Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Glork]

Vote: Patrick

Gotta find out whether I'll win the bet now, or whether I'll have to wait until a later date.

[Glork]

Random

vote

:

appleof88

.

Also, Patrick is never scum, so FoS: Glork for voting for a confirmed townie.

Counterproductive.

Vote: IH

always scum

Counterproductive.

[Glork]

Hello everyone.

Vote: Sikario8

Random.

Counterproductive.

Vote: Glork

Not random.

EXTREMELY counterproductive.



Die scum. Immediately.

[Glork]

I see what you did there.

[Glork]

So Glork who are we lynching?

This is an awfully silly question.


You already know who I want lynched. Yet, while voting for somebody else, you ask me who we should lynch. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?

Not gonna lie, I'm tempted to follow IH's vote. This feels like a pretty typical ass-kissing question.

[Glork]

IH, only the scums take the money and run.




Seriously, guys. The lack of Patrick votes is rather disturbing.

FoS: Everybody

[Glork]

Oh? You know this for a fact?

Unvote, Vote: IH
Major FoS/IGMEOY: Patrick

[Glork]

Interesting.


So you feel that OMGUSing somebody during the random voting stage is a protown tell?

[Glork]

I have a question of Glork, Patrick, and Shanba. Do you think that this is particuarly telling of Elmo's alignment? If so how?

If not, is it just to get out of the random stage?

I'm trying to decide if it's indicative of anything... hence the probing questions.
Shanba pretty much answered what I was going for... you ask for explanation to get a sense of motive or thought process. His declaration was obviously not-random, so you have to seek further information yourself.

FoS: Elmo

I'd like an explanation on why you mentioned Patrick so suddenly.

Yes, because first mentioning somebody on Page 1 of a game is quite sudden.

If you're suspicious of Crub, why cast an apparently non serious vote on IH?

I like to spread the love.
That and I didn't really see anything coming out of a vote for Crub. It'd come across as a slap on the wrist, and I don't think I'd have gotten any more useful information out of him.

[Glork]

Please elaborate on "felt wrong".

It sounded like a first vote, not a second vote. First votes frequently have little or no reason, or are plain random, or jokey, and are basically made for no other reason than to get things going. But when someone

changes

their vote, well, there's usually some kind of reason behind the change, because things are already moving, and replacing one silly vote with another is futile. Even if there's no real game reason, there's usually

something

- even if the change of vote is made just to accompany a witticism. Here there wasnt anything. And also, appleof88 moved his vote to a player who'd been put on 2 votes just three posts earlier, which caught my attention a bit more than it would have otherwise.

Possible motives:

1. Advancing a bandwagon on IH
2. Keeping up up a post count without actually saying anything helpful
3. Establishing himself in our minds as someone who does entirely pointless things, in order to lower our expectations of his play
4. A decision to follow Glork, who looks like being an influential figure in the game.

Of course, he may simply be someone who does entirely pointless things, and had no thought at all beyond basking in the joyful uselessness of the moment, in whuch case he was just acting in character. At this stage, who knows?

wow alot of thought went into that post
but shamefully, no motive behind it, just poops and giggles

i wish i had as stated above, a game plan. makes me look more on edge
but nay, just mucking around

Yeah, I'm surprised that Ripley didn't suggest "5. Hey, it's still the fairly random stage of the game"... did this explanation cross your mind at some point, Ripley?


Also, lulz @ IH.

[Glork]

And just why did Glork see the need to chip in at that stage?

Because it struck me as odd and possibly scummy that you mentioned a list of possibilities and not a single one of them involved Apple even possibly being protown.

It seemed a bit too close-minded for my liking. My pointing it out is obviously something you took note of, so I'd say I did my job quite well.



Patrick: Why the move to Apple?

[Glork]

Patrick: Why the move to Apple?

I found it better than an arbitary vote on you. I chose between him or Andy. You haven't really done anything suspicious.

Right.


Why Apple?

[Glork]

Patrick, I got something of a "sliding onto the weak sheep" feel from your switch to him. Apple looks like an easy run-up right now because he's screwing around and Ripley just took a pull at him. I've noted the "fuel for the fire" feeling I got from your post, and your response doesn't really satisfy me. *shrug*

[Glork]

I want each person on Andy to give me exactly three sentences (between 15 and 45 words) on why they are voting for Andy.



gogogo

[Glork]

Shhhhh. Let them go first.

[Glork]

IH told me to.

Pretty sure he didn't. Do you frequently follow other people's votes without reason?

Yes.

Do you have a reason for that?

Pressure = Good

Alright, let's play ball.


What do you expect to get out of different reactions to bandwagoning-pressure?

[Glork]

Alright, let's play ball.

What do you expect to get out of different reactions to bandwagoning-pressure?

Forget reactions, the first thing I expect to get out of shakey bandwagoning is to promote some sort of general discussion for a start. Secondly it's more valuable judging reactions from people C, than from the bandwagonee. Pretty much no matter what sort of response you get from the bandwagonee is going to be a null-tell.

I'd say there's been plenty of discussion regarding non-bandwagon-related happenings. I'm not sure why you think wagoning is necessary to start discussion

And of course I'm talking about reactions from other people (hence the "different reactions" -- implying multiple reactions from multiple people). Not to sound like an arrogant bastard, but there's no need to tell me what you're trying to do.



Anyway, the point I was trying to make: Now that you've seen some reactions to your behavior, what do you think of those reactions? What information have you gained thus far?

[Glork]

Sikario, I don't know what your playstyle is, but you saying you've got nothing to add at the moment is useless. There's been several threads of conversation, pick something out that looks interesting and give an opinion on it. We can't get any read on your alignment if you sit there doing nothing. Please stop being lazy.

This strikes me as being odd.


Would you say you usually find laziness/noncontribution to be a protown sign or a scumbaggo sign?

[Glork]

I find it odd that you seemed to imply that he's protown and just not acting well. It's like you're trying to coach/baby him into contributing, assuming that he's having a hard time as town, rather than thinking he may be lazyscum.


At least, that's just how I read it.

[Glork]

Eh. I'm not really sure yet. I don't have much of a read on Sikario either way.


Patrick: In your opinion, how does your treatment of Sikario differ from your treatement of me D1 in FTF? What are some similarities?

[Glork]

Patrick: In your opinion, how does your treatment of Sikario differ from your treatement of me D1 in FTF? What are some similarities?

