Mini 742 Monopoly Mafia - Game Over!

[CrashTextDummie]

Y helo thar.

Will read ASAP.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[CrashTextDummie]

I think it's safe to assume that Jebus had innocent results on Zilla and myself. Zilla's play has felt protown to me ever since she replaced, so I'm inclined to treat her as confirmed for the time being.

I'm tempted to go right back to Fonz for reasons outlined yesterday and his rather questionable hammering post (I don't object to the hammer itself, though it did cut me off from getting a post in when I came online the day of the deadline, but that's mostly my own problem - I had been busy), but I suspect we are in lylo, and there's no reason to rush. From memory, i lean towards ac1983fan being pro-town, so I'm looking at scum within the group of Nightfall/DGB/Fonz.

I'm gonna reread everyone within the next few days, and post analyses as I go along. It's at least one post per day from me from here on out, I feel like I owe this game.

[CrashTextDummie]

I disagree. It looks like we have a vig (or a really kill-shy SK), which can be invaluable if we happen to mislynch (or is invaluable period, really). I'd rather not reveal him unless he comes under threat of being lynched.

[CrashTextDummie]

Here's my scumlist, in order of scum (top) to town (bottom)
Alabaska J
ac1983fan
Grimmy
Nightfall
pacman281292
Braeden
ooba
Zilla

Really, Braeden and pacman haven't been here enough for me to have a good read on them, so count them as the turning point from towniness to scumminess.

Pacman and Braeden weren't enough around for him to get a good read, yet my predecessor, who was around less than Pacman and certainly didn't give much reason to get a town read on himself (self-vote for one, and lackluster play otherwise, to say the least), made the cut below his "turning point from towniness to scumminess".

He certainly got neither an innocent result on Ala nor a guilty result on AC, or he wouldn't have posted that list. Really, I don't see any way to interpret this list and his explanation of it other than he had innocent results on the bottom two. Feel free to give it a go.

What's questionable about it, CTD? I expressed my opposition to the wagon. Given that deadline was a few hours away, there was no other viable wagon. Would you have preferred a no-lynch?

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. I don't question the fact that you dropped the hammer. I would have done it myself if I had the chance, despite not liking the wagon much either. I view your action of hammering him as strictly neutral since it was in the best interest of both scum and town at that moment in time.

What I do have a rather big problem with is your sweeping statement that you're "suspicious of pretty much everyone on the wagon" whilst you dropped said hammer. That list includes people you hadn't previously commented on at all, much less voiced any suspicion of. Expressing opposition to a wagon is one thing, incriminating everyone one it while hopping on is another.

I admit the possibility that I'm suffering from confirmation bias when it comes to you, which is why I'm going to reread everyone carefully and with as open a mind as I can muster.

[CrashTextDummie]

Jebus wasn't on the wagon. Grimmy wasn't on the wagon. I wasn't on the wagon. The only person that was actually on the wagon that you've ever voiced any kind of suspicion of before was DGB.

You ended yesterday by declaring

everyone

on the wagon suspicious, despite the fact that only one of these people was ever remotely scrutinized by you. You begin today by attacking the only person alive that wasn't on the wagon. Maybe if you started qualifying your suspicions properly, I wouldn't find it so horribly inconsistent anymore.

[CrashTextDummie]

Giving opinions on everyone in the game is not only something i don't do, but something i consider scummy.

Is that an admission of guilt? Yesterday you said everyone on the Alabaska wagon was scummy, today you say I am scummy, so that's everyone in the game you've given opinions on.

I'll get back to you once I've reread some other people. I don't find my current back-and-forth with you particularly helpful to my grasp on the game.

[CrashTextDummie]

Erm... Actually, looking back on it, DGB wasn't voting Alabaska J at the end of the day. She voted the Fonz some time before deadline, and even made it a point to once again revote him when this wasn't reflected in the votecount. Her last vote as evident in her isolated posts was clearly on the Fonz. In her last post of the day, she unambiguously announced that she thought Alabaska J was town.

Mod:

Can you please clarify if the end-of-the-day vote-count was 100% accurate?

If the answer is yes, there's some screwy voting manipulation afoot. If the answer is no, none of people The Fonz voices suspicion on was actually on the wagon he declared to be so rotten. Unless there are other inaccuracies I'm not aware of.

