Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[pieceofpecanpie]

Ai, sorry for being tardy to the party, full time jobs and time zones will do that sort of thing.

Anyway, I had preplanned a nice RVS vote on SafetyDance, complete with puntacular Men Without Hats pun, but alas a quick skim reveals we're getting a little serious now.

So bugger that, I'd better read this thing a little better.

For a start, I'm not a fan of Nobody Special's

"people haven't posted yet, how scummy of them, they must be scum, and that is an adequate defence for me not being scum"

doesn't sit well. Firstly, not everyone late to the game are part of the nefarious scum, drooling at the chaos town have already caused for each other. Secondly, I'd find it just as likely (if not more so) that scum are already posting, just not posting content... just like NS.

FoS @ Nobody Special

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out, but this page is all about NS dodging questions and making dodgy excuses.

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP: And by

this

page, I meant last page...

[pieceofpecanpie]

Are you both herp and derp?

Hang on, why FOS instead of putting you're vote there?

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out

I need to read through the pages a bit closer before I throw the votes out

I've played with NS before, so firstly I'd say his posting is consistent to his meta so less suspicious than most who present that style. Secondly, I don't vote willy nilly (my meta), so I said what I said. I had pages to read more closely and catch up on.

Did you just jump off NS faster than a rutting bull with 99 unmounted heifers in a yard of 100?

[pieceofpecanpie]

No?

Okay implosion, explain how it makes sense. Since I've overreacted to SafetyDance then you must be with him all the way on his logic, so please enlighten myself and the rest of us.

Here's how I see it.

• - Safety's #98 makes a point of NS' empty posts and lack of content
  
  - I make an introductory post along with a FoS at NS and his empty posts and lack of content and he sticks a vote on him
  
  - Safety in #106 says
  "nuhuh, you can't FoS the guy I voted, you can't agree with me and FoS him, you've got to vote him, so I'm gunna unvote that guy you agreed was suspicious and vote you instead"

So I conclude that Safety's vote on NS was meaningless and he's now thrown out some townie schlock along with a terrible vote. Can you tell a different story?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Secondly, I don't vote willy nilly (my meta), so I said what I said. I had pages to read more closely and catch up on.

I don't recall seeing that as such the time I played with you,it seemed about normal people voting speeds actually. (and some of the votes on me did come off quite fast, even if they weren't placed elsewhere)

Mmmm, mmm, yes, mmm. Hi again Cheery, how are you, hope you're well.

Do you want to expand on that? Have I goofed or am I lying? Are you surreptitiously trying to slip some suspicion my way or just choosing to stay neutral?

What are your thoughts on Safety? Anything unusual about what he's been doing? I think he's been bad-mouthing triangles behind your back.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Well how about you read him and get back to me on my reaction.

I find the swift backpedal nonsensical and slightly troubling. You've had plenty of time to consider the risks on whether to continue your overreaction stance, I'd say you've done just that and decided it isn't worth backing up Safety in this one. It seems impossible to judge my response to Safety

without first

reading Safety's post and vote. Since it wasn't a big post I don't see how you couldn't have done this at the time or done it now.

Everyone if safety flips scum I'd look to implosion as a partner.

[pieceofpecanpie]

VOTE: SafetyDance

That hop off NS was ridiculous. You've got some explaining to do.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion The hyperbole and tone are noted, but I don't have anything further to add so you'll have to wait a bit (perhaps longer than six hours) before you can bounce off the walls with something else.

@SafetyDance Yes, I paraphrase my interpretation of what people say, when I don't I quote them. But this way you can be exactly clear on my thoughts on your posts, so you'll also clearly realise that there is a genuine problem with your posts completely irrelevant to OMGUS. By the way, I don't know about the rest of the class, but I can't read minds. If you do something alarming like say switch your vote for an arbitrary reason than how is anyone to know you're balancing your vote between two scum suspects unless you state it? Is that your best excuse for jumping off NS?

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'm rather amused at the backlash to be honest.

You're reacting very negatively about it.

Popc clearly can't handle being voted on, he didn't react well at all. Certainly reacted very negatively about it, I don't see why I should change my vote currently.

Take note my reaction hasn't been towards your vote at all, it's been towards the reasons for the vote and who you took it off (NS). You haven't justified either and/or I'm finding your current reasons rediculous (re:paraphrasing). And when you say the following...

As for NS, I still find his posts lacking of substance. You already know I hold reservations about his play but again, that's not why I voted. I didn't see anything of substance in his posts. Please, look at his meta below and tell me if there's anything positive in it or even looks remotely like engaging in scumhunting.

...I'm all the more confused as to why you moved your vote, since I was

agreeing

with the point you were making about NS.

While I'm on NS, it'd be great if he popped in and gave some insight. The previous game I've had with NS he played very similar and turned out to be scum, but I've meta'd him before as well and this is essentially what he does as both scum and town. There needs to be a little more going before you can start discerning scum-NS from town-NS. I still find it suspicious, but too early to vote on. And when I stated that previously I'd only read NS on Page 4 and your reaction/vote to him. I did still have to go back and read through the previous pages more thoroughly Safety.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Ah very well old chap I shall catch you on the 'morrow then. Cracking good you say. Rather!

What's that you say old sport? Reads? Did I promise any reads my butter-whip plum pudding?

[pieceofpecanpie]

There's a couple of stragglers yet to post yeah?

If it's the same couple of people having a slapfest we'll tire ourselves out and make scum out of us all.

[pieceofpecanpie]

And what makes you say that?

[pieceofpecanpie]

This may be premature, but it seems to me that Cub and Zaicon are the same alignment. I'm much less willing to lump SafetyDance into that grouping, but it's possible.

And what makes you say that?

And like that...



..he's gone

[pieceofpecanpie]

The only things that are really interesting to me are implosion's case on Cub and Safety's NS vote.

Sorry if that's still mostly directed at Cheery.

If he doesn't ask this, consider me wanting it answered: Why are those things really interesting to you?

[pieceofpecanpie]

...

Precisely my reaction...

I don't know how deep you think NS is going, Belisarius, but in my opinion he's one of the most annoying derp lurkers I've come across.

I take what he said to be as vague and empty as his presence.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@ac1983fan How now brown cow?

@Apozzle How's your

j'accuse

coming along on Cheery? Anyone else tickling your interest?

@implosion Your read on Safety? It was Safety who asserted I was NS' scumbuddy, what do you think of that and why shouldn't we be partner hunting now? I'm also wondering what you think of CheeryDog.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Everyone if safety flips scum I'd look to implosion as a partner.

what

Heh, you could describe that as premature.

But unlike your comment to someone else, I don't think this was foolish. I thought implosion's response in #122 was particularly delicious, taking the bait and putting his own uppity defensive attitude on display. He's a contradictory mix of

"Yeah, I'm just hanging around here mostly giving troll responses"

to

"I don't spend every waking moment here! Have some patience."

I've made a note of his flippancy for later.

And like that...

..he's gone

You gave him six hours bro.

...And I watched him scoot around on the site elsewhere at will for those 6 hours as well. I've seen people needling him for days on end for thoughts, explanations, elaborations etc. for him to eventually swan in, give a crummy line or two and swan away again. Now I'm not going to turn into "that guy", the "you aren't active enough here" nazi, but I'd rather nip this in the bud quickly with NS. If he's got time to surf around the site, he's got time to come back here and give a follow-up to anything he's posted. Besides, it's not like we're playing fucking correspondence chess. Although there are oceans between us we live in an instantaneous age, of internet and magnets and shit.