Quite different if I remember. I ignored you for most of day 1 in FTF, because I knew that acting crazy was part of your repetoire, and I wondered what it might lead too. I considered, and still consider, you a better player than me, so I decided you were doing it for some purpose, and that if you were scum hiding behind it, you would be attacked later, and forced to justify your actions and tell us what you'd achieved. I think I FoSed you late day 1 for a clear inconsistency, and pressured you early day 2 until you cleaned your act up. With sikario, having taken a brief look around the site, I consider him to be a newbie, and have seen him acting similarly in other games. Unlike you in FTF, I don't think there's any possible deeper or cunning plan in his play if he's protoown, I just think he's being lazy/spammy. So, obviously, I addressed him differently.

That was fun, but what was the point?

(Above line stolen from Ether, in Farscape Mafia).

Trying to get a feel for your thought proceses. Your response was about what I would expect -- benefit of the doubt for relative newbiness.

Unvote

[Glork]

Why is it amazing?

I didn't say I was 100% OMG SUPER CERTAIN he was town. If I was, I'd be voting Glork. I'm just of that opinion (leaning that way) at the moment.

Why would 100% certainty of Patrick's alignment lead you to vote for me?


Ripley's attack on apple still seems wonky.

I am perfectly content with Crub's play. I'd give very strong odds that he's town.

Ripley: Given that we've seen plenty of "Village Idiots" on both protown and scum sides in the past, what made you conclude that Apple's behavior was more indicative of him being a scum-VI rather than just... an idiot?

Patrick's switch to Apple still feels weird, too. I think the FoS served to indicate that his vote had gone from "not serious" to "serious"... is there anything wrong with that? If Apple had instead said "I guess I'm pretty happy with my vote on Ripley," do you think you would have reacted differently?

I still don't understand the Andyhate. IH cited Post 42:

FoS: Elmo I'd like an explanation on why you mentioned Patrick so suddenly.

Shanba voted for Elmo, stating that he was "amazed" that Elmo could have gotten a read. I guess I fail to understand how Andy's FoS seems to be insincere, whereas Shanba's vote has gone largely unmentioned.

Just on gut and voting patterns, I'd say

maximum

one of Andy/Apple is scum. I am currently of the opinion that both are protown.

See, IH's explanation at least makes sense (the fact that Andy did it after Elmo's response had taken place). It shows a logical distinction between Andy's behavior and those of [Glork, Patrick, Shanba]. While I don't have a problem with IH's probe, I still question the validity of those who followed.


General gameplay question for everyone...
Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

The exchange between Patrick and Crub makes me feel somewhat better about Patrick's alignment.

Why are you unvoting IH without revoting, in response to something Patrick said?

Simple.
My vote on IH was a random vote from Page 2.
We are well out of the random voting stage, and having a random vote on IH wasn't really doing anything, especially as I get a somewhat protown vibe from IH.
I didn't feel up to speed on the game yet and didn't want to lay down a poorly-educated vote.

You've trying to buddy up to Glork, and you're saying I look anti-town because you thought I was trying to make myself look good to him? There seems to be a contradiction.

Yeah, I noticed this, too. The way I looked at it, Crub didn't really see the "buddy up to Glork" thing as being particularly scummy, but when IH voted him for it and I said I was tempted to follow, he obviously re-evaluated. I don't think that Crubs' behavior in this instance is indicative of one thing or another (which is probably why I didn't mention it earlier).

Nevertheless, I'd like you to explain this:

with a good, logical case on Andy?

...when your explanation of your Andy-vote is based almost entirely on the way his posts have "felt" or "seemed" to you. Where is the intersection of

gut

and

logic

here?



In all...

Protown:
Crub
Elmo
IH
Glork
Andy


I'd like Wank and Sikario to share what they think of each player's alignment.
I'd like

Modprods

on Appleof (who hasn't posted in eight days), and JDodge (seven days).
I'd also like JDodge to move his vote somewhere nonrandom (or to explain why it's still on IH if it is no longer random).

And, finally, I think I'll

Vote: Ripley

for now.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Add Apple to my protown list. >.<

update: Apple and JDodge have been prodded.

[Glork]

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I think it's contradictory to label one inflammatory and contributing weakly. Instigating people can provide an angle not otherwise obtained.

That's not true at all. Somebody who is busy lashing out with insults instead of providing meaningful discussion is the kind of person I'm talking about.

[Glork]

Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

I think it's contradictory to label one inflammatory and contributing weakly. Instigating people can provide an angle not otherwise obtained.

That's not true at all. Somebody who is busy lashing out with insults instead of providing meaningful discussion is the kind of person I'm talking about.

I don't think anyone is busy lashing out insults. Or anyone ever will. That's rather extreme. A rather forward and impolite comment is good in my book. I already revealed one secret above so allow me to keep this to myself.

Funny how I wasn't not even referring to you when I made that comment. You can stop being an egotistical prick and start answering my question anytime you'd like.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Oh, now that I read that again, it doesn't look like you thought I was referring to you.


I still want answers from people.

[Glork]

GODDAMMIT IN EED TO STOP DOING THAT!


Gaspar = Glork

[Glork]

Son, what I speak is law around here. If I say Apples is town, then he's definitely, absolutely town.

[Glork]

Son, what I speak is law around here. If I say Apples is town, then he's definitely, absolutely town.

Actually, this jars with me.

You've just declared five other people protown. It's day one, and next to nothing's happened yet. I'm not claiming to be a phenomenal player, but I don't think I'd have done much significantly different as scum, and I really don't see much basis for getting a strong read on IH or Apple. I'm sure you're a good player, but I don't believe you can actually walk on water. If you don't want to say why you believe something right now, fair enough, but I'm not going to believe someone's pro-town just because

someone tells me to

, and I resent the idea I shouldn't be questioning you or asking for your reasoning.

I am also aware that your reputation precedes you, and that's probably a valuable asset when you're scum. I respect you as a good player, but I am not overawed, and I'd like an answer.

*shrug*
Apple's play strikes me as being fairly protown, and the reactions (i.e., bandwagon) in response to his play have further led me to believe that he's probably protown.