[CrashTextDummie]

Happy scumday Nightfall!

Mod:

Can you please clarify if the end-of-the-day vote-count was 100% accurate?

It should be, but if there are any errors, let me know.

DrippingGoofball unvoted Alabaska J, but still appears on his lynch at the end of the day. Just wanted to know if this was a mistake on your part or if this is accurate.

-------

I'm not really sure why everyone is dwelling on the SK/Vig thing, it seems like a pointless thing to consider in our current situation. Now that there's no more vig to protect, I'm on board with a massclaim and think we should get it over with sooner rather than later.

I'm in favor of popcorn style, and think The Fonz should determine the next person to claim.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm having a great deal of trouble believing that claim. In his very first post of D2, Jebus placed a vote on Alabaska J, which is pretty much the oposite of what he should have done if he had investigated Alabaska J, not to mention that he attacked Alabaska J for the majority of D3 and had him at the top of his suspicion list. It's pretty damn evident to me that he targetted Yawetag on N2 - he was very suspicious of him on D2 and changed his tune completely on D3. Plus, I have already outlined why I believe that his two results were on Zilla and my predecessor, a theory DGB didn't object to.

My vote will be on DGB at the end of the day, as she's been caught in what I'm very positive is a lie, but nevertheless, she should name the next person to claim.

[CrashTextDummie]

Actually, on closer reading, he changed his tune when Zilla replaced, which was on D2. That doesn't change the fact that I find his play very inconsistent with him having investigated Alabaska J on N2.

Gonna have to reread him more thoroughly and in context.

[CrashTextDummie]

I have no problem with Zilla claiming towards the end.

I'm Reading Railroad, vanilla town.

Nightfall is next.

[CrashTextDummie]

Just out of curiosity though, Zilla:
I take it you don't think Jebus breadcrumbed an innocent on me. Please comment on his scum-list as discussed in my Post 651.

[CrashTextDummie]

Hm, you're right, Zilla, I didn't see that post. It indeed indicates that he didn't have a result on me. When it comes to me/ooba/gamma, his play is quite contradictory, and really, his play in general makes less and less sense to me the more I read it. I'll mull it over some more once we're done claiming.

[CrashTextDummie]

I postulate Alabaska was framed. That quoted bit from Jebus reads like he knew Alabaska was scum, and his vote went straight onto Alabaska at the beginning of Day 3.

Doesn't make sense to me, for several reasons:
1. Jebus didn't consistently play like he had a guilty result on Alabaska J. He unvoted Alabaska J at some point during D3, stating that "it couldn't hurt to keep Alabaska around for a little bit" and that he "just [didn't] think Alabaska is the lynch for the day". This is counterweighted by the fact that he voted Alabaska as soon as D3 started and that he flat-out stated at some point that "Alabaska is scum".
2. Not only did his vote go straight onto Alabaska at the beginning of D3, it also went straight onto yawetag at the beginning of D2. We both agree that he must have gotten an innocent result on you at some point, which doesn't fit with your theory.

I can see these scenarios:
1. Jebus didn't investigate Alabaska J.
2. Jebus didn't trust his results.
3. Jebus played irrationally and counterintuitively.

The truth may lie in a combination of the above, but the more I read him, the more I lean towards option 3. I think it's possible that he began each day by voting the person he investigated, irrespective of the result he got. This would mean that he investigated Zilla on N1 and Alabaska on N2, but would make very little sense. It would explain why he changed his tune towards Zilla during the course of D2, but not his behavior towards Alabaska J. It also doesn't explain his weird flip-flop when it comes to my predecessor. The only solid indication we have of what he did is DGB's claim, which is problematic, to say the least.

Things I don't like about DGB's claim:
1. The flavor doesn't make sense to me. "Property X with a hotel" being a tracker doesn't translate in the context of Monopoly. Neither does "checking into a hotel" translate into revealing who they targetted. It would require a huge stretch of the imagination for this to make any sense whatsoever.
2. I don't agree with Zilla that Braeden breadcrumbed this claim. Quite the opposite actually. In my understanding of Monopoly, the colored streets are "normal properties" while the railroads and utilities are "special properties". Boardwalk may be infamous, but by no definition is it a "special property".
3. Our power-roles so far: Get Out of Jail Free Card, Officer Edgar Mallory, Mr. Monopoly, Go (claimed by Fonz), Boardwalk with a Hotel (claimed by DGB). Pick one that stands out. All other colored roads, both dead and claimed, are vanilla town.
4. I find it rather implausible that this game would have both a cop and a tracker, on top of all the other power-roles.