If NS plays anything like he used to, then well, I don't think anyone can read him.

I'm getting this same message from a lot of people.

So what's the plan, then, folks who are saying this? Lay off him until...? Sounds like just the kind of player to pressure early so we don't get screwed in LYLO.

Previous response semi-related. And on that note I, for one, refuse to leave NS alive for LYLO.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I, for one, refuse to leave NS alive for LYLO.

What if he's confirmed town by then?

If the standard mix of mitigating circumstances allows, without any exceptional events/occurrences taking place or my untimely death I, for one, refuse to leave NS alive for LYLO.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Apozzle you've either thrown down a scum ploy or complete rubbish.

I don't consider going AWOL for such an extended absence to be in the best interests of town, so before you go about slapping us on the wrists for not slapping slapping you on the wrist enough how about you kick your own arse first 'kay?

Or admit that you're scum trying to make a town tell -

"hey look guys I care about my absence in the interest of town, you should too..."

- and we'll start piling on your wagon now.

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP should read "[...]for such an extended

period

to be [...]"

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Apozzle Just wondering, now that you're here and active are you planning on contributing any thought or read?

@Belisarius Who do you want to see a wagon on?

@Cheery You seem to be starting the roll a few thoughts about players around. Are you lining things up to switch votes off Cub, just staying open to possibilities or something else?

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Zaicon Uhhh, Safety making a vote seem important and then trivialising it a few posts later isn't suss? I don't buy that he still holds NS as an important vote target or that I'm somehow connected to NS. It's felt completely opportunistic. You feel what I said initially is worthy of a vote from Safety?

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Belisarius Who do you want to see a wagon on?

Does wanting to derail a shitwagon that's harmful to town necessarily require knowing exactly who those votes should be switched to? Well, Safety's my strongest scumread, as evinced by my vote. Go to town.

No, not necessarily.

@Cheery You seem to be starting the roll a few thoughts about players around. Are you lining things up to switch votes off Cub, just staying open to possibilities or something else?

Are you advocating tunnelling? Because it looks like you're looking askance at someone taking shots at someone other than their top scumread in a game with up to 3 scum + 1 SK.

Absolutely not. That's self-evident from the question being posed at Cheery and not at my current lynch target.

GM's reasons for voting NS seem relative - I can see why you would have those reasons, but I don't really feel them myself. Except for the active lurking. That is blatant. And my vote isn't doing anything else right now, so maybe it can give NS some attention.

Vote: NS

" NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

Took the words out of my mouth. Glad that others can read between the lines as well.

FoS @ Apozzle

That was such a flop of a post. Trim away the fat and there's a stick-thin vote on an easy target.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Just wanted to point out that you come off as a try hard academic. Perhaps you could loosen up a little?

I'll try elaborating on the secrets behind our ritual and, if it differs, maybe you could let us in on what you were

actually

saying.

ac skipped a bit with that paraphrasing, but from what I understand from complicated words such as "unpleasant meta" and "remove him preemptively" you are proposing a Day 1 policy lynch on NS? (this is where the easy lynch comes from) I feel where this is drawing criticism is that your language use seems to draw some sort of conflicted position, but you vote him anyway (this is where the distancing part comes in). Does that sound reasonable?

So rather than look at what current people have been posting and whatever inherent scumminess can be derived from them you feel the strongest approach for town is to use their first lynch on a known lurker who has established no real connections or discussion with anyone?

[pieceofpecanpie]

...And Apozzle just stopped doing it?

It's really weird to see it from different players. I can't recall being in a game where people done something scummy, have then made an example of themselves and told town off in the process.

Cleared things up for me. Maybe because it squares with my thinking about it.

Is that troubling or comforting for you?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Alright, so Safety's wagon isn't really moving and I'm not going to be the one to move it.

I'll craft a full explanation of why later today.

UNVOTE:

[pieceofpecanpie]

Reasons/thought process for unvoting Safety:

• - Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible
  - I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum
  - The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1
  - I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)
  - On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list.

VOTE: Apozzle

Reasons/thought process for voting Apozzle:

• - #162 making a forced town tell,
  "hey guys you should care that I've been away for so long, it's bad for town."
  and again in #178, while completely negating to do anything useful except argue this point across
  - #200 weak and easy vote on NS, my criticism is in line with ac1983fan's #208:
  

  " NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

  
  - #213 stubborn refusal of criticism,
  this
  is the important reaction from Apozzle regarding people calling him out NOT his chameleon-like turn around in #228 & #230. What this means is that he appears to want to cooperate with town and care about town, but when it comes down to it will put down a weak vote and then deny any wrongdoing before eventually being cajoled into responding with a bit more openness due to all the negative reactions. This openness is fake, if active lurking is enough for a vote on NS - #225 - then why pretend it isn't a policy lynch? If it was all a simple misunderstanding - #230 - then why the initial reaction in #213?
  - It is indeed troubling! (re:Cub's #239) That Apozzle can manipulate his stance in such a way that you find it comforting is plausible, but what can't be denied is all he's achieved is putting a weak vote on an active lurker. And what has he done since then you may ask? #288 active lurking and ignoring questions
  - From every way you choose to read Apozzle you will find yourself wondering what the truth
  really
  is. I don't trust him, he needs rope.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Wonderful, then.

I expect 3-4 new pages responding to my above posts by the next time i look at this game.

Pretty high opinion of yourself, huh?

By your logic both Safety and I would be town, given our

reactive

responses to each other carry a similar tone. The rest is a sham.

Secondly, your entire

reactive

and

proactive

spin, while hilarious, is also completely irrelevant. The only thing it actually means is that you didn't like my #107 as it was "overreacting". Take note of your one word there. You haven't changed or improved on your argument against me since. An argument that was catalysed by your blind assessment on the given situation.

I'll fill you in on the story, since you seem to still be lost in the land of the irrelevant.

1. I made an opening post, within it I FoS'd NS, but also stated I needed to catch up before voting.
2. Safety

reacted

to this - for whatever reason he considered it a scum-partner tell - and switches his vote off NS to me.
3. I

react

to Safety's vote, finding it scummy. Or perhaps I was

proactive

to consider it scummy. However I can't have

proactively reacted

because he wouldn't have fucking made a scummy post by that stage.
4. You

reacted

to my

reaction

considering it an

overreaction

, but since you're

reacting

to

reactions

aren't you doubly scummy by your logic?
5. And now you want 3-4 pages of accolades and discussion on your recent acts of genius, when it in reality it's a bunch of ham-fisted tripe.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to be

proactive

and pursue a relevant lynch for today. If you want to

retroactively

switch your vote to Apozzle that'd be great.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

[pieceofpecanpie]

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

[pieceofpecanpie]

i would respond to the rest of post 328 if it even began to touch on points that i actually *made*, but thankfully you didn't actually talk about any of those ^_^. You seem to have a tendency to ignore points that people actually make, and instead take a few words from their posts, pretend they used those words in different context and then create elaborate responses to those other contextualized uses of those words.

I'd call it reading between the lines.

I did address several of your points by the by, perhaps you could readdress your original argument through them?