Regarding my confidence level: That's just how I think the game should be played. I feel that, as early as possible, you should try to get definitive reads on as many players as possible. Present your findings with confidence and assurance, be prepared to defend them as necessary, and investigate where you find yourself lacking in information. It's an excellent way to begin and to promote meaningful discussion, and as players respond to you, it forces more interactions and opinion-forming. All of these things are good for the town, because it means that players' actions are highly traceble (which, in turn, means one can find patterns among scums' play much more easily).


Will I be wrong in some of my opinions? Certainly. Lights Out 2 was just one example of an absolute train wreck of a game for me (at least on Day One). I'm far from perfect, but I've never,

ever

liked the idea of inaction due to uncertainty. It leads to slow, inactive games, and it hands the advantage straight to the scums.

[Glork]

Honestly. This semantics debate is moronic. I fail to see how it is helping to find scum at all.

Unvote, Vote: Wank

[Glork]

My 2 cents, I've never played with wank-scum, but this play is consistent with wank-town.

Feh. But he's so

unhelpful

to playing mafia. :/

Unvote

Glork: Can you be more specific about apple? Why're you more confidant of him than, say, Shanba? I'd agree with everything you said. I don't think it's scummy, but it is very odd, in that I always felt it was harder to accurately peg someone as pro-town than find scum, kind of like proving a negative. I'm sorry if I was a bit strong in 225, but it does seem extremely odd to me, hence my curiosity.

Honestly... I don't think I can. A lot of what I do, especially early on in games, is based largely on gut instinct. There's a lot of subtext in the behaviors and interactions between behaviors, and though I can't explain

why

I pull things like this out of people, I just

do

. I used to joke that I had internets-ESP because I'd just be right about certain things for no discernable reason whatsoever. I think that developing an accurate scumhunting instinct is just something that comes with experience. I'm always looking at behaviors from Day One to Endgame, thinking about them in relation to past games I've played (whether with the same players or with entirely different playersets). Finding trends between certain behaviors is

In Apple's case, I guess the meta is something like this:
A newish/weak player intentionally makes a stink in a thread, being vocal but not particularly logical. I'd expect newish to intermediate players to give him a little heat, but I'd expect more experienced players to be somewhat more lenient if they are protown. The actual reaction here (bandwagon of a few votes + a couple of nonvote "this is scummy" comments) didn't sit right with me. Furthermore, Patrick's vote for him bothered me. It came after there was already momentum, and as I said before, I got a "sliding onto the weak sheep" feeling. This was further reinforced when later, regarding Sikario, Patrick seemed to coddle him. Sikario wasn't being inflammatory, but he was definitely being noncontributive. I see Patrick's behavior as inconsistent between the two, which further piqued my interest. He replied to my inquiries, and I was satisfied to the point where I wanted a re-read to decide where I was going to place my vote.

Now, with Crub vouching for Wank's behavior, Andy gets minus points, and I'm considering moving back to Patrick.



Anyway, regarding Wank:
I do think that the semantics debate is moronic. First of all, you're misrepresenting the entire town by assuming:

If I were scum and forced to claim, by saying I was 100% townie, I would have fooled all of you.

You may have perceived a semantic anomaly within Patrick's behavior, but it is erroneous to conclude that this is indicative of the rest of the players' interpretations of your choice of words. For somebody who wants to argue semantics, I find this to be a rather alarming oversight.

At any rate, I more or less agree with Patrick that you're making entirely too big a deal over this "a" versus "100%" discussion. If you were forced to claim right now, and you claimed "I am a townie," I would by no means automatically believe you. If you were forced to claim right now, and you claimed "I am 100% townie," I would by no means believe you.

I do not feel that this debate has directly helped either you or Patrick find a scumbag. If you feel otherwise, I encourage you to post why exactly it's given you insight into somebody's alignment. If you're here simply to argue about what words mean, by all means, go ahead and replace out of the game, and start a semantics discussion thread in General Discussion.

[Glork]

A newish/weak player intentionally makes a stink in a thread, being vocal but not particularly logical.

I don't think this describes apple's posting at all. His original vote and change of vote were pretty lowkey, and what little he said thereafter were responses, consisting mostly of variations on "I was just messing around". So I'd dispute both "intentionally makes a stink"

and

"vocal".

I'm talking about his early play, which is what he was being run up for, unless I'm horribly mistaken.

It's obvious that he's gone entirely inactive since then, and likely needs replacement. I consider that to be somewhat separate.

[Glork]

EBWOP: See, this is my problem. Everything makes

perfect

sense in my head, but explaining it so that everyone fully understands what I'm thinking is incredibly difficult. Seriously, oftentimes

I

don't even fully understand what I'm thinking. I just think it.

[Glork]

I suppose "intentionally making a stink" is somewhat exaggerated. He posted a lame comeback and has goofed around for the most part. The only seriousness in his posts was to explain his nonseriousness.

In the first three game-days, he made seven posts, which is certainly vocal. He since then has made one post in the last two weeks (which came back on Nov 11).

[Glork]

Pretty sure Apple/Sikario are going to end up getting replaced. :twocents:

[Glork]

My 2 cents, I've never played with wank-scum, but this play is consistent with wank-town.

Feh. But he's so

unhelpful

to playing mafia. :/

Unvote

What's helpful? Why did you unvote?

I've already stated that I believe Crub to be likely protown, and so I'm giving some weight to his assessment of your play. It's enough to not want you dead immediately.

I'd like to see you post a list of every player in the game with at least a sentence or two on what you think of that player's alignment and why you've arrived at those conclusions. That would be helpful. Practially all of your recent posts have been unhelpful.

[Glork]

The rest of his case, as stated in Post 245, is inconsistency between Patrick's treatment of two players. Patrick challenged this, correctly in my view, in Post 247, and Glork has not responded.

*shakes head*

It's not the reason for which Patrick voted (or did not vote) somebody. It's the fact that he hopped onto Apple with some momentum against him, but gave Sikario the "newbie player" free pass. I'd have expected Patrick to respond with the same type and amount of pressure to both players. He did not.

[Glork]

...status of prodded players?

[Glork]

Eh, when I list the protown players, there's always a chance that one scumbag sneaks onto the list.


I honestly don't know who I want lynched right now. No clear candidate sticks out in my mind.

[Glork]

I'm down with a Shanba-lynch.


Just sayin'.

[Glork]

Eh. I'm somewhat apathetic about a JDodge lynch. I'm not a huge fan of the post, but I know that JD's posts so far have been consistent with his general posting style. Naturally, I'd like him to elaborate on why he thinks Andy is scum (including why "save his own skin" -- if true -- is indicative of being a scumbag) and I'd like to hear his thoughts on everyone else.