I may be forgetting something, but that's ample reasoning to suspect that DGB is lying. That's not to say that I necessarily believe that DGB isn't a tracker - her being a mafia tracker who tracked Jebus to Alabaska would explain why he was killed last night despite being one of the most attacked players in the game.

I have some issues with The Fonz's claim as well, but seeing as he's responsible for a dead mafiate, I have no interest in persuing this at all today.

I think DGB is scum. Based on claims, I'm leaning towards Nightfall being the other mafiate, but I'll look into acfan and even Zilla as well. Reread time.

[CrashTextDummie]

I appologize, I've been ill. I'll try to get some reading in today.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm a little nonplussed by CTD's non-reaction to me naming him as one of my two top-suspects. The most reaction it got was a subtle OMGUS saying I'm worth looking at.

What kind of reaction where you looking for? There is no case against me and up until your vote today, there was no drive to get me lynched. DGB and Nightfall didn't react to me naming them my two top suspects, does that nonplus you as well?

The fact that I find you worth looking at has nothing to do with OMGUS. I previously assumed that Jebus had an innocent result on you, but having taken a closer look at his play has led me to the opinion that none of his play should be taken for granted. I still think an innocent result on you is most plausible, but I'm not willing to bet the game on this assumption anymore. Jebus didn't consistently play like he had investigated you, much like he didn't play consistently about anything.

Furthermore, I find your play today somewhat hard to follow, from your attitude towards DGB to your attempt to construe a "non-reaction" to being called a top suspect as scummy, to your insistence on this:

There's also the possibility of a mafia framer framing Alabska.

Let me repeat what I said before:
Jebus didn't play like he had a guilty result on Alabaska. Your theory that there is a mafia framer is based entirely on a single post of Jebus, and ignores several pieces of evidence that suggest that he didn't have a guilty. Not to mention the fact that your theory would require the scum-team to have both a busdriver and a framer, which strikes me as unlikely, to say the least.

------

DGB and Nightfall have so far neglected to make any indication of who they suspect to be scum today at all. That strikes me as scummy

[CrashTextDummie]

I'll humor you, Zilla. Why are you voting me?

[CrashTextDummie]

Zilla, am I correct in assuming that your vote on me was nothing more than an attempt to draw a reaction out of me and ac1983fan? Cause "crazy levels of intuition" doesn't cut it as reasoning for a vote in a lylo situation.

I feel like your case against ac1983fan is reaching and borderline fallacious , as only one item on your list could reasonably be construed as scummy (the first one, for the record). It bothers me that you're flat out ignoring any issues concerning DGB and Nightfall, particularly the latter. You've commented on why you find DGBs claim believable, but barely even mentioned Nightfall all day. How can you accuse ac1983fan of indecisiveness when he is currently voting, yet ignore Nightfall's complete lack of any kind of decisive stance whatsoever? The only person he has commented on in any capacity was DGB, and his conclusion was that he's "really not sure" and that he's "leaning towards [her] being town". That's the textbook definition of being indecisive.

-----------

Nightfall:

When I said that I find your lack of voiced suspicion scummy, that wasn't just a throwaway comment for you to ignore. I want to know who you're suspicious of. The same goes for DGB.

[CrashTextDummie]

No case? Trying to tie a town player to a scum not ring any bells?

1. That's not a case.
2. I am not the least bit appologetic for my stance on this yesterday. I got one scum right and one scum wrong. The reason I suspected you of being scum together was your inconsistent behavior towards her, and this turned out to be an accurate read, as you yourself stated that you made a conscious internal decision to stop attacking her because you decided to shoot her instead.

