Mini 742 Monopoly Mafia - Game Over!

[Alabaska J]

Ala, your defense is horrible.
"Oh guys, I did something townie, but I won't say what... go find it"
Could also mean
"Hey I'm scum trying to grasp for my life and see if i can get anyone to look through my posts and find something townie."
That is what I think you are doing here.

i'm not defending myself with it

i'm just frustrated.

[Alabaska J]

My case on nightfall was never that great, but i disliked the way he dropped the argument. it seemed like spolium had kind of gotten a one up on him, and suddenly he agrees that the discussion is pointless? doesn't sit well with me.

How do you figure Spolium got one up on me?
I "paused" discussions with him because I wanted to hear more of a discussion from other players, and because we had gone on for so long already that it didn't seem like future discussion would change either of our opinions.

You couldn't find an example. You kept decreasing the frequency of the possibility of such a lynch happening until BAM you drop the argument completely.

[Zilla]

Alabaska J, for the love of god, if you're town, post your damn defense.

[CrashTextDummie]

Finally found the time to read through this hellacious game. I may have started skimming a bit towards the end, so I'll have to get in a reread.

I strongly felt on Day 2 that pacman281292 is scum. Read his posts in isolation: Almost all he ever did was complain about the game stalling, yet he

never even placed a vote

.

I also found Gimmy scummy, for reasons mostly outlined by ac1983fan.

To top it all off, I found The Fonz's entry into the game to be strongly indicative of those two being scum together.

I don't really see the case against Alabaska J, and will have to reread him. I'm not familiar with (what I assume to be) the American version of Monopoly, so I can't comment on his claim without googling it first. As for him roleblocking me on N1 - I'm not going to comment.

Vote: The Fonz

I'll try to get a more detailed analysis in before deadline. Speaking of which:

Mod: please consider extending the deadline in lieu of a rather large number of replacements.

[StrangerSSK]

Mod: please consider extending the deadline in lieu of a rather large number of replacements.

Extension granted. The deadline has been changed to May 8 at 9:00 PM EDT/7:00 PM MDT.

[Zilla]

And what, pray tell, is the case on Grimmy, such that the Fonz is clearly a scumbuddy, to the point that you voted The Fonz instead of Grimmy?

[Nightfall]

Ala - From personal experience I know that bandwagons, even ones based on nothing can fill up pretty quickly and end in an unwanted lynch. I fully admitted that I wasn't able to find an example when looking back through my most recent games (I did in fact find something in an on going game but because of the rules that was discarded)

I stand by my claim that I've seen it happen multiple times before, I just could not locate an example of it in my recent games. I'm actually rather shocked that there weren't more people in the game that shared my thoughts, as I had thought for sure everyone must have been in some game where someone wasn't paying attention to the vote count and lynched someone (supposedly) without meaning to.

Didn't we at some point in this game "think" that someone was lynched when they really weren't because someone miss-counted the votes? It's the same kind of thing only in reverse.

[Nightfall]

either lynch me for a complete bullshit reason or drop it.

Sounds like a challenge to me.

unvote, Vote: Charter

And an FoS to Yawetag, suggesting something that people turn out to not like is not a scumtell, it was the non-existent rolefishing that would be the scumtell. In this case, it was just an idea that may or may not have been thought through. So dependent tell at best.

Congratulations, you guys just lynched a power role.

what the fuck, we lynched him?

5 pages in?

That or i wasn't paying attention to the votecount.

5 pages in, no less.

You guys are all fucking idiots.

What the hell?

FoMFS Pacman and Jebus, assuming charter flips town.

I recounted, we're only at six votes on charter

unvote

just in case we're L-1, anyway.

Recounting...

I would have thought that this would have shown my point how little people keep track of votes sometimes. Multiple people thought we had a lynch on page 5 without bothering to check the votecount to be sure.

[Zilla]

Crash, additionally, do you see the case on Alabaska being on his roleclaim?

[Jebus]

Alabaska J, for the love of god, if you're town, post your damn defense.

This

And avoiding hammering in lieu of the deadline extension and Crash replacement.

V/LA for the next 24-36 hours, by the way.

[DrippingGoofball]

Vote: The Fonz

I can get behind this. Or in front.

Vote: The Fonz

[Zilla]

^ Explanation please, especially given that the original reason needs clarification itself.