[Glork]

Vote: JDodge

[Glork]

Unvote

:

wank

;

vote

:

JDodge

.

Why am I not surprised?

Furthermore, has anyone else noticed that Elmo has been on the largest bandwagon ever since the deadline was put into effect?

No, but I'm still pretty okay with his play.

I'd like you to address the inconsistency pointed out in Elmo's post. Why exactly are you voting Andy and why did you say two entirely different things in different posts?

[Glork]

Unvote

:

wank

;

vote

:

JDodge

.

Why am I not surprised?

Furthermore, has anyone else noticed that Elmo has been on the largest bandwagon ever since the deadline was put into effect?

No, but I'm still pretty okay with his play.

I'd like you to address the inconsistency pointed out in Elmo's post. Why exactly are you voting Andy and why did you say two entirely different things in different posts?

Why can't the two reasons co-exist? I will admit that I withheld my main reason at first; but nothing more.

Why on earth would you withhold your main reason?

[Glork]

Under deadline, one would think that you'd at least give your primary reason rather than some secondary reason. In spite of your tendency not to volunteer your thoughts, I find it odd that you'd say you're voting him "based on that post" rather than because of his vote if indeed you primarily suspect him for the latter.


Actually, if the post is what prompted you to move, I'd expect you to just state "based on his earlier vote and his most recent post" which you didn't do either. And unless I missed something in the past page, you still haven't indicated why his post is A) self-preservation; or B) why that, if true, would make him more likely to be scum.

[Glork]

EBWOP: That should read "Anyway, if the vote is what prompted you to move but you already suspected him for the Patrickvote..."

Having a primary reason to suspect and a secondary "this pushes me over the edge" generally mandates that you state both reasons to explain your vote.

[Glork]

vote IH

I've played with IH in a few games before on a different board. He's seemed uncharacteristically quiet compared to his usual townie self. This is something that Ripley has noticed as well.

Do you have anything to say in reply IH?

Please give your first impressions of the following players:
Sikario
JDodge
Crub
Wank
Patrick

[Glork]

But are you saying that it's not more beneficial for scum to be self-preservative than for town?

In this case, not really. Do you think that defending oneself is more beneficial for scum than for town?

[Glork]

Supposing Andy is one of our power roles, do you still think it'd be more beneficial to try his hardest not to survive?

[Glork]

Oh, just looking for some insight into your play philosophies. I figured if I have the opportunity to grill you, I'd best take advantage.

[Glork]

Shanba, I'd

REALLY

like you to explain how labeling half of the players as definitively protown is "noncomittal."

Pending your explanation, I will assume that you mean the fact that I've been cautious with my vote indicates noncommitance. As I stated earlier, no clear lynch candidate stood out to me, and I've simply chosen to be a little less headstrong in this game. My boldness has gotten me in trouble recently, so I'm trying to tone it down just a notch or two.

Also, I did not say that I thought the JD wagon was not a good wagon. I said I was apathetic towards it, meaning that I did not lean one way or another. Obviously, the discussion since then has convinced me otherwise.

What do

you

think of JD, Shanz?

[Glork]

As confident? Yes and no.

Confident enough? Sure, why not.

[Glork]

Shanz, you're cute when you poke the bear.


I'll respond sometime Thursday when I've had more than 4.5 hours of sleep among the past 42 hours or so.

[Glork]

Actually, since I'm up and still can't sleep, I'm just going to go for it.


I stated six people whom I believed were likely to be protown (as in, significantly higher than a 3/11 chance). Objectively speaking... at the end of the day, I am going to be wrong in some of my opinions in some of my games. I'm not perfect. You know this as well as I do. If a player were perfect at labeling others as town or scum, they would have no reason to play the game.

My confidence when I made the protown assertions stems from the fact that, as I said before, I think people need to force themselves to make decisions and just stick to them one way or another until/unless something arises to convince them to change their opinion.

Right now, I still firmly believe that my protown reads are likely accurate. I realize there is a chance I may be wrong -- such an approach is critical to weeding through the muck and finding scum if your initial reads aren't perfect (which, as I established earlier, happens as surprising as that may seem to some).

The impression I get from your complaints is that you want to accuse me of being noncommittal because I'm not exhibiting 100% confidence in my reads. Such a notion is beyond ridiculous. I am not going to lock those six players as "Protown" for the rest of the game. I am not going to close myself to the possibility that I was wrong about my initial read on somebody. But

until I am given reason to change my opinion

, I am perfectly happy calling the likes of Crub, Apple, IH, Andy, Elmo, and Glork protown.

I guess my point is.... I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. I don't see an inconsistency in my take on things, and if your gripe is as I'm interpreting, I think you're being far too extremist.



Now, regarding the "boldness" comment. Perhaps I should have used aggressive, deliberately controversial, stubborn, reckless, and excessively vocal as descriptors. Point is, lately I've been very RAWR a lot, and it's turned heads in bad ways. I wanted to avoid that, but apparently me toning things down is just as alarming to people. This is what sucks about being a "high profile" player -- scrutiny from all angles.

And finally, regarding the last quote -- it means exactly what it says.

[Glork]

Where's

JDodge's

name...? Is he scum?

Where's your name...? Are you scum?

[Glork]

Mostly because he's probably scum.

[Glork]

Have you been reading the thread?

[Glork]

Double OMGUS + Patrick, eh?


You should try busing Patrick instead.

[Glork]

Actually, given the nature of deadline rules in this game, part of me wonders if the scums are sitting idly by right now... it might be a good idea to look at deadline lurkers at some point.

Still, JD is definitely the play today. Happy where my vote is.

[Glork]

Hardly surprising.

Vote: Patrick

[Glork]

I don't really see what the point of that post is, Crub.

[Glork]

That much is obvious. Why do it?

[Glork]

D'you do this often? How much weight do you generally put into the opinions of the deceased?

[Glork]

lulz @ Andy.



I'd be tentatively okay with a Shanba lynch, too.

[Glork]

Hardly surprising.

Vote: Patrick

Reason for this?

I'm trying to lynch the scums.

[Glork]

Sikario, it would be in your best interests to thoroughly respond to BooKie's Post 437.

[Glork]

I can haz info?

Someone update me on stuffz.

I made you a cookie, but I eated it.

