Open 581: Making Friends and Enemies! (Game over)

[Green Crayons]

Grib: town
elleheathen: mason
Heartless: town
davesaz: lean town
Whatisswag: town
MalaKittens: scum
Kaboose: scum
Green Crayons: town
CptPicard: mason
Lone Ranger: scum
Titus:

mason

town

Fixed.

[Green Crayons]

@Titus:

swag, Grib, and who is #3 in your scum pool?

Any chance it's LR, Mala, or Kaboose?

[Green Crayons]

Actually, instead of doing this piecemeal, I'd be curious to hear everyone's pool of 3 scum.

[Green Crayons]

I thought at some point she had gender indicated as female.

Also, limited access for the weekend because socializing events + Super Bowl.

[Green Crayons]

@elle:

Mala, Ranger, Kaboose.

[Green Crayons]

I am?

[Green Crayons]

Don't know what you're talking about.

[Green Crayons]

Well Kaboose is my least confident scum candidate.

UNVOTE: Ranger
VOTE: Mala

And Mala is my most confident.

[Green Crayons]

I agree. That vote from GC sucks.

Someone hasn't been paying attention to this game.

[Green Crayons]

Your logic is bad.

Kaboose has only recently upgraded onto my scum list.

Based off of two posts someone I'm town reading (you) has said are not scum indicative.

So lowest confident scum.

In comparison to Mala. Whose slot's prior occupant was scummy, whose current occupant is and continues to be scummy. Who is my most confident scum candidate. And who already has Grib voting her, and I know a few others have said that they are open to a Mala lynch.

[Green Crayons]

So: you're faulting me for not compromising on my least confident scum candidate when my most confident scum candidate is still viable.

[Green Crayons]

Every lynch has been hard to get.

[Green Crayons]

I don't trust any of your reads.

Mala, Ranger, Kaboose.

When I flip, watch Ranger further throw my playing ability under the bus to justify her shitty play this game.

[Green Crayons]

Any of your scum reads.* You seem to be able to read town well enough.

[Green Crayons]

Citation needed.

[Green Crayons]

It is not impossible the GC as town gets into a ridiculous tunnel with another townie.

Also, lol because you were the instigator of this "tunnel."

[Green Crayons]

It is not impossible the GC as town gets into a ridiculous tunnel with another townie.

Also, lol because you were the instigator of this "tunnel."

Further lol:

2.

Spoiler: Ranger's push on me is bad but, what makes it more scummy, is that it appears calculated to get into a lengthy wall war. Scum motivation: look like TvT if I get lynched.

a. Once again, someone being wrong does not make one scum. And suspecting one's suspectors is a classic town blunder. That said, I'm still allowed to call Ranger out on her bullshit case, as scum do need to actually push shit cases to win, so here we go.

b. Ranger's first lays the foundation for her GC hate in Post 521 and Post 522. Ranger's criticism is part ad hom (GC is usually good, but here he's fucking horrible!) and, to the extent she states criticism that is valid in the abstract (shallow arguments, failing to actually engage) she doesn't connect them to the real world of this game. She repeats her same case in Post 654 after nobody really picks up on her GC-beef. Consequentially, these posts are nothing short of throwing chum into the water. They are designed to make me jump at the bait of defending myself, but there's no way I can actually defend against the criticism. It's shady as fuck. (When I finally take the bait, my response is at the bottom of Post 779. Ranger doesn't respond to it.)

c. Ranger throws in another dig in Post 524. Here she actually gives a concrete example of her problem with my play: that I'm not providing new, unique reactions to the Ranger/elle interaction, and that I'm hesitant and wishy-washy. (1) The criticism about no unique reactions is BS, because it's based on the flawed paradigm that town comes up with something new to say about interactions, rather than what is on their mind. (I have also never checked to see whether my reaction to Ranger/elle was truly duplicative of other players - I don't have the time/energy to do so now, but I assume that Ranger wasn't flubbing the line.) (2) The criticism about me being hesitant and wishy-washy is BS, because Ranger is apparently familiar with my previous play and should know that that's just me (I wouldn't use such pejorative terms, however - I'd say cautious and thoughtful).