[Alabaska J]

Alabaska J, for the love of god, if you're town, post your damn defense.

dear god i have.

for some reason you just keep ignoring it.

what more do you fucking want???!?!?!?!!!!??

[Zilla]

there's one thing i think that i have done that is very townie that no one has said yet. i can't say, or else it will look like i'm just pointing out something and it will turn into WIFOM. I hope someone points it out sooner or later.

[Zilla]

Crash, additionally, do you see the case on Alabaska AS being ABOUT his roleclaim?

EBWOP for clarify.

[CrashTextDummie]

And what, pray tell, is the case on Grimmy, such that the Fonz is clearly a scumbuddy, to the point that you voted The Fonz instead of Grimmy?

First of all, I have to say that the dismissive tone of your post strikes me as rather curious. My reasoning for voting The Fonz over Grimmy was twofold:
1. Individually, I find The Fonz more scummy than Grimmy.
2. My suspicions that they are scum together are largely based on The Fonz's play.

As I reread to formulate my case, I realize that I didn't read one crucial post closely enough, which weakens my suspicion somewhat, but doesn't eliminate it entirely:

The Fonz spent a sizable portion of his first post of the game arguing in no uncertain terms that he finds Grimmy scummy, before seguing into a Jebus case and sticking his vote there. Yet when DGB placed both Jebus and Grimmy on a list of "TOTALLY TOWN" players, Fonz asked her to justify her read of Jebus only, not Grimmy. And then finally the post I misread: When I read this post on my initial read-through, I took it to mean that Jebus and Braeden are his top suspects, which struck me as very odd seeing as he barely mentioned Braeden before (as opposed to Grimmy). I now realize that he was talking about people he found suspicious on a particular wagon which Grimmy wasn't a part of. This puts a damper on my theory that Fonz and Grimmy are scum together, but I still find his behavior towards him/her (a rather sizable attack, only to segue to another player and not mentioning Grimmy again) indicative of possible distancing.

I'll make cases against Grimmy and pacman's portion of Fonz's game in due time. I'll also take a closer look at Jebus to see if Fonz's case against him has merit.

Crash, additionally, do you see the case on Alabaska AS being ABOUT his roleclaim?

Thanks for the clarification, although I'm still not sure I understand the question. Naturally, his roleclaim will play a part in whatever case is being made about him.

What I was saying is that I didn't find Alabaska J particularly scummy on my readthrough. I took a look at your posts in isolation just now to see what the case against him actually is (seeing as you seem to be pushing it the most). I see active lurking, weirdness towards Nightfall and his roleclaim being brought up against him. Is that about the extent of it?

[DrippingGoofball]

^ Explanation please, especially given that the original reason needs clarification itself.

I already did, I found The Fonz's predecessor to be by far the scummiest player in the game. The Fonz is a good player, and I didn't feel I was going to get traction on a wagon since people were already defending him, and ignoring his predecessor's scummy record.

So if a player manifests interest in a Fonz wagon, I'm in.

[The Fonz]

Except that I don't see how you can argue Pacman was particularly scummy. He claimed repeatedly to have serious connection issues- this is borne out by the fact that he was replaced without ever having returned to the game in earnest. (Braeden, on the other hand, was active lurking a ton).

[ac1983fan]

I find it hilarious that Braeden's last post was "I'm not being replaced".
I really don't like the way CTD is acting in regards to the fonz; Fonz said Grimmy was more anti-town than scummy. Anti-town != scummy.

[The Fonz]

Well, no, Fonz didn't say that: it's well known that I consider antitown behaviour a scumtell, because irrational town and irrational scum will balance each other out, but rational scum will act scummy whilst rational town never will.

What CTD seems to be missing, in 'it starts as an attack on Grimmy then segues into one on Jebus' are the following points: 1. It's a chronological analysis of the game before I showed up, and the Grimmy things generally occurred before the Jebus things- and Grimmy's posts have been more game related later on 2. That I'm voting Jebus by no means implies i don't suspect Grimmy 3. Grimmy supports the Alabaska wagon, which I don't like and to which Jebus seems to be the logical alternative. 4. Jebus' 'I'm voting for the sake of voting' and 'my top suspect has become my bottom suspect, simply by virtue of being replaced' strike me as big scumtells.