Hi, go read the thread for yourself, and then vote for Patrick.


Actually, the former is optional. You could just vote for Patrick.

[Glork]

Hm.


What do

you

think it is, Rip?

[Glork]

I'm not sure yet. It's apparent that you don't feel my behavior is worthy enough of a vote right now, but also interesting enough to bring it up.

I will say this: There is a reason for.... eh, most of what I do in mafia. I'm not dicking around for its own sake. And I am genuinely interested to know your opinion on my behavior so far.

[Glork]

I want to vote andy.

There's nothing stopping you from doing so.

[Glork]

Add Sikario and Wank to my "probably protown" list. Those two, plus IH, BooKie, probably Crub, and probably Andy... and of course, me... that means the scums are Shanba, Patrick, and Ripley?

That doesn't feel

completely

right. I'll mull it over. I may even look over the thread in the coming days.

[Glork]

For the record that's not a compliment. Just an observation.

You seem very clumsy, but probably protown.

[Glork]

Uh huh.

You know what I don't like about you?

You seem to enjoy bringing up a boatload of "possibilities" regarding people's behavior without actually taking a stance on them. You did this yesterday with Apple regarding his behavior, and now that this is the

second

timeyou've done it, I can't help but wonder if it's a tactic to scatter the seeds and see where they land.

I want to know what you think my behavior is most indicative of and why you think it. Period. I don't want a laundry-list of maybes. That doesn't help catch scum.




Tempted to move my vote to Rip. Very, very tempted.

[Glork]

*shrug* You're the one who brought up my behavior to begin with. I've given you plenty with which to work. Just because I'm not catering to your ideal of perfect play doesn't mean that I haven't been productive. In fact, I believe I've taken a stand on every single player in the game at some point. If you're protown, you ought to grow a set of testicles and figure out what you think.

[Glork]

Eh, *bump*?

[Glork]

Sik, you're either an idiot, completely absent-minded, or you're not taking this seriouesly at all. You even

commented

on my opinion of you:

Add Sikario and Wank to my "probably protown" list

. Those two, plus IH, BooKie, probably Crub, and probably Andy... and of course, me... that means the scums are Shanba, Patrick, and Ripley?

That doesn't feel

completely

right. I'll mull it over. I may even look over the thread in the coming days.

•

[Glork]

Nothing's wrong with it per se. I just wanted to emphasize that you obviously saw me comment on you because you responded to it.

[Glork]

IH, I'd like you to give more on everybody at some point in the near future. You've been nigh-useless since partway through D1, and that's not helpful. I believe there are some outstanding accusations to which you need to respond. Oh, and if this is going to become like a week's worth of "I'll get to this later" posts, just do everyone a favor and ask to be replaced now. I have developed very little tolerance for people who constantly make check-in posts but don't contribute. If I weren't so sure that you're protown right now, I'd be all over your ass.

BooKie's posts are relatively inspiring, considering what her predecessors did. I'm still going tentatively town based on the early interactions re: Apple, but I should be able to develop a clearer picture of what's going on as the next day or two progresses.



I still really think that the scums are Patrick, Ripley, and Shanba. And this game needs some serious contribution, or else there's going to be a lot of shit hitting a lot of fans in the coming days. We're already halfway through our three-week grace period, and I want to know exactly what everybody's thoughts are on everyone before we hit deadline. End of story.

[Glork]

I'd like Glork at some point to explain his projected scumgroup (which apparently didn't feel quite right before, but now he's

still

really sure of). Or, explain why sikario and wank (or heck, IH) are probably protown. I don't agree with the attack on Ripley's list; whilst that one wasn't especially useful, it's not out of character in my experience. I've pretty often seen him post thoughts without drawing a conclusion one way or the other.

It's really the fact that I've seen you, Shanba, and Ripley each do things that pinged my scumdar, and I've seen something happen re: literally every other player that pinged my "towndar" if you will.

I realize that's not entirely accurate -- I had Eyceking as town based on that one Communique, up until the very end of the game -- but it's enough to go on for me.

[Glork]

Actually.

Unvote, Vote: Ripley

[Glork]

Wank: 456-459

Sikario: I don't know. I guess he seems sincere. I can't put my finger on any specific thing, but the general vibe is protown.

[Glork]

EBWOP: 461, 465. There's something in there that doesn't look made up.

[Glork]

I have a homework assignment for you all.

Read the first few pages of these two games:
Mini 344: Sesame Street (eye on Glork/Kain)
Mini 358 (eye on Glork/Sprontalic)

...and then tell me why I decided that my vote should settle on Rip.

[Glork]

You were close. More notable is the fact that Kain/Spront/Rip all got very hussy over my chosen playstyle, demanded that I explain myself, and then basically OMGUSed me when I refused to.


There're enough parallels that I'm willing to stick with my vote. I think Ripley is a hell of a lot more articulate than Kain or Spront were, but the tells are there and I'm going to go with them.

[Glork]

Given that, do you also feel that Patrick is scum based on the fact that it was your vote on Patrick that started Ripley's reaction to your playstyle?

Not necessarily because of that. In fact, in Mini 358 Atticus (whom Spront went out of his way to defend) was a townie -- there seems to be some confusion regarding that. This kind of situation says much more about the protector than the protectee.

Keep in mind, though, that I am suspicious of Patrick for other reasons, and having Rip come to his aid like this certainly doesn't ease my qualms about either player.

I can also think of one more instance where this sortof happened, although the circumstances were somewhat different. In Kingmaker II, I was badgering PJscum, and Pookyscum came flying to his aid with a very focused attack on how my browbeating wasn't helping. I didn't go after Pooky because of his defense, because I felt that my behavior was actually pretty outlandish in that game, but Pooky and PJ both turned out to be scum.

[Glork]

Because I've yet to see anybody present a case to convince me that he's worth voting for.

[Glork]

Why did you ask this question? Is this in regards to Wank? If so, why are you attempting to make people compare Wank and someone else (such as, at the time, JD, or Apple)

They were supposed to highlight Apple and Sikario, respectively. I was stuck on this whole "Why is Patrick jumping on Apple for one thing, but giving Sik the Newbie Card for another thing?" train of thought at the time.


IIRC, nobody really answered it in a straightforward manner, though, so I just let it drop.

[Glork]

I'm expecting this post and vote to be the Mafia equivalent of suicide by cop.

What exactly does this sentence mean?