In addition, I didn't push against you based on this link, which would be the point of tying a town player to a scum. I voted you yesterday because I thought you were the scummiest player in the game individually, and explained why I felt so, and I made no mention of Grimmy coming up scum being a reason to attack you today. Naturally, it factored into my suspicion of you to some extent, as it fit the gamestate as I had established it in my head, but I didn't use it as an argument against you.

Got anything else?

[CrashTextDummie]

Sorry for the triple post:

Also, I'd like people's opinions on the possibility that the game has all of the following: a cop, a roleblocker, a JOAT, a one-shot doc, AND a tracker. That's five pretty good power roles right there. And we definitely have four of them.

Don't forget the passive one-shot NK immune townie. That's six pretty good power roles. I especially want Zilla's opinion on this.

[CrashTextDummie]

Nightfall has been attacked by both CTD and ac1983 at key times that make it not look like bussing.

Please point out where ac1983fan attacked Nightfall at a key time. I just scanned his posts for comments on Nightfall, and he was exclusively pro-Nightfall before today. And even today, I see nothing that could be construed as an attack.

Most telling is how CTD defends ac1983fan in 742.

It displeases me that ac1983fan already answered to this, but he got it right. I have no desire whatsoever to defend him, as I haven't had the chance to reread him yet and so haven't made up my mind yet on whether he's actually worthy of defense.

This is a shut case only if you want the town to lose. You are suffering from a severe case of tunnel vision as evidenced by the fact that you gleefully ignore the numerous things that are wrong with the role claims.

You are also either extremely lazy or using logic of the crappiest kind. You haven't put out a single legitimate reason for why you think I am scum. And no, attacking DGB doesn't cut it. For some unknown reason, you have arrived at the conclusion that I am scum with ac1983fan, and you base every last one of your arguments around this unfounded premiss, ignoring all the evidence that suggests that you are wrong.

Do you even realize how asinine that is? You accuse ac1983fan of a scummy action he didn't even commit, and yet when I point out that Nightfall is, in fact, guilty of committing that act, you brush it off entirely simply because the one who pointed it out was me.

CTD, you should have been around long enough to know that 'I suspect my scumbuddy, but only by association with this townie, and i want this townie killed first' is a very common scum distancing manouevre.

It's also a very inelegant maneuvre, one I would be ashamed to use as scum. This is also entirely ignoring the fact that my suspicion of you two as a scum pair was natural for a pro-town player to have. I was right about Grimmy being scum and I was right about your behavior towards him being inconsistent, the only thing I was wrong about was your motive for the inconsistency. I am so sorry for being unable to devine the fact that you planned to vig him.

If I didn't have this suspicion on D3, I would have definitely gotten it once Grimmy came up scum. The link I saw between you two was an excellent piece of pro-town scumhunting, because it was

there

. That I didn't realize the true nature of that link is nothing I should have to explain myself for.

Your 'suspicion' of him was ENTIRELY driven by the fact that in my recap post where i pointed out the most suspicious behaviour of the game, I pointed out a lot of things that Grimmy did that were scummy, but didn't vote him.

This is evidently not true, and you even quoted it a bit further down your post. I was individually suspicious of Grimmy for reasons completely unrelated to you, that had been mostly outlined by ac1983fan at the time, as I clearly stated. That I never got around to present my own case against Grimmy was my bad, and I regret that fact. I felt more strongly about you and hence concentrated my efforts on you.

You completely ignored the fact that Jebus was even scummier, made arguments that made no logical sense, and was a significant wagon candidate at deadline, whilst no-one else appeared to show any interest in wagoning Grimmy.

And it doesn't occur to you that maybe this was because I correctly read Grimmy as scum and Jebus as town? Well that may be a stretch, as I didn't feel strongly about Jebus either way, but the fact of the matter is that I didn't find him "even scummier". That you are trying to turn my attacking scum while not attacking a town player into an argument against me quite frankly boggles my mind.

Liar. Your stated reason for voting me was that you thought my first post made it look like I was scum with Grimmy- with a cheap shot at Pacman and his connection problems thrown in for good measure.

My stated reason for voting you was that I strongly felt on Day 2 that pacman was scum. It's right there in the post you quoted. I followed my vote up with more arguments for why I thought you were scum. That I felt you two were scum together was merely the icing on the cake.

Try your desperate attempts to use craplogic to show that Jebus 'cleared' you.