He's not actually commented on the merits of the points of my case; all CTD has done is said that because my comments were critical of Grimmy, but more critical and leading to a vote on Jebus, I must be buddies with grimmy. Which is logic that would shame a four-year-old.

[CrashTextDummie]

Except that I don't see how you can argue Pacman was particularly scummy. He claimed repeatedly to have serious connection issues- this is borne out by the fact that he was replaced without ever having returned to the game in earnest. (Braeden, on the other hand, was active lurking a ton).

Except pacman himself admitted to being actively lurking. If the guy himself thinks he could be posting more, I think I'll safely dismiss his replacement's claim that it was all because of connection issues.

Not that The Fonz doesn't have a point; pacman did repeatedly state that he had connection issues, and I have no reason to believe that he was lying. However, when he DID post, it was stuff like this:

*yawn* this is soooooo active...

Or this:

whoa
this activity is horrible
I call this: STALLED

This from the guy who never voted even

once

on D2 and did little more than throw a bunch of FoSes around. In my book, that

is

particularly scummy.

What CTD seems to be missing, in 'it starts as an attack on Grimmy then segues into one on Jebus' are the following points: 1. It's a chronological analysis of the game before I showed up,

I did not miss that the analysis you made is presented in chronological order. But for you to claim that it is "a chronological analysis of the game before [you] showed up" is more than a little hyperbole.

The reason I find it scummy is because it seems to be tailored for a purpose. Some stuff on Grimmy (possibly to distance), followed by more stuff on Jebus, sprinkled with some comments on unrelated stuff inbetween to mask the design. There's a number of people you don't comment on at all, and there's even a number of things you failed to mention that are crucial to your analysis. Like...

and the Grimmy things generally occurred before the Jebus things- and Grimmy's posts have been more game related later on

My own thoughts on Grimmy's play will follow later. I will just note here that you failed to mention Grimmy's supposed shift in behavior in your "analysis of the game" or whether it impacted your view of him/her. Which illustrates my point that your initial analysis was shady.

2. That I'm voting Jebus by no means implies i don't suspect Grimmy

And yet you didn't want DGB to elaborate on why she found Grimmy "TOTALLY TOWN".

3. Grimmy supports the Alabaska wagon, which I don't like and to which Jebus seems to be the logical alternative.

I wasn't aware of the fact that you didn't like the Alabaska wagon, apart from liking another wagon better.

He's not actually commented on the merits of the points of my case; all CTD has done is said that because my comments were critical of Grimmy, but more critical and leading to a vote on Jebus, I must be buddies with grimmy. Which is logic that would shame a four-year-old.

The first part of this is true. I haven't commented on the merits of the points in your case because I haven't studied it in detail. Everything else, however, is a gross misrepresentation of what I've said. I find you both scummy, individually and on your own. That there is possible evidence of you two being scumbuddies merely reinforces my suspicions about you.

[The Fonz]

Except that I don't see how you can argue Pacman was particularly scummy. He claimed repeatedly to have serious connection issues- this is borne out by the fact that he was replaced without ever having returned to the game in earnest. (Braeden, on the other hand, was active lurking a ton).

Except pacman himself admitted to being actively lurking. If the guy himself thinks he could be posting more, I think I'll safely dismiss his replacement's claim that it was all because of connection issues.

The problem is, if you're claiming his posts were deliberate active lurkers, why are you ignoring the very much worse offenders?

What CTD seems to be missing, in 'it starts as an attack on Grimmy then segues into one on Jebus' are the following points: 1. It's a chronological analysis of the game before I showed up,

I did not miss that the analysis you made is presented in chronological order. But for you to claim that it is "a chronological analysis of the game before [you] showed up" is more than a little hyperbole.

Get a dictionary. Look up 'hyperbole.' There is nothing hyperbolic about accurately describing something as an assessment of things that stood out before I replaced into the game.

The reason I find it scummy is because it seems to be tailored for a purpose.

Commenting on things that stand out as scummy has an ulterior motive?

Some stuff on Grimmy (possibly to distance), followed by more stuff on Jebus, sprinkled with some comments on unrelated stuff inbetween to mask the design. There's a number of people you don't comment on at all, and there's even a number of things you failed to mention that are crucial to your analysis. Like...

