummy, whereas GC shows real conviction and the jury is out on BobLob. Your behavior stands out as particularly terrible, which is why I'm on you.

How did GC show real conviction?

My argument against Frog amounted to the same thing that GC's vote amounted to... that is, we both thought his insistence on ducks being scum for lack of engagement/meta on page two was overblown and contrived. We both had the

same

reasoning -- how are you discerning that GC is convicted, whereas I am not? Why are GC's reasons so much better than mine?

It should also be noted I didn't fully agree with

all

of Bob's points, but agreed with enough of them that I didn't want to argue against someone who was supporting my wagon of choice right now.

I mean it's p obv when you read his posts.

Pretend I'm stupid and elaborate for me, please.

Unvote
Vote: Bellaphant

Not helpful, not voting. Are you scum with KayP?

Bella and/or Shadoxx need to die today.

Also, Kitty needs to come up with content pronto before she finds herself in a vig's scope.

Boblaw, frogger, GC can be town.

KayP is still not a bad lynch. Went conveniently quiet as soon as heat came off of him.

Laladucks makes me want to punch myself in the face but I'm unconvinced this is the wagon/lynch of the day, mostly because there are much better/more likely scum candidates.

TTH is fine, Bulge needs to post and/or die (he's also due for a prod in like half an hour), UT can be town for now until I actually figure him out.

tl;dr spoiler - the progressions shows that he was still willing to lynch you. My problem is that it seemed like it kinda died off. Also, do you not notice that he said you went conveniently quiet as soon as the heat came off of you?

It's weird that Tammy seemingly doesn't like early game serious reads (as evidenced by Tammy's point about my early questioning of Frogger) but is willing to jump all over Glork having a fluid read that early. I just went back and looked and remembered that Glork voted for me early because he felt like I was jumping on a weak link (Frogger)... we had some dialogue about it in which we both explained ourselves... then he hopped on to other things. That felt pretty natural to me.

I have no problem with early reads. I have a problem with the way you went about attacking frogger's attempts to get a read early game. Frogger was trying to get a read and you went nitpick and in the processes discredited not only his attempt and interrupted it, but you also gave lala an ability to not respond to the attack, which was why I originally thought you could be partnered with lala. He was asking some pretty standard stuff. (I would have had a problem with frogger if that was all he did about lala.)

Glork doesn't have a fluid read that early if the read you're talking about is on bella. She had been posting and prodding things in the first pages of the game. Frogger made an activity post and a pun on bee, she made a joke and continued the bee pun. Saying that she was unhelpful is negating the entire pages that came before that and jumping on something silly. IE she made a joke.

He still wanted to lynch you and said you went quiet after the heat came off of you. That is in no way, shape or form him holding your hands and singing kumbaya. And while you thought it felt natural; I didn't.

I don't think voting for Bella after 130 is bad. I got frustrated with that post too, and while I didn't vote Bella for it, I'm also way more curmudgeon-y with my votes than the rest of the people here. I generally only vote when I'm sure enough that I'd be okay with a lynch. I've noticed several people in this game flinging votes around at people as sort of "warning shots" or something. Tammy is really trying to paint a picture here where Glork is voting for Bella because of a "joke post" (don't worry, bee happy) but that isn't the case at all.

Why did you get frustrated that she made a joke about work and did a bee pun? Why did that frustrate you but not the other game posts that were equally useless?

If you are generally okay to vote when you'd be okay for a lynch, why did you unvote me? Shouldn't you be fine with me being lynched?

Why do you think Glork voted bella originally then? Because he literally says it right here:

Bella, this is the second time you have immediately responded to a vote/criticism of your play by placing your vote to alleviate pressure on you. And both times you piled onto a player with existing suspicion.

The last was when I voted you for your useless one-liner post and you responded by voting KayP.

Do you have any conviction in your votes/gameplay, or is your main priority trying to get people to not-suspect-you? Because I'm getting a huge chunk of the latter, and very little indication that you actually care about finding scum.

So, why did *you* think Glork voted for bella originally? I wasn't really sure until I got to this point, but I know now and there shouldn't be any confusion because it's clearly in black and white under his own writing. (I know he adds on to the case later, but this was the original basis for his vote.)

Just like Tammy wants us to see that there's some clear subtext to Bella's projected path towards laying down a vote on me, there's

actual

clearly defined evidence for why people were frustrated with Bella at that point, and if you're viewing the votes this game as firestarters rather than proclamations of sure lynches, anyone with half a brain can see why Glork decided to vote Bella at this point! Bella had been useless, useless, useless, useless... then popped in to be even MORE useless than normal, and with the heat between myself and Glork dying down, he decided to put his vote elsewhere to appear more useful. At least, that's what I saw in this whole exchange, and Glork can speak for himself, but there's just something still nibbling away at me about Tammy's post that rubs me the wrong way.

Erm. Show me the uselessness? As well as the evidence for why people were frustrated with bella at that point in the game? Bella didn't have a vote on her before Glork voted her for her "useless one liner" and I don't see a whole lot of suspicion on her at that point.

These three posts show her telegraphing a vote on you. Her voting you was no surprise.

You should go back and read the exchange because I don't get how you think that Glork started glowing at you and you've got things out of order.

Tammy also seemed to address her whole post towards the rest of the game and not towards Glork. It didn't seem like she wanted Glork to actually respond so she could suss out his alignment... again, this comes back to the whole "motivated purely by defensiveness" thing I mentioned earlier. Her post specifically asks the rest of the game to engage her on these points. "Does this make sense to anyone?" in relation to Glork's attack on Bella for the "joke post". "If he was still scum reading KayP..." is referencing Glork in the third person, instead addressing the rest of the game. I also find it weird that Tammy is busting Glork's chops over the "attacking the joke post!" episode, but when Glork is jokey by saying he'll come back to "bust some scums", Tammy drives that home as "bullshit" "bravado" and claims that as yet another reason Glork is mafia.

Couple points. I'm a replacement talking about things that have already passed. It isn't scummy in the slightest to not address Glork himself. I'm not writing Glork a love letter; I'm trying to convince town that there is something wrong with his play. I'm pretty sure it leads to him being scum, I'm not going to convince him.

You are totally missing the point of the joke posts. It goes to mindset and I said I didn't expect people to find it compelling. I obviously don't have any problems with jokes. But if you look at context, Bella's joke makes perfect sense as a response to frogger's post and a continuation of the joke.

Glork says that "he'll catch the scums"; it's a type of post Ive seen come from scum several times. (Like I said, I've only been wrong on this tell once.) It's not a perfect tell, but it feels off.

For instance, scum replacing into a game:

Subject: Mini 1627: Ninja Mini Mafia

In other words, the scumteam is fucked. Y'all should just give up now.

Scum making a similar type of joke but is off tonally due to mindset:

Subject: Open 527 - Hard Boiled: Dixon Hill's Maudlin Madness

I have to go eat dinner w/girlfriend's family now!
but i will be back soon
have a scumlynch ready for me!

To be honest, I have no idea what to think about Glork, and he had been mostly under the radar for me because I liked that he was mostly agreeing with my reads.

This is terrible reasoning. Why aren't you digging deeper? If you're town and still here tomorrow, please actually read what I wrote about Glork.

But I see NO WAY that Tammy's overly defensive, self-contradicting reasons on Glork are coming from town... and the style in which she went about it makes no sense if Glork is her mafia partner (he had no momentum on him at all).

And yet, here I sit with a town role pm. But what about me has been overly defensive? I feel pretty calm.