I scanned his posts for breadcrumbs and the first one I found was the one I quoted. I still stand by the fact that it can hardly be interpreted any other way than I did. Excuse me for not immediately scanning his posts for breadcrumbs that contraticted this first one, but that's just not behavior I expect from a cop. Craplogic how? Desperate how?

Just for the record, who do you think Jebus investigated? Provide reasoning, I'm curious how your logic compares to mine.

PPE:
Hai, Zilla.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm not lazy in scumhunting, I'm just lazy in trying to communicate all the nuances that are giving you away. You're looking hard for logical ways to try to disprove the cases on you, and your approach to those arguments is scum trying to justify their "towniness" by skewing in-thread evidence. This goes for both you and ac1983fan.

Let me repeat myself: You

never

made a case against me. You never provided a single thing that "is giving me away", let alone nuances. It's ludicrous that you accuse me of trying to defend myself as if it was a bad thing.

You know what this is? This is you trying to make it sound like if I don't consider it from your point of view, you think I'm scummy for it. You're using the "that's overpowered town" thing as some kind of defense.

Let me use a quote from you:

Why so defensive?

Never did I mention thinking you're scummy for not considering my point of view. Never has it been my intention to paint you as scummy. I am working under the assumption that you are an incredibly boneheaded townie making a godawful play that could potentially lose us the game.

If I thought you were scum, I wouldn't try so damn hard to convince you of how fucking wrong you are. If I thought you were scum, I wouldn't even bother with your stupid non-arguments because no sane townie would ever go along with them.

It's perfectly obvious to me why you're so defensive, and no, it's not because I think you're scum. It's because your position on me is entirely unjustifiable.

It's really hard to explain but both of your defenses aren't town defenses.

Is it the fact that you can't refute my defense that makes it not a town defense? Or do you ignore perfectly valid arguments for sports?

o. You can't claim to have been 'right' on him at the same time as claiming you only suspected him because of me.

Stop putting words into my mouth. That's the exact opposite of what I claimed.

NO IT WASN'T. IT WAS A FUCKING MORONIC IDIOT DICKSHIT FAILURE TO REALISE THAT IT'S PERFECTLY POSSIBLE TO SUSPECT SOMEONE, BUT SUSPECT SOMEONE ELSE MORE. Because the second player was scummier. And have that second player, who you also suspected, be a viable wagon whilst the other wasn't. Your attack on me was, and remains, ludicrous, and if i hadn't had the role i did, it would probably have cost the town the game due to your idiocy.

It seems to me like you are really butthurt that I would dare suspect you. You clearly and unambiguously stated that you backed off Grimmy, in part, because you intended to vig him. So you took the easy way out. That's okay. And I'm sure you don't see it that way. It should be clear by now that I don't agree with your stance of "only attack the one person you want to lynch".

He was scummy as fuck. That you didn't notice the obvious inconsistency in his posts isn't my problem.

Except he wasn't scum. That you didn't realize this and pushed him regardless while I didn't is

your

problem. I wouldn't give a shit if it wasn't for the fact that you're attacking me for

not attacking a pro-town player

.

[CrashTextDummie]

CTD, you do realize that it is impossible for The Fonz to be scum with Grimmy? since he is either a JOAT or an SK, since no one else has claimed a role that could've killed grimmy, and more to the point, no one has claimed responsibility for grimmy's death?

I don't think Fonz is scum with Grimmy anymore, naturally.

CTD's doing it wrong. I said it already, AtE doesn't cut it. "Just because you can't refute my defense." What defense? Your entire last thing was an appeal to emotion and WIFOM.

You're damn right I'm appealing to emotion, because appeals to logic or common sense utterly fail on you. You are giving me absolutely nothing to defend against or outright ignore my legitimate defenses, so yes, I am resorting to appeals to emotion. The alternative is rolling over and losing the game for the town, since you give me absolutely no middle ground.

He claimed vanilla. If he's scum, he's obviously going to be pushing that scum claimed the power roles and that town shouldn't have that many power roles. He's trying to get DGB lynched.

And if I'm town, I'm also obviously going to be pushing that scum claimed at least one power role, because I know it to be true. You are suffering from confirmation bias.