d. Ranger attacks Grib for telling her to actually support her GC-is-playing-like-shit case in Post 668. The problem with this is self-evident, but I'll state it anyways: Ranger turns the conversation around so that it's not her fault for making the case, but it's Grib's fault for wanting someone to scum hunt in a particular manner. Moreover, Ranger shifts the point of conversation (just as she did with elle), so that it's not that Ranger is failing to provide in-game examples (Grib's point), but whether Ranger should be talking specifically to GC or to the town at large (Ranger's response).

e. Finally, Ranger finds a reason to votes me based on me suspecting something she did in Post 741. I finally take the bait. My explanation of why her initial post was suspicious, and why her reaction to my suspicions was suspicious, are adequately explained in Post 742 and Post 747. I'll further note that I my Post 754 captures Ranger once again shifting the points in conversation in order to make herself look better (creating this distinction between two types of questions, and then arguing based off of this new point of minutia).

I already called you out on your scum tactic, here.

[Green Crayons]

All of D1, your digs at my play have been ad homs or abstracted Bad Things, and you've attacked someone requesting that you actually back up with your case. Your "case" against me is one big slab of bullshit designed to make a town player flounder, and I refuse to believe you lack the self awareness to realize the (at best) anti-town tactical maneuver of your play.

[Green Crayons]

Fuck it.

UNVOTE: Mala
VOTE: Kaboose

If Kaboose is town, I'm voting only Ranger/Mala tomorrow.

[Green Crayons]

Titus and swag are more likely to be scum.

Grib and Ranger are less likely to be scum.

Third scum slot is still probably Mala.

Scum were stupid to kill the mason who is going to bring fresh eyes to the game.

VOTE: Titus

[Green Crayons]

Scum were stupid to

not

kill the mason who is going to bring fresh eyes to the game.

Fixed.

[Green Crayons]

@Green, so you think I come into the game and tunnel my partner who claimed a guilty on our third partner?

Where?

[Green Crayons]

All I remember from you is tunneling swag.

[Green Crayons]

Oh. lol I see what you're saying.

I don't think both you and swag are scum at the moment. You two are just more likely to be scum based off of Kaboose's ISO.

[Green Crayons]

I spot two lies.

[Green Crayons]

1. I don't think Titus-scum is buddies with swag-scum.

2. Once Kaboose was on my list, he never dropped off.

[Green Crayons]

Not a retcon when I said Mala is still probably third scum. Hence, EITHER Titus OR swag are likely scum.

[Green Crayons]

I don't believe you don't know what "scum candidate" means.

[Green Crayons]

Heartless isn't the entire game.

[Green Crayons]

When did I want a Kaboose compromise?

Never. Until I voted him.

[Green Crayons]

But look! You seem to agree that you were lying when you said I dropped Kaboose off of my scum list!

Thanks.

[Green Crayons]

1677: where Kaboose is no longer a scum candidate even though I still call him a "scum candidate."



The point of collecting top three was to see where agreement existed. Not to see who would join me in voting Kaboose, my "least confident scum candidate." You making that leap is silly.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ Pulling from memory, but I believe a lot of the Kaboose/Grib interactions were driven by Kaboose, further solidifying a one way street in terms of alignment.

[Green Crayons]

@Jingle:

Ehh. I'd still lynch him. Faking a guilty should be punished. And I like to punish people with nooses.

If Titus is scum, I wouldn't be against a swag lynch tomorrow because:

Depends on which games he's gonna meta. Her meta has changed recently. When you play scum with her and you watch how she evolved that game there's things that she does, but yes she'll bus early if she knows her partner is in trouble or sometimes she'll try and lynch someone who isn't a scum partner. It depends on the size of the team and how many are alive.

It's about the cred, all about the cred~

In context of Titus's accurate synopsis of her D2 play (my edits are bolded):

@Green, so you think I come into the game and tunnel my partner

<swag>

who claimed a guilty on our third partner

<Kaboose>

?

Also, the fact that Titus thinks (to the point of somehow using it as a basis to vote me, I think?) I was pushing a Titus/swag scum team in Post 1739, when I was stating a Kaboose/Mala/<either Titus or swag> team, has a waft of guilty conscience.

[Green Crayons]

Spoiler:

swag already made his GC-is-scum-because-of-Kaboose-interactions in Post 1061.

I responded in Post 1064.