So I comment on things that happen early, then in the middle, then late, and that's part of some scummy conspiracy to distance from Grimmy?

My own thoughts on Grimmy's play will follow later. I will just note here that you failed to mention Grimmy's supposed shift in behavior in your "analysis of the game" or whether it impacted your view of him/her. Which illustrates my point that your initial analysis was shady.

Becvause Grimmy's later posts weren't particularly noteworthy, imho.

2. That I'm voting Jebus by no means implies i don't suspect Grimmy

And yet you didn't want DGB to elaborate on why she found Grimmy "TOTALLY TOWN".

Because it wasn't as utterly bizarre as finding Jebus town. Plus, there was a lot of Asshole in Grimmy's play, which could well be explained by meta.

He's not actually commented on the merits of the points of my case; all CTD has done is said that because my comments were critical of Grimmy, but more critical and leading to a vote on Jebus, I must be buddies with grimmy. Which is logic that would shame a four-year-old.

The first part of this is true. I haven't commented on the merits of the points in your case because I haven't studied it in detail. Everything else, however, is a gross misrepresentation of what I've said. I find you both scummy, individually and on your own. That there is possible evidence of you two being scumbuddies merely reinforces my suspicions about you.

No; EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID is a gross misreprensentation of my position. (Both individually and on my own? Hehe.) You seem to find the very act of writing as-you-go-along replacement posts scummy. Your theory is a post that was obviously made by commenting on each noteworthy post as i went along, was a deliberately preconceived attempt to distance from Grimmy whilst not voting him.

[CrashTextDummie]

The problem is, if you're claiming his posts were deliberate active lurkers, why are you ignoring the very much worse offenders?

Because he did it while complaining on multiple occasions that the game wasn't moving along. I thought I made that much obvious.

Get a dictionary. Look up 'hyperbole.' There is nothing hyperbolic about accurately describing something as an assessment of things that stood out before I replaced into the game.

You assessed surprisingly little in your opening post. Alabaska J's roleclaim is the perfect example. Here's the extent of what you said about it:

• "Roleblocker is a very easy scum claim, for obvious reasons."
  
• "Meh, that's rolefishing of the classic sense, since it's presented in a reasonable-sounding manner, but will tell you if the player in question is a PR."
  
• "Re: Edgar Mallory, I tend to think if it were made up, he would just have claimed 'Go to jail.'"

So what exactly is your assessment of Alabaska J? Based on the above, one would have to draw the conclusion that you find the roleclaim suspicious, but then out of the blue you declare that you don't like the Alabaska wagon.

Commenting on things that stand out as scummy has an ulterior motive?

Yes, if it's done by scum.

So I comment on things that happen early, then in the middle, then late, and that's part of some scummy conspiracy to distance from Grimmy?

You comment on things Grimmy has done early ("early" being a relative term, I haven't checked where the posts of Grimmy you have commented on fit in the timeline), and then you don't comment on him at all. Thank you for illustrating my point.

Becvause Grimmy's later posts weren't particularly noteworthy, imho.

If they really represent a change in his posting behavior, I would find that noteworthy.

No; EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID is a gross misreprensentation of my position. (Both individually and on my own? Hehe.) You seem to find the very act of writing as-you-go-along replacement posts scummy. Your theory is a post that was obviously made by commenting on each noteworthy post as i went along, was a deliberately preconceived attempt to distance from Grimmy whilst not voting him.

I don't mind write-as-you-go-along replacement posts in general, as long as they arrive at a sensible conclusion. The only thing you seem to have concluded is that Jebus is scum. You make not one other statement by which you could be held accountable (you also mention wanting to know "what happened to Braeden", whatever that means). Considering you're claiming to have assessed everything that stood out to you, I find that rather remarkable.

And yes indeed, that makes me doubt whether it really was an honest analysis of the game, and makes me think it might be driven by an ulterior motive.

[DrippingGoofball]

Except that I don't see how you can argue Pacman was particularly scummy. He claimed repeatedly to have serious connection issues[...].

I didn't suspect him for lurking, but for the content that he posted. Connection issues are not relevant here.

[The Fonz]

The only thing you seem to have concluded is that Jebus is scum.

And this is a bad thing, how? That's precisely what a town player should be looking for- who is scum.