[Glork]

Because you're getting lynched tomorrow.

[Glork]

Mod: Given the holidays, what exactly

is

the player/replacement and deadline situation right now?


I'd like an extension of some kind, but I'd understand it if that's not possible.

[Glork]

Eh. Go a head and prod BooKitty, Crub, IH, and Wank.



Also, Crub, you should probably claim so that we can lynch scum instead of you.

[Glork]

*posts*


Rip and/or Pat still need to die. It's really too bad we don't have a Vig in this game.

[Glork]

I guess the next step is to see who (if anyone) counterclaims IH.



Any takers?

[Glork]

Woo! (Doc: PROTECT IH TONIGHT, NO WIFOM ABOUT IT. SERIOUSLY.)


I'm still putting my money on Shanba/Patrick at this point. Andy seems like a reasonable third.

[Glork]

I want to make sure that the Doc doesn't try to be a hero.


Anyway, TSQ... who do you think are the scums?

[Glork]

No thanks

[Glork]

Shea, if this were D1, I'd banter with you. But the fact that everyone in this fucking game has been inactive for two solid gamedays and nobody is bothering to look for scum is really pissing me off. You've done nothing since replacing into here, and the good feeling I had about Sikario is very rapidly evaporating.

[Glork]

You're an idiot. This isn't about intimidation in any way, shape, or form. If I just wanted you to say/do/think what I say/do/think, I'd let you barn me all day and night. It's about playing the game and trying to find scum, and you don't seem to be interested in doing that at all. Why the fuck did you even sign up to replace if you're just going to be a dick and do nothing?

It's partly meta, partly policy, and partly just the fact that in LyLo, under a public (and obviously very strict, based on the mod's decisions over the holidays) deadline, you're actively proving to be a hinderance/distraction to that process, because you obviously can't get any info from

me

by poking the bear, and not a single other fucking player is around enough to bother posting or doing anything.



Honestly. The town in this game is atrocious, and the scums are just sliding their way to victory.

Mod: Please prod

everybody

(except TSQ and myself, I guess).

[Glork]

I see no reason you would have assumed Sikario was town, given my personal meta with him

Could you link to games in which you've played with Siki? I don't really have a meta on him -- I had just been reading his play in this game.

If you've been in a game where he was scum, that would be especially helpful.

[Glork]

TSQ, do you know offhand how many other people in this game know your opinion on that thing that happened in a ScumChat game last week or whatever?

I am trying to decide if it's significant that you haven't done that thing that you claim you think should be done in that one specific situation.




And I

REALLY

hope you understand what I'm talking about, because I probably look like a complete idiot to everyone else. Obviously, the crypticness is necessary, though.

[Glork]

Oh, okay.

[Glork]

One thing I have noticed about Andy is that D1, he said that he's no good D1, and since then he really hasn't done anything at all. I gave him a free pass then, but he is a viable lynch candidate in my eyes.

[Glork]

This is mostly for completeness's sake, but Shanz: What makes you think that avoiding the thread during deadline makes someone more likely to be scum?

[Glork]

Of course, I wouldn't defend him and nobody explicitly asked me for my opinion on that.

So when people don't explicitly ask for your opinion on something, it's okay to not volunteer information to the rest of the town?

How do you expect people to lynch scum if you're town and you do not impress upon them your thoughts and feelings?

[Glork]

IH, this bothers me:

Oh shiz Crub posts a bandwagon vote for Rip "in the name of progress", and nothing else. I'm kind of certain this guys scum.

I could cite at least half a dozen times where I (as a protown player) wagon somebody just to move along with the day. Is there something specific that makes you think Crub is scum in doing this, or do you just not like the wagoning?

[Glork]

That's what I'm thinking, too (and I do the same as well), but if there's something else there, I'd like to know what it is.

[Glork]

Vote: Andy

Let's do this, bitches.

[Glork]

No wait, I changed my mind already.

Unvote

Before I vote, I want Patrick, Andy, Crub, and Shanba each to make an ordered list of players from "Scummiest" to "Most likely protown." I want to see something.

[Glork]

Hm. Write them up individually, then afterwards note all connections/interactions which you see between players.

[Glork]

Could you explain why Shanba/Pat doesn't work as a scumteam, and why Shanba/Siki doesn't work? I seem to have missed something there.

[Glork]

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?title=Bussing

[Glork]

Also, BooKie, note that Shabna makes the "you two are scumbuddies" suggestion but undermines it in two different ways within that same paragraph (one by saying it invalidates his argument against Patrick, and then by falling back on "you make little sense to me" rather than just sticking with "this is suspicious").

[Glork]

Possible. I didn't think it likely. And I'm sure it's not the case with Sikario, because Sikario tends to vote himself pretty much whenever he's under pressure as town or scum, and I think Patrick would probably be aware of that fact.

*shrug*

I was just trying to figure out if you had taken the possibility into account. Obviously, I disagree with you, as Patrick/Shanba/Andy are three of my top four right now. And I'm interested in getting into your head a bit to figure out what you're thinking and how you're thinking it.

[Glork]

Vote: Andy

Also, *bump*

[Glork]

Unvote

Either the scum are not paying enough attention to quick lynch, or Andy is scum.

Elaborate?

[Glork]

Crub, have you ever been part of a two-person speedlynch?

Have you ever been part of a three-person speedlynch?

[Glork]

EBWOP: For that matter, have you ever witnessed a two-person or three-person speedlynch?

[Glork]

seen a two-person, not a three-person though, been part of a two-person too from memory.

Okay, then.

A) You should realize that it's usually pretty difficult to get two people online, looking at the same thread, and thinking the same thing at the exact same time in order to properly quicklynch. If they try to quicklynch and somebody sneaks in an unvote, both players are outed and the jig is up. As you can probably guess, it's even

more

difficult to coordinate a three-person quicklynch -- enough so that I don't think I've ever seen one proper. Which leads me to...

B) I'd say at least 80% of the time, a quicklynch is made possible by a triggerpost which usually follows about the exact form of the post you just made. Somebody mentions quicklynching, usually in an "X hasn't been quicklynched yet" post, or they say something like, "Hmm, I think I'm about ready to vote for X." It's a clear-cut signal to their scumbuddies that they want to go for it then and there. Since there are difficulties with getting a proper lynch, you would have had to slap down a vote instead of just stating your intent.