What about it looks desperate and how?

This question was going to get answered right now, but I'm about to fall asleep on my computer so it'll have to wait. BUT I WILL REMEMBER.

I'll hit snooze on my brain too and hope to wake up to a rational point.

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

No. Please stop attempting to misrep me.

Then represent yourself. I asked first, then interpreted.

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

Asked and answered by 331. If you're looking for an in-depth critique of each point, go ask a debate team or an English teacher.

*checks 331* Yeah, uh, no. I won't ask a debate team or an English teacher, they didn't accuse me and vote me, I'm asking

you

because

you did accuse and vote me

.

Am I committing a crime to ask for specificity instead of ludicrously broad generalisations? No. The onus is on you to put forward your points, or frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

Secondly, I do wish you hadn't done this right after I put in the time and effort to type out my case on Apozzle. Because I wanted to lynch Apozzle and you're making it so very very hard to motivate myself to push that through, since you're putting a really big cross on your head.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Riiiigggghhhht...

[...]i'll even *explain* why your response to me bears absolutely no link to reality.

This legitimately addresses the point I made [...]

You'll note that the following did *NOT* appear at any point in the post:
[...] -you responding to anything that is actually *from* my argument.

This legitimately addresses the point I made [...]

Insofar as you respond to an argument against you by straight-up throwing up a strawman and attacking it

This legitimately addresses the point I made [...]

I believe this picture represents what this "discussion" with you feels like.



I refuse to take part in discourse?

If you would take a moment to step out of your tunnel you'd actually notice a whole heap of stuff going on. A whole lot of it would be completely relevant to your "scumhunting" quest. I mean I feel like a lucky guy to get all this attention, but it's horribly misdirected. Oh and you're not the only one who can use sarcasm, consider my previous responses (both serious with some sarcasm and irony thrown in for good measure) the best you're going to get out of me. Keep campaigning for me to your hearts content, but I find your points horribly unfounded and inaccurate.

[pieceofpecanpie]

pieceofpecanpie. When you quote the first line from my post several times, pretending that i said it more than once [...]

That's not what I did. I used your own words against you to present a fallacy in your argument.

[...] then yes, you are refusing to partake in actual discourse about what has been said.

Not agreeing with your reasoning, logic and judgement is not the same as refusing to partake in actual discourse. I am partaking in discourse right now. I have been, and will continue to do so. Including with people beyond yourself. That you don't enjoy the "discourse" coming from me doesn't phase me one iota.

[pieceofpecanpie]

What???

I copy-pasted. You said it.

Are you accusing me of falsely quoting you? Have you read your own words? Do you understand the points you are making at all? (since they make little sense, I doubt this last one)

[pieceofpecanpie]

I am markedly NOT okay with being called a liar or a cheat.

I have taken what you said, quoted it and represented how it is contradictory to (at least) 3 other statements in your #343.

Maybe it's time you pulled your act together and did something this game rather than needlessly troll me with idiotic banter and illogical statements.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I copied ALL of it out of your post.

I countered

your

points with

your own

contradictory statement.

Who cares anyway. Rage at me all you like. You cannot seem to grasp what is going on and it's beginning to piss me off a little.

[pieceofpecanpie]

What's your read on me?

I guess that was directed at me?

Currently I consider you VI material, although I can conceive your defence of Safety and needless tunneling in ignorance of other notable players to be scummy.

Two and a half days now, and our biggest wagons are L-4...

This wouldn't be concerning if there wasn't an air of passivity about the game. I'll put some concise general reads out as soon as possible, but I really feel Apozzle is a good choice for Day 1 lynch and will be pushing this.

There are quite a few players who haven't said much and/or posted in quite a while. It would be nice to hear from them.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'm currently favoring goodmorning, SafetyDance, or failing either of those, Nobody Special.

That list checks out just fine by me, but I need to take my blinders off and summarise where I'm at with all players before I'm more certain on favourites (which I won't be doing right now, as it's 3:30am).

[pieceofpecanpie]

I will present a rebuttal to goodmorning through a brief recap...

This:

Reasons/thought process for unvoting Safety:

• - Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible
  - I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum
  - The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1
  - I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)
  - On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list.

VOTE: Apozzle

Reasons/thought process for voting Apozzle:

• - #162 making a forced town tell,
  "hey guys you should care that I've been away for so long, it's bad for town."
  and again in #178, while completely negating to do anything useful except argue this point across
  - #200 weak and easy vote on NS, my criticism is in line with ac1983fan's #208:
  

  " NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

  
  - #213 stubborn refusal of criticism,
  this
  is the important reaction from Apozzle regarding people calling him out NOT his chameleon-like turn around in #228 & #230. What this means is that he appears to want to cooperate with town and care about town, but when it comes down to it will put down a weak vote and then deny any wrongdoing before eventually being cajoled into responding with a bit more openness due to all the negative reactions. This openness is fake, if active lurking is enough for a vote on NS - #225 - then why pretend it isn't a policy lynch? If it was all a simple misunderstanding - #230 - then why the initial reaction in #213?
  - It is indeed troubling! (re:Cub's #239) That Apozzle can manipulate his stance in such a way that you find it comforting is plausible, but what can't be denied is all he's achieved is putting a weak vote on an active lurker. And what has he done since then you may ask? #288 active lurking and ignoring questions
  - From every way you choose to read Apozzle you will find yourself wondering what the truth
  really
  is. I don't trust him, he needs rope.

Is turned into this:

Vote: ppp

I mean, come on. 327 is Scum screaming "SHIT SHIT EASY WAY OUT MAYBE??????"

My response:

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

Then this:

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

Is turned into this:

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

goodmorning's response:

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

No. Please stop attempting to misrep me.

I'm

the one misrepping??? Fucking lol!

My specific critique of your #373 is that it's a reeking baloney sandwich between two slices of misrepping sourdough topped with a fair share of desperation dill. If that's how you build a case then I hope you're not planning on getting into construction anytime soon. Oh and this rubbish about not sharing specifics because it helps scum, I don't know where you read that strategy as I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about. Is that your best excuse for casting a vote with opportunistic impunity and taking time out to make up some shit later on?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Now let's see, I'll just grab the latest votecount and work a summary/reads from that.

Apozzle

- Shifty, flippant, untrustworthy. My number one lynch candidate. Put forward my case in #327

goodmorning

- #329 begins a bogus series of attacks. Everyone should be aware of the last few posts from him. I agree with most of the recent criticism that has been directed his way, some of my thoughts are put forward in #389, however I'd still prefer to devote my energy in pushing an Apozzle lynch. He's my secondary lynch candidate.

Nobody Special

- I stand by my #177. Pointless Day 1 lynch, but should become topic of discussion down the track. Hopefully he'll have started contributing by then so we have something to discuss beyond policy lynches.

SafetyDance

- Thoughts on Safety outlined in #327. I like what Edo said previously, "I have a bad feeling about him [...] but I can't put my finger on it."

Cub Diagoro

- Despite posting with frequency I can't say I've paid much attention to Cub, not because of anything he has/hasn't said, but because I haven't cast my mind in his direction. Null for now.

Belisarius

- Seems on the level, but I haven't really tested for anything beneath the surface. Null.