[Green Crayons]

I looked at Kaboose's ISO for interactions. The Kaboose vs Awesome/Mala interaction is interesting.

Awesome was the player who responded to Kaboose's "wah nobody voted me in RVS" in 155.
In 520 and 565, Kaboose is defending awesome.
In 735, Kaboose questions a fast town read on Mala.
In 759 Kaboose posts about LR's reads and notes that awesome as scum was erased by 5 Mala posts.
In 767 and 768 the interaction with LR makes me think LR could also be on the team but this is weaker.
In 945, Kaboose is prompting Heartless that LR townread Mala.

When I looked through awesome and Mala I don't see a whole lot of town there.

VOTE: Malakittens

I find this acceptable but that's probably because I just think Mala is likely scum. But less likely to be so if Titus is scum.

[Green Crayons]

What shift, Titus?

[Green Crayons]

As expected, what you're pushing is just wrong. Instead of directly responding to you, because it's not my responsibility to correct your errors, I will simply state my development of thoughts.

1. Before D1 lynch, I thought the scum team was (in order of confidence): (1) Mala, (2) Ranger, (3) Kaboose.

2. Before D2, I read Kaboose's ISO and Titus's ISO.

3. At D2's start, I thought the scum team was (in no order): (1) Kaboose (dead), (2) Mala, (3) Titus OR swag. I said as much in my first post for today.

- That is, going into D2, I thought there are three scum candidates for two scum slots: Mala AND (Titus OR swag).

4. From the beginning of D2 until now, however, I am not sure that that is the actual lineup - but I am sure that they are all still scum candidates. Instead, whereas I previously thought Titus AND swag was an unlikely scum pair (being that I was suspecting both based off of interactions with/about Kaboose), I now think that there are additional developments since the beginning of D2 that alter the potential lineup.

- Specifically, Titus-scum has less of a buddy connection with Mala (per Ranger's Post 1782) AND Titus-scum has more of a buddy connection with swag (per GC's Post 1824). Consequently, if Titus flips scum, I would prefer a swag lynch over a Mala lynch. If Titus flips town, I have no preference between a Mala and swag lynch.

[Green Crayons]

--> Lynch Titus. If scum, lynch swag. If town, lynch Mala.

--> Lynch Mala. If scum, lynch swag. If town, lynch Titus.

--> Lynch swag. If scum, lynch Mala. If town, lynch Titus.

[Green Crayons]

I never claimed to never have changed? I wanted you to specify what you were talking about, because usually you're speaking moon language despite the use of English words. I wanted you to be specific so you couldn't come back with some bullshit "oh I was saying something else."

[Green Crayons]

--> Lynch Titus. If scum, lynch swag. If town, lynch Mala.

--> Lynch Mala. If scum, lynch swag. If town, lynch Titus.

--> Lynch swag. If scum, lynch

Mala

Titus

. If town, lynch

Titus

Mala

.

Fixed. Maybe? I haven't really thought through if swag is lynched, as my reads based on associations are based on other players' (Titus's and Mala's) actions, not swag's.

[Green Crayons]

You can't even repeat what I said correctly.

[Green Crayons]

Also, scum have the same partner regardless of who is lynched?

lol

Yes. clapclapclap.

We as town have better ideas as to who those partners are based off of the flip of the person who is lynched, though. Hence, a change in position depending upon the flip reveal.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, I was thinking about the fact that if either Titus or Mala ends up scum, swag would be scum with them. So why not just lynch swag?

I'm not against it.

The problem, though, is that I'm not sure who between Titus or Mala would be buddies with swag. So if swag did end up being scum, I would still be in a 50/50 between Titus and Mala. (If swag ended up being town, both Titus and Mala would be scum.) So it's not like there's some magical scenario where there isn't a chance of town being lynched.

Also, I think between the interactions with/about Kaboose, Titus looks more scummy than swag. So that's another reason why he's not first on my list to lynch.

[Green Crayons]

lol

Narrowing the pool of scum candidates based off of suspicions is "artificially restrict<ing> the lynch pool."

[Green Crayons]

Sorry I'm not sorry that I have narrowed my scum candidates based on suspicions, and then have subsequently tried to determine who are the likely buddies based on associations dependent upon how those scum candidates should flip.