C) On a somewhat different note, you express how the scums quicklynch, but in case you haven't noticed, activity in this game in general is pretty low. You posted a mere 16 hours after I did, seemingly resigned to the fact that there hadn't been a quicklynch. Given that there are players from all over the world on this site (and indeed in this game)

and

that it's a weekend and posting around here is usually significantly diminished on weekends, I don't believe for a second that you honestly thought Andy was scum due to lack of a quicklynch.



I currently very strongly believe that the scumgroup is Patrick/Shanba/Crub. I won't be voting Andy at all today, given Crub's behavior.

[Glork]

Also, prod: Patrick, Andy, BooKitty, and TSQ.


Wasn't there talk about scums trying to go inactive to force a bad deadline lynch? Why aren't these people checking in on the thread regularly?

[Glork]

(And Shanba. Lurking bastards, all of you.)

[Glork]

....that's all you have to say for yourself?

You're not going to try to convince me to lynch Patrick or Shanba, both of whom are also high on your list?

The appeal to emotion will not work on me, good sir. You are best served to try to convince me why one of the others is a better play than you are. At least then, if you're town we don't lose outright; and if you're scum, you have at least a snowball's chance of hell in killing the Doc, killing IH, and somehow pulling this game out of your ass.

[Glork]

Just to highlight, I've managed to convince the Cop and the Paragon I'm scum. What sort of "snowball's chance in hell" am I supposed to have in this situation

Suppose you're town, we lynch a scumbag elsewhere today and IH investigates you as town tonight.


This is why if you're town you have something to play for.

[Glork]

Not entirely. Plus, we both know there are two other scums. I'm actually interested to see your cases against those three as well. It could prove valuable.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Let me put it this way. The less readily you cooperate with us, the harder time I'll have believing you're town.

[Glork]

Glork, you know damn well why I am not checking the thread.

No, actually.... it had slipped my mind entirely. I don't keep mental tabs on everything that's going on in your life.

[Glork]

Eh.

Vote: Crub

FoS: Patrick, Shanba

[Glork]

Um, that was a whole lot of talk saying "Tsq is scum" without actually saying why TSQ is scum. In fact, most of your reasoning assumed TSQ as scum, and then argued that the others fit with him.

It would seem to be odd reasoning, then, to say that I am your favored lynch target without actually saying what i have done that is so scummy. That would seem pretty important at LAL. perhaps you could go do it now.

Actually, I believe she made several points against Sikario.

But if you want a reason that you seem scummy: You've not done a damned thing since replacing in other than making this one post to try to cover your own ass. I could well be wrong about one of my top three, and you are definitely the Alternate in my scumlist.

[Glork]

After reading through (most of) this exchange, I am further cemented in my belief that BooKie is town, and I feel slightly better about TSQ.

Still diggin' my Crub/Pat/Shanz trio.

[Glork]

I can see exactly where she's coming from and, looking from her perspective, her stance make perfect sense. You obviously take issue with one of her premises by asserting that nobody else can assume that BooKie is town. While true, I don't think that is indicative of anything. I've seen plenty of towns and scums in the past make such statements, with all different levels of explanation. Relatively few of them include the "but none of you can make this assertion because you don't know that I'm protown" disclaimer. I don't necessarily fault you for your argument here, TSQ, but I disagree entirely with your conclusion that it is indicative of anything.

Anyway, on to why specifically I think she's town from this debate...
1) The fact that she repeatedly asserts that she wants her case scrutinized for details tells me that she's more interested in getting it right than in convincing people to think/do what she currently thinks/does. This is a pretty major tell for me right now, even though she stated it as evidence of her likely being protown.
2) Regarding the counterarguments, this:

I'm looking at the ones you provided. I'm checking them against previous games for a meta read and trying to draw conclusions. Sadly, this isn't an instant process.

strikes me as definitively protown. Now obviously there is not yet any proof-positive evidence that she has gone through with the claimed crosschecks, but I think it's worth something.

It's possible that I am having the wool pulled over my eyes, but the posts feel very genuine to me. There's probably not nearly enough to convince you of her innocence, but I felt obliged to point out how I feel.

I should also point out that as I indicated quite some time ago, part of the reason I believed BooKie to be town earlier was based on actions/interactions involving her predecessors. A re-read really would do you some good, I think.




If there were one thing that bothered me about BooKitty, it's that I don't feel she's done enough to analyze and critique Patrick, Shanba, Crub, and Andy on individual levels. She seems content to go after the "surfire" thing, to save the work for later, but that could be a coverup to avoid making a decision regarding potential scumbuddies. Her argument, from her perspective, makes sense, but it is nothing more than a process-of-elimination argument.

That said, I have one more excercise for BooKie to do. Hypothetical situation:
Suppose one of Andy/Crub were lynched today as scum, and the other were nightkilled. Suppose tomorrow, one of Shanba/Patrick were scum, and the other was nightkilled. Convince IH and myself that you are protown and that TSQ is scum.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Also,

Modprod Shanba

again, because he has once again gone 72 hours without posting. More minus points for Shanba for being endgamelurkerscum.

[Glork]

Bleh. I have this horrible sense that come tomorrow I'm going to be wearing a noose around my neck.

Maybe that's because you keep making posts that don't really address anyone, present any detailed cases, or come to any strong conclusions.

Or it could be because you end every post you make with a "blah, this sucks" type of comment.

Or, huge stretch here, it could be because you're scum.



Personally, I hope it's all three. [/Cox]

[Glork]

Glork...That wasn't the point. The "lie" as it were was largely immaterial, it was the DWA which was important.

I don't think her intent was to make you look worse through a DWA. I think it was incidental because you were attacking something that made sense from her perspective.

[Glork]

662 is where I make the DWA, 663 is where she falls into the DWA, and 664 is where I explain it. Reading all three of those posts in detail is VITAL to understanding the rest of the exchange, which from your comments, I don't think you did.

No, I read it all and I understand perfectly.


My point is that, as I read your posts, I though virtually

the exact same thing that BooKie immediately replied to

. I don't think your DWA works at all or proves anything here, especially given this fact.

Can you give me five past examples where use of DWA has busted scum?

[Glork]

Actually, the claim wasnt that you could be certain, it was that I don't think you can ever make the claim that X is NOT Y's scum partner. And since you take Shanba not being Patricks scumbuddy and Andy not being crubs as a premise, your whole case is flawed from the start.