When he saw the question about whether it was possible for town to have that many power roles, he apparently wanted me to question that as well with his "I'm especially interested in hearing Zilla's take on it." There's no reason he would be interested in my view. The only reason he could have for putting that on there is to influence my view of it.

I am interested in your view because I want to know what the fuck is going on in your head. And yes, I want to influence your view on it, because your view on it is dead wrong.

CTD's last post is way too much of an appeal to emotion. He's trying to make my case seem as insignificant as possible because he doesn't have any other way to defend against it (partially because it's based on psychoanalysis instead of logic).

Your "case" on me is based on psychoanalysis? And here I thought it was based on circular reasoning and confirmation bias, with a bit of crap logic mixed in. Everything I say to you makes sense for a pro-town player to say, and you simply ignore that fact because you wont take off your fucking blinders.

I'm sorry but what post did you say that in? (Pre submit edit) Post 721?
I missed that again at first even on a reread. I think I saw the little line and thought your sig was below.

Fonz quoted it and agreed with it. I suppose you missed that as well.

I'm not fond of his post 705 which looks a little like he went into it with a target for his suspicions predetermined.

Indeed, my target for suspicion was predetermined. Here is where I determined it. This is scummy how?

He has criticized Zilla for seemingly having tunnel vision while at the same time seems to be pretty set on DGB being scum.

I don't believe DGB's claim. Naturally, I'm pretty set on her being scum. This is tunnel vision how?

Also is that a Hitler reference at the end of post 751 on the subject of Zilla? I think that's pretty uncalled for...

Just for the record, there is a difference between saying hi to a person and a Hitler salute. Thank you for reading my posts closely.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm rereading.

The charter lynch:

Megatheory (ac1983fan) looks the cleanest to me. He was the instigator of the wagon and provided reasoning that makes sense to me from a pro-town perspecive at that early stage of the game. He disappeared before the wagon really got afoot, so it's hard to judge him any further. Braeden (DGB) seems like opportunistic scum. He was very critical of the charter wagon and expressed displeasure with his soft-claim on the grounds that a full claim could "prove his innocence further" (as opposed to thinking it was a scum move). He then made a complete U-turn and changed his mind on charter for very little reason. Look at this post and you will have the definition of opportunism.

Nightfall doesn't look too bad. I could see his "while I find charter scummy, I would rather look at other people" thing as supporting a band-wagon without being on it, but it also strikes me as something a pro-town player would do in that situation. Yawetag was on the wagon simply because charter suggested name-claiming (Post 107, Post 111), which is a weak reason, to say the least. On D2, he claimed that his reason for suspecting charter was actually "his attitude after being denied the nameclaim idea" (Post 205), which strikes me as inconsistent.

Day 2

:

It should once again be pointed out that Jebus started D2 not only with a vote on yawetag, but also an extensive case on him and the statement that he is "very scummy [and] should be a prime candidate of today". It's virtually impossible that he investigated yawetag the night before.

I'm not impressed with ac1983fan's entry into the game, but I do like his first vote.

I don't see much of interest in spoilum's attack against Nightfall, because it's such a non-issue to be arguing about. While it's true that Nightfall was somewhat inconsistent when it came to his "jokewagons can turn into lynches" argument, I don't see what he had to gain as scum. What I do find interesting though was Grimmy's reaction to it, in which she FoSed Nightfall for no discernable reason at all. It faintly smells of distancing.

Grimmy/ac1983fan interaction gives me wildly mixed signals. Grimmy's Post 286 strikes me as something scum wouldn't say about their buddy, but then ac§983fan unvotes him while complimenting him on a post that really wasn't all that special in the very next post. May be distancing after all. This is further impacted by a follow-up post, in which ac1983fan clearly states that "Grimmy seemed incredibly anti-town", which seems to be a rather strong suspicion to be washed away by such a throw-away post.

I am once again reminded of why I found pacman so incredibly scummy. It's all water under the bridge now, though.

Zilla's entry into the game strikes me as curious. She ponders whether to examine the charter wagon or the people who are calling to examine the wagon, and concludes that the wagon was mostly town-led. She betrays this thought on the very same page by voting Alabaska J, who was part of the wagon.