OH NO PLAYING THE GAME IS SCUMMY.

[Green Crayons]

When your suspicions are not suspicions

but the three least popular players and you cannot even come up with a coherent partners case for them, yup.

False.

[Green Crayons]

And, lol, p sure I'm the least most popular player so WAH WAH WAH ATE.

[Green Crayons]

Ain't a life decision.

[Green Crayons]

if titus is scum, i think mala is FAR more likely to be scum

Disagree for the reasons already stated.

Also, this:

@Green, so you think I come into the game and tunnel my partner who claimed a guilty on our third partner?

If pretty priceless, particularly if Titus is scum. Titus and I recently played a game (Murder on the Orient Express) where D1 was Scum 1 attacking Scum 2 for attacking Scum 3. Titus refused to believe that scum would do such a thing, and therefore refused to vote the last remaining scum.

Titus is now saying that scum would never do such a thing. Tee. Hee.

[Green Crayons]

Me pointing to what is literally swag's case on me is not deflecting on what is swag's case on me.

[Green Crayons]

As for your Kaboose action observations: (shrug)

As for your GC action observations: it wasn't that I didn't want to be recruited, it was that

I didn't give a shit who the masons recruited, and Ranger was putting words in my mouth and getting away with it

. My vote on Kaboose was reluctant. Oh well.

[Green Crayons]

I also see plenty where GC could be distancing from Mala.

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[Green Crayons]

In addition to this:

The Kaboose paper trail goes right back to Titus; the associative tells are emanations of events occurring from the fallout of Post 996 and Post 1073.

The reads evolution on Kaboose throughout the game makes less sense as a natural progression and more sense as putting up the Phalanx once the serious attacks loomed. The first thing Titus posts about Kaboose is found in Post 1002 when she notes how Kaboose wasn't voting even though he was scum reading elle. From then on, though, she grabbed onto Post 1051 and never let go even though the reaction wasn't particularly town. For funsies, we even get a little revisionist history in Post 1074 when we hear Kaboose's ISO is "dripping with town motivation to crack the game," doubling down on a read that had evidence of showing cracks in the foundation.

She then has the incredibly strained angle in Post 1104 in the wake of Swag's obviously fake claim. Even if you

didn't

think the claim was obviously fake, the argument about how the mason claim should be lynched before the claimed guilty is terrible and doesn't hold up to even the mildest application of logic. We've been getting pushback from Titus every step of the way on the Kaboose read. I can just rattle off posts: Post 1053, Post 1074, Post 1180, Post 1521, Post 1603, and Post 1612. There's also the last moment move to try to get us to rejoin the Green Crayons wagon in Post 1689 by taking this strained "GC is scum if Kaboose is scum... or not" angle.

It's also apparent from how she talks about Anti that she's playing to his apparent meta experience with her. Anti will listen to me, though, so she's out of luck there.

Which is heads and tails more detailed than what I took away from Kaboose/Titus interactions, there's the fact that Titus employed the Karl Rove strategy. The "attacking someone else for what you're weak on" strategy.

I stated why I found Kaboose scummy in Post 1520. Titus immediately defends Kaboose in Post 1521. Not really alignment indicative one way or the other (scum never defend buddies v. scum defend buddies to throw off suspicion), but Titus's "Kaboose is just like me!" justification doesn't sit right. Titus's defense of Kaboose here is in alignment with her general defense as noted by Heartless in the quote above.

But moving on.

It's unmistakable that Heartless is, to a large degree, driving this game. So, yesterday, when Heartless says that she won't vote for my #2 scum (Ranger) but would vote my #3 scum (Kaboose) that Heartless had been pushing all day, I responded with switching from #2 scum (Ranger) to #1 scum (Mala) in Post 1677. Titus takes this opportunity to vote and criticize me for refusing to vote my #3 scum (Kaboose) in Post 1679, Post 1681, and Post 1683. (Titus has continued this shitty line of reasoning into today, if you care to review D3.)

So what's wrong with Titus criticizing me for moving from Ranger to Mala instead of from Ranger to Kaboose? (Well, "wrong" in the sense of "potential Kaboose-buddy," as opposed to the horribad leaps of logic you have to take.) Two things.