Cheery Dog

- A wee bit passive for my liking. A wee bit safe. Would like to hear more from him.

implosion

- Possible chainsaw defence of Safety, but leaning more VI. Put forward this point in #360

Zaicon

- Eh, null. Need more everything.

Edosurist

- Seems on the level, but mostly as above.

ac1983fan

- Despite NS' ironic #323, there is something unsettling about ac1983fan's play thus far. I kind of see him gathering the kindling and watching others set the pyre alight. That's part of my concern, the other concerning part is that NS may be right. Would definitely like to hear more from him.

Human Destroyer

- Someone mentioned something about this guy taking a page out of Thor's replacement rulebook and that seems to ring pretty true. I am nominating him for Best Performer in the role of Spot the Occasionally Different-Looking Avatar Guy. Needs to make a real appearance in the game.

@Mod

Messiah is still on your votecount, with Human Destroyer absent.

Fixed

Edit: I see Apozzle posted while I was typing this one out, but I'm leaving this as is and checking his post after.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@#390

Hoooly...

Apozzle, wow. Full credit to your reads. I haven't read something so succinct yet brimming with shrewd insight in quite a while. Wish you'd done that sooner.

You've just gone and bought a lifeline off me, I can't deny you the opportunity to produce more of the above for another day.

UNVOTE:

However, I don't have a short memory. So if I get the slightest inkling of unease I'll be on you like white on rice.

I'd like to address a few points from your post properly soon.

(actually, what is your preferred abbreviation? I've seen a few different ones being used here)

In the past I've mostly seen PoPP, PoP, Pecan and Pie. PPP is a new one. I'm not fussed, as long as there aren't any similar acronyms. I've quoted Snatch in previous games by saying "you can call me Susan if it makes you happy".

[pieceofpecanpie]

Conclusion of the case in the morning, with a quick side note to say: he's just posted a readslist, let's tally it up. Towns:0 Nulls:8 Scums:3 NSs:1

News flash! Updated reads list for people who can't read good and want to learn how to do other stuff good too (and due to Apozzle's recent post):

Scum: 1 (goodmorning)
Scummy: 1 (Safety)
On Notice: 3 (NS, Apozzle, ac1983fan)
Null: 4 (Cub, Cheery Dog, Zaicon, Human Destroyer)
Null/Leaning Town: 3 (Belisarius, Edo, implosion)

In what universe does a readslist like that come from Town?

Oh, oh, teacher can I answer that? Ours...

Scum: 1 (goodmorning)

Consider this my statement of intent to put you at L-1. You'd better tack on a claim with that case conclusion.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Well in a perfect world that may be the case, but who's to say anyone would follow such protocol? I put down the intent, rather than a vote, for the same reason.

She's off for the night, so no need to encourage ninja hammers.

Don't take the wind out of my intimidation sails.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Also people threatening to L-1 me is not frightening. I love L-1. I have replaced into L-1 slots for the thrill of the fight. L-1 just means the game is on.

SO GAME ON, MOTHERFUCKERS

Flattery will get you everywhere, Susan.

I hope you recognised it as sincere, since it was intended that way.

I mean when the end of the day is approaching and someone comes out of the woodwork and puts in effort, that's just a beacon of hope to me, you know? I don't care whether it's all scum bluff or no, it's encouraging nonetheless. Not trying to take anything off the others who are here and active, I appreciate that. However, I do hope those few who haven't weighed much into things for a while put their thoughts down before the day's out.

I'm very happy to see a GM lynch looming. I feel it's the right choice, and that's merely reinforced by her stalling the mudslinging campaign on me and refusing to answer the large wagon on her with a claim. If there are people out there exceptionally opposed to it, tell us why. If you haven't thrown insight out lately, speak up.

edit:

I posted this, it didn't post it telling me "no multiposts", but this post ceases to exist for me. Now we're a bunch of posts later so some of the thoughts are already redundant, but I'll stick it up anyway and catch up with the new stuff.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'm guessing your indignant tone is due to disappointment at being the likely lynch, it seems natural that everyone becomes idiots besides yourself under such circumstances. In terms of the claim, I thought it was important to get one due to all the factors in

this

game (ie. large wagon, looming deadline, passivity etc. etc.), I don't often rely solely on the standard way things should be done.

But you've claimed so all good. And no great loss, since you may flip VT or scum and we'll just be one less tunnel-y person down and I could use a break from the vitriol and having to decide whether I should or shouldn't answer to it.

I could, for example, go through the entirety of your "case" and point for point shut it down. For the most part it is not a case at all, just a horribly slanted opinion that everything I have said and done has been wrong. A lot of it is grossly inaccurate. A lot of it is biased misrepresentation. A lot of it is complete fabrication or your inability to read my posts, only reading

what you want to see in my posts

. For example:

279: says he's not going to move the Safety wagon and moves it in the same post

I said I'm not going to

move

the Safety wagon (ie. move it

forward

), so I moved

off

it.

Alright, so Safety's wagon isn't really moving and I'm not going to be the one to move it.

I'll craft a full explanation of why later today.

UNVOTE:

Should I really be obligated to do this for each and every predisposed "point" you've made? Or can I just slap you in the face with your own style of "specific" critique and say it's all a bunch of hogwash?

[pieceofpecanpie]

347: deliberately, blatantly, and dickishly misrepresents implosion to the nth degree. Can any of you look at this post and the post it responds to and claim that ppp is Town? Because if you can you are completely fucking delusional and I intend to avoid games with you in in future.

Okay, it's hard to judge how serious you are with any of your post/case. But the tone is the same throughout, and it looks like you probably need to take a break from the forum if this is how you're going to be.

Here's a point from the general forum rules and guidelines:

Do not bring outside influences into the game - this includes threats, bribes, wagers, promises, alliances, etc. Using knowledge from previous games is perfectly acceptable, but try not to carry grudges from one game to another.

[pieceofpecanpie]

It would not be a grudge. It would be an assumption that any such player have a fundamental difference in thought processes and therefore probably shouldn't play in the same games.

Bahahahahahaha, cool story Hansel.

Their "difference in thought processes" to your own would be they are "completely fucking delusional" according to yourself. You are a piece of work. By the way, are you going to admit that you completely misread my #279?

Hmm. If you were to answer any of my points, I'd like you to answer 327, and also the actual argument presented on 347 and 356.

#327 is my own post, I can't answer that. I find it debatable that there is any actual argument presented in those other two, but if you believe there is then let me know exactly what it is you want me to reply to (see end of this post).

complete fabrication or your inability to read my posts, only reading what you want to see in my posts.

I hardly need to state how ridiculous this is coming from you.

So rediculous that I immediately followed it with an example of your misrepresentation and misreading of my #279?

Look, I'm not going to engage in a snipe war. You're welcome to your opinion, however I'm not going to answer to it or try to change it. If you've got specific critique or points that you want me to answer then let me know.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Hold the phone...

Hmm. If you were to answer any of my points, I'd like you to answer 327, and also the actual argument presented on 347 and 356.

What on earth do you want me to answer? They aren't

your

points their my posts. I guess you want me to look over your case on them and comment on that?

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP: Should read "They aren't

your

points they're

my

posts."

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'm currently typing out a big response, so no need to fret.

In the meantime, quit dicking around and answer my #432.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Eh I can make a start on this, since I believe it's what you want to hear.