I really dislike ac1983fan's jump on the Alabaska wagon. I also agree with Zilla at the time that ac1983fan's defense of Nightfall made very little sense, particularly considering his criteria for suspecting Alabaska J and Grimmy.

Day 3

:

ac1983fan backpeddals on his Grimmy vote. Scummy. Also dislike his insistance on suspecting "non-contributors".

Nightfall's list of top-suspects is terrible. On the flip-side, I like how Zilla is critical of Grimmy even though her reason for being so is backwards. It's internally consistent.

I'm pointing out this post of Jebus again, because there is no earthly way he investigated Alabaska J on N2.

DGB's entry into the game is really off. She claims to find Alabaska J totally town based on a read in isolation, but quickly changes her tune once she's caught up with the gamestate. Note also that all of Grimmy, ac1983fan and Nightfall are in her TOWN collumn. That's one confirmed scum and both potential scum-buddies. Considering how staunchly anti-bussing DGB is, the list is doubly terrible (on top of being wrong pretty much from top to bottom).

I dislike Nightfall's reaction to my argument with Fonz. He's hedging his bets and playing both sides.

DGB changes her tune again in regards to Alabaska J once it becomes aparent that he's going to get lynched. This is particularly telling because I don't think there's a lot of difference between the kind of frustration Alabaska displayed at that time and the one he displayed previously.

Day 3

:

I'll try not to repeat myself too much here.

ac1983fan's first post of the day is slightly puzzling to me. Particularly that he suspects the Fonz and not me, when the last he said about us two was this.

While I don't agree with Nightfall's analysis of DGB's claim, it has an air of sincere confusion which I've seen from Nightfall in previous games.

I will point out again that DGB has done

nothing

today except claim.

Conclusions:

Braeden did nothing all game except opportunisticly lynch a town player. DGB has been inconsistent when it comes to Alabaska J. Her claim is wildly implausible. She is now hedging her bets instead of trying to solve this game. DGB is scum.

I am leaning towards ac1983fan being the second scum, for weird interaction with Grimmy, inconsistent behavior and driving the Alabaska wagon. The main point in his favor right now is voting DGB, but I can see it as bussing seeing as he's on the spot as well.

Nightfall is a very mixed bag. His suspicions have been horrible all game long and I felt like he spent an inordinate amount of time debating technicalities instead of trying to lynch scum. He was never very forceful about his suspicions and has an air of wishy-washyness. My main reason for suspecting ac1983fan over him is that I am notoriously bad at reading Nightfall, and have falsly suspected him for similar reasons in more than one previous game. I will weigh these two against each other again tomorrow if it comes to that.

I think Zilla has been playing terribly, but I do think she was investigated innocent, so she's off the table.

[CrashTextDummie]

Vote: DrippingGoofball

A question for Nightfall:
Do you have any flavor supporting your role-claim?

[CrashTextDummie]

Am I the only one to notice that DGB hasn't reacted to being at L-1 in the slightest? Some kind of defense would be apropriate. Or a hammer, actually.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm still leaning towards ac1983fan. Didn't like his first post of the day (and while Nightfall's wasn't exactly inspiring either, it doesn't strike me as particularly scummy).

A cursory glance over Braeden's and DGB's posts unfortunately doesn't reveal much. Will do more reading and analysis after work.

[CrashTextDummie]

I'm not ruling it out, but I would be somewhat surprised if they were. DGB may not be the most rational of players, but for her to basically breadcrumb her own scum buddies would be bizarre even by her standards.

[CrashTextDummie]

But to make a set of notes, mark her scumbuddies, then forget to remove them before publishing seems a more rational idea than 'she was scum, and asterisked one buddy, and one townie for no reason whatsoever.'

Oh, I misremembered. I thought she explained the asterixes in the same post where she published the asterixed list, but that's not actually the case.

A slip does seem more likely. I'll at least give the game another read before hammering. Paranoia is nagging at me.

[CrashTextDummie]

Hah, told you Jebus had an innocent on me. Gamma on N1 and Zilla on N2 is exactly how I reconstructed it. Irrational play my ass, learn how to interpret breadcrumbs.

Very pleased with this game. And not even bitter about Zilla's play on D4, cause I feel like celebrating.