1. The fact that Titus had been reading Kaboose as town all day, and had been defending him all day. Now here was her opportunity to criticize someone for doing what she had failed to do: vote Kaboose (the Karl Rove strategy).

2. Moreover, without knowledge of Kaboose's alignment,

my action of voting #1 scum Mala over voting #3 scum Kaboose is not alignment indicative

. Titus votes me on the assumption that Kaboose is scum before the town should know that Kaboose is scum. Note what this baseless (unless if Titus is scum) assumption allows Titus to do: vote GC, instead of Kaboose, when GC's allegedly scummy action is dependent upon Kaboose being of a scum alignment. Compounding the weirdness of this suspicion is the fact that Titus is now assuming that Kaboose is scum - contrary to her stated position all game - simply on the basis that another player chose to vote their #1 scum over their #3 scum. It makes no goddamned sense unless if Titus was already operating with the knowledge that Kaboose is scum.

[Green Crayons]

^^^ Yes, I accept my begrudging vote of Kaboose makes me look like a potential scum buddy.

Oh well, shit happens.

My best defense is that I was the second to vote him after Heartless putting out the call, when there was the potential that people wouldn't vote Kaboose and might have actually joined the Mala wagon. (Hah. Ha. Ha.)

[Green Crayons]

Did anyone vote Kaboose because of swag's fakeclaim?

I think Grib is giving swag too much credit.

[Green Crayons]

As for if you meant mine, I don't like a Mala lynch because she's just started to contribute.

You didn't like a Mala lynch back when she wasn't contributing.

Whatever Mala is doing, it's the reason why you don't want to lynch her!

[Green Crayons]

Why be super obvious about defending your partner when you're about to be lynched?

[Green Crayons]

Nobody has ever said that we should suspect Mala for failing to contribute.

[Green Crayons]

lol, you're wrong

Mala lynch because the slot's contribution - both awesome and Mala - amounts to fencesitting and lurking. Plus, Mala's D1 play is coextensive with scum not wanting to be on a town lynch (this does not make Mala scum, but it explains why Mala-scum would have acted the way Mala did on D1).

I looked at Kaboose's ISO for interactions. The Kaboose vs Awesome/Mala interaction is interesting.

Awesome was the player who responded to Kaboose's "wah nobody voted me in RVS" in 155.
In 520 and 565, Kaboose is defending awesome.
In 735, Kaboose questions a fast town read on Mala.
In 759 Kaboose posts about LR's reads and notes that awesome as scum was erased by 5 Mala posts.
In 767 and 768 the interaction with LR makes me think LR could also be on the team but this is weaker.
In 945, Kaboose is prompting Heartless that LR townread Mala.

When I looked through awesome and Mala I don't see a whole lot of town there.

VOTE: Malakittens

[/spoiler]

[Green Crayons]

Oh, is "lurking" now "failing to contribute"?

BAH

I guess it is.

[Green Crayons]

WELP I WAS WRONG

[Green Crayons]

Anti gave a great reason why dave is likely town, actually. Somewhere in the 54ish page range.

[Green Crayons]

hahaha

You like to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Failure to take a stance is not lack of posting caused by a blizzard or VLA.

Also, blizzard and VLA wasn't during D1.

[Green Crayons]

You're using buzzwords... as if... they have extra power.

[Green Crayons]

Also, part of your D2 suspicions on me (that I went from my #2 suspicion Ranger vote to my #1 suspicion Mala vote, instead of my #3 suspicion Kaboose) makes sense from a pre-Kaboose flip only if you knew Kaboose would flip scum.

[Green Crayons]

el oh el oh el

[Green Crayons]

Grib is up there with Heartless in terms of most likely town players.

[Green Crayons]

Oh man what's with that crevice vote?

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: Mala

If it isn't her, it's swag.

[Green Crayons]

Hammer y/n?

It's about all I can do, too busy today for real posts.

Yes.

[Green Crayons]

Huzzah.

[Green Crayons]

Good game, all!

Huzzah.

Why were you so needlessly hostile?

Anti was being a pitbull on a leash, and dragging you along.

+

Ranger making a huge fuss about my shitty play without actually backing it up.

=

Defensive GC.

[Green Crayons]

Yeah, I figured that out. That's why I killed my only suspicion of you.