327: We want a breakdown of the desperation in the points?
"- Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible"
Then why tunnel him for so long? (Unless you were trying for a mislynch and realised you wouldn't get one, that is.)

Tunnel? Where was I tunneling? I took Safety's #105 as scummy, made that clear and voted him. Also, he went flakey for a while and I can't find the part where I was whining "Where's Safety? Safety's scum. Lynch Safety".

"- I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum"
This point is stupid/fabricated, Scum tend to have to play a more defensive game because offense makes slips more likely to happen and more obvious when they do.

"Stupid/fabricated" is your opinion of it and not an alignment tell. It can't be fabricated because that's how

I

viewed it, so you're accusing me of fabricating my own thought process. I know what I thought, I also thought that

"Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now."

so although

I

view his defensive tone as more town than scum, it could easily be argued that it's the other way around. Again, how does this give you a scum-read on me or bolster your case?

"- The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1"
NS would be a reasonably decent lynch; there was hella discussion about him which is always good with associative types of tells. This point is simply a way to jump back on the wagon should it re-form.

"Reasonably decent lynch" is your opinion of NS and I disagree. You second point actually makes sense, my answer to that would be that I've made it clear that I'm still suspicious of Safety and am not prepared to call him town. I haven't tried to hide that in any way.

"- I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)"
Hey presto, another target, another reason to jump back on the wagon at will.

Sure, but again I haven't said I am no longer suspicious of Safety and I haven't changed my opinion of implosions #109. So you're correct, I could see myself voting for them in the future.

"- On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list."
AND ANOTHER
Also what in the fuck is going on with this equating of agreement with Townishness? Again, really?

I don't know what you mean by "equating of agreement with Townishness". Did you misread

"I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent.

?

I can do the Apozzle points too if you really want, but I think that's enough of that post for now. Perhaps "desperate" is not quite the word, but I can't think of a better one at the moment, except "scummy as fuck".

So far in your case I cannot see one part where you logically explain how I am being scummy, except that it's a feeling you have and somehow my tone is contributing to that.

347: deliberately, blatantly, and dickishly misrepresents implosion to the nth degree. Can any of you look at this post and the post it responds to and claim that ppp is Town? Because if you can you are completely fucking delusional and I intend to avoid games with you in in future.

My #427 and #432 respond to part of this. Let's break down the other part. I found implosion's #343 confusing. To use an analogy, several times he appeared to exclaim the equivalent of "you haven't even told me what music you like", yet in another section admitted "although you did mention you liked The Beatles". So I took that and theatrically posted the one after the other as a form of rebuttal. "deliberately" - yes, it was deliberate, I was putting on a show. "blatantly" - well I was hardly being sneaky about it. "dickishly" - hey that's your opinion, however I wasn't picking on implosion I was picking on what he said.

356: Let me explain to you what is wrong with your argument in 347.
What you did to implosion would be like me as a police officer taking your torrid love affair (You said, in this case: "I stole her heart within a week. I went to the bank for some cash and we eloped.") and arresting you for saying this ("I went to the bank and I stole some cash.").
The first rule of quoting: DON'T BE A DICK (the second rule: try not to change the meaning or intent of the original statement) (I learnt these in fourth grade, so I'm guessing you are aware of them)

I never rewrote what implosion said, I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way. Your analogy is bunk. I quoted lines of his verbatim. It was my way of representing "I'm confused, what you wrote doesn't make sense".

Speaking of those things you learnt in the fourth grade. *cough cough* #389 and #426 (explaining my #279) for starters. Are they justifiable changes to the meaning or intent of the original statement because it helps you build a case on how scummy I am? Your reading of #279 is just plain wrong, and your 6-word interpretation of #389 is one of the main reasons you're getting lynched. See me after class please.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I wrote a rather long and ranty post bitching about your bullshit, but I deleted it and am writing this instead.

I am stepping back from this discussion. It isn't worth it to me to continue it.

Actually I'll respond to one thing because I can't resist, but that's it.
"I didn't scramble his words and fit them together in a different way."
No, you scrambled his lines and fit them together in a different way.

I'm pretty much resigned to being today's lynch. That's fine.
BUT
Town, if we lose because of this guy, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. And endgame will be nothing but me writing "I TOLD YOU SO" on endless loop.

P-Edit: Cub. Why do you appear to be coaching?

Wow, sour grapes? Geez your tone is toxic.

When you say

"I wrote a rather long and ranty post bitching about your bullshit, but I deleted it [...]"

is it because you can't defend your own words, which are based on feeling and fabrication rather than fact?

What was the point of me even responding to your baloney then? It was never a "case", it was never "case closed", and now when you're faced with something to respond to - which you asked for - you're off to have a sulk instead?

No, you scrambled his lines and fit them together in a different way.

- Absolutely, as I said

"So I took that and theatrically posted the one after the other as a form of rebuttal."

. And you've just rewritten

my response to your analogy

of the situation and

pinned it back on my #347

. What's your point?

[pieceofpecanpie]

I have read enough of GM and related that I am willing to move my vote.

unvote

Vote: goodmorning

That's L-1.

"Related that I am willing to move my vote.

" - ?!?

You've done that how? By voting her? What have you read?

Could you add something further before the day is through? Anything...

[pieceofpecanpie]

That makes sense.

Curse NS for using so few words to "involve" himself in the game.

Looks like I could use some coaching from you after all Cub.

[pieceofpecanpie]

1. That's unfortunate.

2. Well perhaps, but it's more for the benefit of others.

3. They haven't seen a point by point rebuke from you to my #439, instead they've only seen you throw up your hands in disgust. If that's good enough for you then I can't change that.

4. & 5. I see the mafia game a bit more like a tennis match, we trade shots back and forth and although not all of them are winners some are. Others watch and judge accordingly and I suppose everyone is their own umpire of the match (don't ask me where the mods fits in, but whatever this is abstract and on the fly). But what you've done to me twice now this game is clam up and refuse to play, just a moment ago and previously when you told me to "go ask a debate team or an English teacher". I don't think you have any right to declare a loss for town to be all because of "this guy", because if you flip VT then "this guy" certainly won't be taking pointers from your VT rulebook or your thoughts on this game.

Also, if that was your point then I suggest you tell me - and everyone else - what implosion said that you agree with and how I butchered it with my #347. But I suppose you're too pissed off to do so.

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP Clarification:

1. That's unfortunate.

- comment was directed at the

first

part.

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP

(again, somehow I posted the draft and not the final with the complete analogy)

4. & 5. I see the mafia game a bit more like a tennis match, we trade shots back and forth and although not all of them are winners some are. Others watch and judge accordingly and I suppose everyone is their own umpire of the match (don't ask me where the mods fits in, but whatever this is abstract and on the fly). But what you've done to me twice now this game is clam up and refuse to play, just a moment ago and previously when you told me to "go ask a debate team or an English teacher".

It's like you don't want to trade shots at all and just expect them to all be winners.

I don't think you have any right to declare a loss for town to be all because of "this guy", because if you flip VT then "this guy" certainly won't be taking pointers from your VT rulebook or your thoughts on this game.

[pieceofpecanpie]

*ahem* GM is at L-1.

My intention to vote her to L-1 is now an intention to hammer.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Okay, so I was being devious and his case had merit to you.

I like your play on my tennis analogy, I think you've got a good point.