/disagree with this, also.

Now, granted, I agree with you that it's significantly weaker when the players in question are highly experienced/advanced, but there are definitely things that I read as definitively genuine.

You're going to be disappointed, then. I may have a fairly defeatist attitude, but this is not indicative of my alignment. What would I, as scum, have to be defeatist about right now? We're in triple lylo. I'm probably not going to be lynched today. Unless you believe it's because I'm scum with Crub? That would follow. But even then, I would still have a very good chance of winning as scum.

Bzzt.

First of all, re: "Unless you believe it's because I'm scum with Crub" made me laugh and cringe. I think I've stated no less than three times in the past two pages that I think both you and Crub are scum.

Now, you have every reason to be defeatest. The Cop is outed and has an innocent result (yours truly), with no counterclaims. That narrows the field of suspicion down significantly. If I happen to be the Doctor, it's all gravy for you. Kill me tonight, IH probably outs one more person, kill him tomorrow night. Pretty solid chance of mislynch in LyLo. However, if you believe that I am

not

the doc (75% chance, from the scumbaggo's perspectives), you're in trouble. Kill me and IH is guaranteed

two

more investigations. Poke elsewhere, and there are still two confirmed innocents tomorrow. Now, if we are not taking reads into account, your only viable play would be to kill me and hope that I am the Doctor. However, if you read me as Not-Doc, you're definitely in quite a pickle.


Now, regarding the rest of your post: I will concede that you did make a point way earlier today about the "inactivity towards end-of-day" thing, but two things:
1) An assload of discussion has happened since then, and you have been distinctly lacking in analysis of said discussion.
2) You yourself are now becoming one of those "inactives" that you griped about earlier. When I asked for the last set of prods, I decided that I'd look to see who posted and then disappeared for 72 hours. You were the only such person. Like I said, definite minus points.

[Glork]

Shea: I honestly think that I would have hit upon the exact same things that BooKie did, because like I said, that's how I felt when I read the post.

[Glork]

Meh. DWA/Strawmanning can get really touchy in general. I know that as a player, regardless of alignment, I tend to focus on points where I know I have more ground. Sometimes I make a concession on other points, and sometimes I ignore them. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I'm just not convinced that it's a reliable enough "tell."

[Glork]

By the way, team, our grace period ends on Sunday, I think, and Monday we are under "Half must post or else."

TSQ, no more dicking around. Go read the thread and produce more results.

Everyone else: Be prepared to put your votes where your mouths are. There is entirely too much dilly-dallying and people simply making "I think X is scum" comments.

[Glork]

Do you believe Crub to be innocent then, Shea?

[Glork]

Well, considering BooKitty is not currently voting for Crub (and hasn't posted since yesterday, meaning she almost certainly hasn't seen him at Lynch-1), you believe her to be scum, and we are in LyLo barring a miracle-protect from the Doc, you really ought to figure out what you think, Shea. There should be some sense of urgency if you believe that the chances of CrubTown are remotely significant.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Oh, fuck, I can't count. He's at L-2. Yeah, that would require both BooKie and Patrick to be scum for the virtual auto-loss. Not out of the question, but meh. Crub is scummier than BooKie by a pretty good margin.

[Glork]

I didn't occur to me until after Patrick hammered, that we could have No Lynched yesterday for a free investigation.

Oh Well.

No Lynch is not allowed in this game. If the game goes to night due to a deadline, the person with the most votes will be lynched. If there is a tie at this point, I will flip a coin. Please don't tie. (Note that the mafia win condition ends the game at 50%.)

(6:47:56 PM) GlorkTheInvader: Stupid deadline rules
(6:48:03 PM) BouncyElmo: hah
(6:48:06 PM) patrickgower2006: I loved those deadline rules .>.>
(6:48:10 PM) BouncyElmo: I don't want to be scum ;o
(6:48:13 PM) GlorkTheInvader: Oh, scum absolutely would
(6:48:20 PM) BouncyElmo: scum love deadlines full stop
(6:48:24 PM) patrickgower2006: shanba was like. I am going to lurk hardcore
(6:48:26 PM) GlorkTheInvader: they favor scum even more than "no majority at deadline means no lynch," I think
(6:48:27 PM) patrickgower2006: and did
(6:48:29 PM) GlorkTheInvader: Yes
(6:48:30 PM) GlorkTheInvader: he did
(6:48:32 PM) GlorkTheInvader: and I called him on it
(6:48:38 PM) GlorkTheInvader: and I called you on not being you
(6:48:46 PM) GlorkTheInvader: but nobody listened to me
(6:48:50 PM) patrickgower2006: Well
(6:49:05 PM) patrickgower2006: I realise it was pretty obvious to you I was scum, and couldn't do much about it. But I had a fanclub
(6:49:50 PM) patrickgower2006: I think I was quite clean for my first 3 posts or so
(6:49:53 PM) patrickgower2006: >.>
(6:50:05 PM) patrickgower2006: then that stupid apple vote
(6:50:08 PM) patrickgower2006: zomg
(6:50:11 PM) GlorkTheInvader: OH MY GOD
(6:50:12 PM) GlorkTheInvader: SO FUCKING OBVIOUS
(6:50:22 PM) GlorkTheInvader: like
(6:50:23 PM) GlorkTheInvader: seriously

[Glork]

I'll never trust you again, Patrick.

-sad kitty-

You could've trusted

me

....


*hurt*

[Glork]

There's nothing quite like being nailed by the whole town and basically let off the hook. It's surreal as an experience.

You have no idea how irate I am with myself for not having lynched you guys D2/D3. I have never literally figured out a game then just gift-wrapped it for the scums. PJ brought this up last night, but now I know how he felt after Space Monkey.



You can also bet that if you behave

anything

like the way you did in this game, I'm going to nail your ass to the wall so hard you'll be shitting drywall and paint chips for a week.

[Glork]

....go with the common denominator(s). We should have lynched Pat or Shanba, not Andy or Crub. We're basically just retarded.

[Glork]

Oh, that's another thing. Did you actually have any suspicions of me, or did you really just investigate me because I wasn't killed N1?

[Glork]

Sure, Andy. You're one of like two players in this game who didn't stink up the whole joint.

And the "common denominator" comment meant that, since my groups were "Pat/Shan/Andy" or "Pat/Shan/Crub," I should've lynched one of the two I was sure was scum... not one of the fringe players.