So is it my deviousness in #347 that makes me scummy or do you agree with implosion's case? If it's the latter, any particular points?

Now you initially jumped on me after my #327, so how does that tie into it? And do you have a response to my rebuttal in #439 of that case?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Who appointed this guy as Town Whip? Do not like.

Nice of you to drop by and let us know how you feel.

Why I'm not accepting NS claim to be more proactive Day 2:

From ISO 13 here he makes nine, NINE posts with little to no content in them before reaching lylo.

Now, he just jumps on the biggest wagon to help it move to L-1.

Please get on his wagon, I'd be very happy for it build. It'll end in tears.

I wont lose sleep other these people being lynched too: Susan, Cub
People who should be looked at more: ac1983fan, Beli, Cheery

Did you just tell everyone they should form an NS wagon, then mention alternative targets of myself and Cub, then mention 3 others who should be looked at,

none

of which are Apozzle who you voted in the following post?

What the shit?

pedit:

@GM

That won't be necessary. Although I'm certainly not pleased by the prospect of a mislynch, considering the way your play has pinged warning signs I believe it's probably best to find out this way.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Zaicon & Edos

Hi. Thoughts?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Apozzle, please let these fine people know why they need to unvote you.

I already saw that, made everything perfectly clear.

If you've been crumbing everywhere else then I've certainly been too thickheaded to see it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Oh and by that I mean, yes I want to see the breadcrumbs.

Also, you've thrown yourself to the mercy of scum. It may not be in their interests to flip one of you immediately, but as the game goes on it may be in town's interests to get one of you to flip to confirm your story.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Your #235 I felt something odd to the tone, asked you a question, but didn't follow up on it except to briefly readdress it to emphasise that Apozzle didn't square with me (when I put my case forward on him).

Your #232 is

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Belisarius I was already debating whether to point out Cub's #479 in response to your #486. I most likely would've before the day ended.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Safety

I'll add GM and Apozzle to the list of people you're happy to lynch. Cub moves down to watch list I suppose. Good to know you're prepared to move a vote onto pretty much anyone.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Alright, I want to get a few last thoughts down as a summary and then hammer this thing. I hope no one minds too much that it's not last second, I don't consider it likely that more fresh voices will enter in the last hour or so.

Highlight from the 11th hour:

- the double mason claim from Cub/Apozzle, appears legit to me. If you're happy to treat it as truth then their opening Day posts become really valuable. (Apozzle's #390 for example)

What are my thoughts if GM flips scum?

- this is too early to speculate on. Obviously I think it's possible given her posts and the beef I've had with them, but her recent tone has tempered her scumminess. However, this could've merely been done to open the door for a quick scum rush onto Apozzle. Regardless of the flip flopping, I'm pushing through with the lynch, I want to see the flip and if it's scum I won't be able to say much until night actions are resolved and I'm left breathing.

What are my thoughts if GM flips town?

- this to me would signify that scum have been floating a lot more under the radar for most of the day. If you take the two masons to be more or less confirmed, then they are sitting on GM's wagon, I'm on there (take that to mean what you will), 3 of my townish/null reads are on there and then there's NS. From my perspective I take this to mean that the wagon has mostly been town driven.

I want to briefly put down thoughts on two people, because I think regardless of the flip town should be

very

interested in either of these two on the 'morrow.

ac1983fan

- lots of quoting, a few jibes on people here and there and very little content or concerted scumhunting. Thanks to his meticulous quoting we have easy access to a beautiful bit of banter between him and Safety that goes nowhere in #305. For the most part my opinion hasn't changed from what I said in #391, I'm just slowly elaborating on it.

Safety Dance

- a wistful thought right now is how much better it would be to be sitting on a Safety lynch. Speaking of that feeling about GM's wagon being town-driven, when plenty of folks where nabbing her about #329 and #331 there were three who came in shortly after and completely ignored it: NS, ac1983fan (in response to NS) and Safety who posted #341 & #342 saying very little about anything before going V/LA.

I'm noticing an emerging pattern from Safety where what he says isn't quite lining up with what he's doing. Take the early game where he made a comment about NS' scumminess, voted him and then switched it to me when he interpreted what I posted as scumbuddy sign. That's fine, but perhaps a bit superfluous to immediately switch votes since you've already got it sitting on one scum suspect. And it's doubly weird considering that the main scum-tell from me was a FoS as opposed to a vote, when I had made crystal clear why I was doing one and not the other.

A recent example is his #477 & [urlhttp://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=4771982#p4771982]#488[/url], all players discussed as lynch/watch targets in #477 are duly ignored and a lynch is placed on Apozzle in #488. See what I mean about not quite lining up? It's just like switching his vote suddenly to me and then when questioned about it declares that he still finds NS scummy too. Then why switch votes so suddenly? Was I

extra

scummy? It doesn't make sense. Something to note is how much he's picked and chosen when to call the lurking thing scummy. He's picked on NS constantly about it, but ignored Human Destroyer and ac1983fan and even jumped on the Apozzle wagon with them

while

criticising the GM wagon because NS is on it.

Why I'm not accepting NS claim to be more proactive Day 2:

From ISO 13 here he makes nine, NINE posts with little to no content in them before reaching lylo.

Now, he just jumps on the biggest wagon to help it move to L-1.

Please get on his wagon, I'd be very happy for it build. It'll end in tears.

If I were to say Safety is scum, and I'm very close to doing so, I'd also suggest that he's easily thrown a scumbuddy in there out of the names he reeled off. Since myself and Cub were in the lynch group, let's look at the one's to watch group. ac1983fan, Belisarius and Cheery Dog. So again he chose the Apozzle wagon over GM's despite it having

all

of the people he wants to be looked at more. Does that make sense? (in terms of likely scumbuddy I'd order them: ac1983fan, Cheery Dog, Belisarius).

Bonus Person

And for my final thought let's talk briefly about NS. NS is thus-far useless. Lurking, scummy, vague you name it. There is no way I want to see NS coast into Lylo at this rate. However, NS can also be the go-to name for anyone who wants to derail any current discussion. Start a bit of open speculation about someone's post and anyone can barge in yelling "NS is scummy! Kill him!" and the thread will collapse into a session of scumminess of lurking vs his meta and so forth. I'd much rather if the suspicion was cast on people making those sorts of easy calls, rather than NS himself for the time being. There are two people above that I want town to look at seriously. There are also others.

I'm not trying to set up the lynches of tomorrow, I'm merely trying to get these thoughts down in case I don't live to see it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Damnit!

People have appeared out of the woodwork.

I'm off to grab a beer now, so I have to pass hammer duties on to someone else in case I don't make it back for the deadline.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Re: mason claims
I don't understand why Cub claimed too. It looks like he might be trying to be overly persuasive on it, so I'm still going to watch the two of them.

Overly persuasive maybe, but how would they coordinate such a thing as scum with no daychat? Just really intuitive to what the other one is meticulously setting up on Day 1?

Watch them all you want, if you can come up with a theory to not believe a word they're saying then please let everyone in on it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

pieceofpecanpie:
You know, I wasn't originally too concered with Susan's behavior because it felt similar to his behavior in the last game I played with him ~ a year ago. Then I remembered...We were both scum in that game. (I haven't looked up his meta tho so take that with a grain of salt but he's starting to ping my scumdar I suppose)

What scumdar? I haven't seen you actively scumhunt all day. But I keep my games pretty much up to date in my wiki. If you want to throw that grain of salt out there, then read through my most recent town and scum games and let us know what you think.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I believe today's best targets are Safety and ac1983fan.

I'm going to go with...

VOTE: ac1983fan

Pending a more detailed case, here is a brief summary of why I want to push this:

• - Things I said in my #509
  - His AtE in #526 right before the flip felt forced
  - His opening post had some bad WIFOM about Edo and then a vote onto Belisarius with same reasons as yeserday:
  

  Preparing reads on everyone atm but given the claims I will unvote for the moment and reVOTE: Belisarius since he was scummy earlier on in the day and has vote hopped from wagon to wagon w/o really ccontributing anything new (I know pot kettle)

  
  That's a terrible reason to open a vote onto him at the start of the Day. Shouldn't you at least expand on how this is still relevant for today? For a start, I'm struggling to see how your one point on him is a strong indication of alignment? If he would continue doing this today then yeah you can start drawing links, but you've taken something pretty subjective from Day 1 and just copy-pasted it into Day 2. How is this vote relevant?

@Zaicon

You vote for Edosurist, but your case seems to be focused on what you don't like about his play. Could you clarify

why

doing these things make him scummy?

[pieceofpecanpie]

The thing I don't get Pie, is why it seems that each successive person that you find suspicious has found you suspicious first.

Is that how it's been going? I don't remember Apozzle having much to say about me, though I could be wrong I'd need to check.

Your expansion on Belisarius is interesting.

UNVOTE:

Let's forget the early call to arms as it's felt too hasty.

[pieceofpecanpie]

If implosion is scum, Cheery is town.

Remind me of this later if I forget.

Okay Cheery is town regardless of implosion's alignment.

Cool beans.

So the latter is what you're going with, right? Why? And yes, I see the quote, but that doesn't tell me what it told you apparently. So how'd you reach that conclusion?

Also, do you have an opinion on Safety's alignment in relation to Cheery's?

[pieceofpecanpie]

The walls, the walls...

@Human Destroyer

Can we get the abridged version? When you get up to where we are now, will you still be convinced that implosion is the scummiest scum that ever scummed?

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Human Destroyer Can we get the abridged version? When you get up to where we are now, will you still be convinced that implosion is the scummiest scum that ever scummed?

No, it's best if you read my walls, they're not hard to read and they contain my thoughts as I go through the thread.

Well then at least spoiler it.

If you haven't realised, most of us - myself included - have been here from Day 1 start and are up to date. A page by page analysis is more useful in support of concluding statements. I don't really care about whatever twists and turns you encounter with your thoughts on others. For a start, just tell everyone where it's going.

Is that unreasonable?

[pieceofpecanpie]

I could use more transparency in this game.

I don't think anyone will differ with you about that. Why are you pointing this out like someone's against it?

What I'm missing however are the basic reads, which I can question and comment on. From there I don't care how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Hmmm, trying to absorb this game.

Feels like I'm close to calculating something from what's been said, but everyone's created a confusing web of points and counterpoints onto everyone else.

Safety's #604 is really bad, a great of it does not make sense in terms of town strategy, yet he still is aggressively trying to make himself sound like a pro-town thinker. I get the impression that he's willing to follow Apozzle's vote around for the sake of blending in, since his other votes haven't made a lick of sense. I'm both baffled and disturbed that implosion finds Safety's #604 good. It's just as bad as his vote on Cheery.

My thoughts are that one of these two (Safety, implosion) would make a great lynch for today. Either one would provide great information on where others stand.

VOTE: implosion

[pieceofpecanpie]

FFS, you said yourself you agree with my NS argument before but now you're saying you don't understand anything? I think its you who's not making any sense. And you're just trying to appropriate reasons to fit a read instead of the other way round.

GM agreed with me before, she must be my scum buddy too! I'm loving this (lack of) logic.

Wut? Completely misrepped my opinion on NS, good try though. I'm loving this too, all your posts start with [example of how crazy/stupid other player is] and end with [sarcastic comment indicating how you're the only pro-town player*]

The thing is, you're not. And the more you beat your chest about it, the scummier you look.

Hey everyone, Safety is yelling any sort of opportunistic bullshit about anyone and calling it scum-play.

• eg. No 2 kills last night = edo instant scum for even mentioning the possibility of SK
  Cheery says something about something = call it a slip and vote him
  No vote on NS, FoS instead = PoPP NS' scumbuddy, easy tell, scum caught

Can we hang him from the treetops already?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Safety

*mental Safety note: use "rolleyes" smilie for added emphasis

[pieceofpecanpie]

implosion why are you acting as Safety's drawbridge?

Whenever an argumentative knight comes galloping towards Safety's castle you're all like

"raise the bridge!"

and Safety can cower safely in his self-constructed ivory tower.

But really, why?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Scum baiting Apozzle to give out his reads so they can sheep a conf-town.

Don't you tell them what you think Apozzle!

Not until towards days end at least.

[pieceofpecanpie]

If you want to find the arguments, you'll find them alright.

Apozzle is pretty articulate, so his words will be like agreeable argument candy to you.

[pieceofpecanpie]

also, yeah, did you even fucking read beli's post? He's asking apozzle to make a case on *HIM*. lol, i guess beli's totally gonna sheep that case that he's asking apozzle to make on him~

How is that not scummy of him?

edit: Oh yeah, what apozzle said.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Cheery, in #645 you believe Belisarius to be town, yet puzzle over his request at the same time. How does this work? What's he doing then, being an anti-town town player? Since begging (baiting?) Apozzle to say something about him is a big waste of time, what's the strongest tell you have currently to afford him townie status?

So HD is faking his hunt huh? He's wasting everyone's time with a bunch of malarky? Well, you're just as guilty of wasting time if you don't explain why you think such a thing. Otherwise the vote is pure WIFOM and suss as hell. Looks more like you're picking and choosing suspects to vote for after first consulting a list of buddies to avoid voting for. Otherwise why are you questioning the logic of one player (Belisarius) sans vote and calling it a determined town read, and then voting another (HD) sans evidence and giving a fluffy scum read?

[pieceofpecanpie]

FFS, you said yourself you agree with my NS argument before but

now you're saying you don't understand anything

?

Good job misrepping me some more. Your counter-argument is bunk. I understand plenty. I understand that you're not looking town and I understand that you can't read.

So where are all the posts exclaiming NS is town?

Listen dunderhead, if you're going to spend the whole game using little initiative except to craft aggressive counter-attacks on players at least learn how to read what's being said. Did I say NS was town? Nope.

You may recall I said this? (you can read all of it, but at least do the underlined bits)

And for my final thought let's talk briefly about NS. NS is thus-far useless. Lurking, scummy, vague you name it. There is no way I want to see NS coast into Lylo at this rate.

However, NS can also be the go-to name for anyone who wants to derail any current discussion.

Start a bit of open speculation about someone's post and anyone can barge in yelling "NS is scummy! Kill him!" and the thread will collapse into a session of scumminess of lurking vs his meta and so forth.

I'd much rather if the suspicion was cast on people making those sorts of easy calls, rather than NS himself for the time being.

implosion why are you acting as Safety's drawbridge?

Whenever an argumentative knight comes galloping towards Safety's castle you're all like

"raise the bridge!"

and Safety can cower safely in his self-constructed ivory tower.

But really, why?

You can get fucked calling me a coward. It should be blatantly obvious that I am perfectly capable of defending myself again you're infantile, asinine accusations you call reads. What other people do is up to themselves.

Heeeey, settle pettle. You are perfectly capable of defending yourself. It's not so much a defence though, as an opportunity to flex your counter-attack muscles. Is that really productive? You know what I don't see you doing: taking initiative to put forward cases, or push lynches. Is that because you're a coward?

Oh yeah, would you like one of these?

Spoiler:

That's what you're doing with NS, and beyond that you're just blasting away like a senile old man at anyone who invades your space. And yet, no vote on NS...

People I'd like to lynch today:
NS - Obvious. Has he even done anything today? Notice he lurked like fuck but still joined the lynch d1? Alarm bells much people? If we ML twice in a row and he makes it to D3 I will rage.

And yet, no vote on NS...

I'm noticing an emerging pattern from Safety where what he says isn't quite lining up with what he's doing.

You did the same in your vitriolic spewfest against GM between 389-443, I'm amazed you didn't get on the wagon. In fact putting your diatribes aside, you get scum points just for you're bullshit tunnelling on GM whilst her wagon was building and not voting her and despite your "intent" to hammer and with ample opportunity, passing it up.

Oh again, I'm not surprised that your cheap shots completely misrepresent what actually happened:

Alright, I want to get a few last thoughts down as a summary and then hammer this thing. I hope no one minds too much that it's not last second, I don't consider it likely that more fresh voices will enter in the last hour or so [...]

Damnit!

People have appeared out of the woodwork.

I'm off to grab a beer now, so I have to pass hammer duties on to someone else in case I don't make it back for the deadline.

So you're essentially just bouncing onto wagons that others have created, while continuing to spew the same filth at anyone who so much as doubts you and ram some sort of pro-town message down their throats. That's both opportunistic and cowardly. Essentially you're setting yourself up so that you can't be held to blame for mislynches that your on because the lynchee isn't NS and yet you aren't trying to get everyone to vote NS. That's bullshit.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Geez, chill out. My language is for descriptive effect, it's not meant to offend and I'll certainly tone things down in the future.

Don't dish out what you can't take.

You can get fucked calling me a coward. It should be blatantly obvious that I am perfectly capable of defending myself again you're infantile, asinine accusations you call reads.

Because it's all you seem to be doing. But hey, the more you beat your chest doing it, the scummier you look. You did the same in your vitriolic spewfest against GM between 389-443, I'm amazed you didn't get on the wagon. In fact putting your diatribes aside, you get scum points just for you're bullshit tunnelling on GM whilst her wagon was building and not voting her and despite your "intent" to hammer and with ample opportunity, passing it up.

We're bouncing the same words between each other and it's not going anywhere. We're not going to agree, we'll keep penning the same arguments back and forth and find new ways to say the same thing with more liberal descriptions. If you think I'm taking it too far then man up and let me know, because I'm certainly not here to be a jerk or ruin anyone's fun. I think it takes two to tango, but I'm pretty tired of this dance as well, so how about we go play the shit out of the game?

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Safety

By the way, just to be perfectly clear, objection noted. I'll pull my head in.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Good counter-point NS, now back that up by doing something useful.

For a start, I'll move my vote.

VOTE: Belisarius

This is an easy choice, since I really didn't like his request to Apozzle to make a case on him. Felt really forced and baiting out a town read.

That doesn't gel with his overall passive play, there shouldn't be the expectation that because you've kept your nose relatively clean that it makes you overwhelmingly town.

I'd also love to see this lynch go through as it feels like a missing link on various other players (Edo, Cheery and Safety for a start).

My secondary vote choice is Nobody Special. Mostly because in order to push suspicion and/or lynches onto others I feel I'd be forced to justify why it's them and not NS. And the thought of having to do that again and again is sickening.

[pieceofpecanpie]

And your point being...?

Multiple scum alive means...? (they pretty much do whatever they want and are flexible to any given situation?)

[pieceofpecanpie]

EBWOP: That was directed at Cheery Dog's previous post.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@HD

Sooo, you canned the post-by-post summary walls. That's fine. But I'd like to see a summary of your thoughts on everyone. Is that possible?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Why are your sentences hard to read?

But nevertheless, I understand what you're saying. And I disagree. I also disagree with HD's initial comment about scum on wagons.

Both are sweeping generalisations, unless you can actually show me how the site meta doesn't support scum being on or off wagons as they see fit then I much prefer to think of scum as perfectly adaptable and flexible in most situations.

I'd be inclined to call both equally useless things to say, since they aren't particularly insightful and especially when they're not being used to move the game forward for town. Perhaps if you applied your theory to yesterdays wagon and your scum reads then it'd actually be productive. I'm not quite sure what you think replacing one generalisation by HD with your own is achieving? If you think this is paving the way for you to switch your vote back onto HD then I don't like it one bit.

[pieceofpecanpie]

...And who do you think will flip scum?

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion

Oh no, not another telling off from the arbiter of making-sure-this-guy-doesn't-misrep-people. You're interpretation doesn't gel with me at all, so I would like to set the record straight.

Cheery Dog made it, I thought, very clear that he wasn't advocating for any wagon analysis method in particular, just that HD's was wrong.

I disagree, I certainly interpreted Cheery as forming the beginnings of his own wagon theories to contrast HD's generalisations. You see if he'd said the first bit, then yeah he's refuting HD's statement and not advocating any wagon analysis. But instead he follows it up with, what to me, reads like a broad statement with no backing and is perfectly open to wagon analysis (see how that's exactly the same as what HD did?) which I've put in bold.

That the theory that most major wagon have at least one scum but not all of them is just someone's idea of what should happen, or used to happen.

The site's meta really doesn't support it currently.

So on that note, how I consider the following

actually

took place...

And when he corrected your misinterpretation in 730, you didn't kindly apologize for misrepresenting what he had said, you just went off on another tangent and made him look like he was in the wrong by asking him a question that sounds like it should have been answered a long time ago, when in fact it was.

...is that Cheery didn't correct my misinterpretation at all. He just completely ignored a section of what he had said and what I had addressed with the following line of questioning.

Both are sweeping generalisations, unless you can actually show me how the site meta doesn't support scum being on or off wagons as they see fit then I much prefer to think of scum as perfectly adaptable and flexible in most situations.

I'd be inclined to call both equally useless things to say, since they aren't particularly insightful and especially when they're not being used to move the game forward for town. Perhaps if you applied your theory to yesterdays wagon and your scum reads then it'd actually be productive. I'm not quite sure what you think replacing one generalisation by HD with your own is achieving? If you think this is paving the way for you to switch your vote back onto HD then I don't like it one bit.

I don't feel that was thoroughly addressed by his #730 at all, it felt more swept aside since it didn't suit his purposes to add clarity or detail to the situation. So I was still left without any insight into what his current thoughts on HD were (ie. why was he being vaguely critical) and where they were going and who else he may be suspicious of. So I followed it up with a more simple and direct question. It wasn't a tangent, and it wasn't put there to look like Cheery should've addressed it ages ago and hadn't (oh and you'll have to clarify what you mean by "

when in fact it was

"), I wasn't using some sort of backdoor scum-tell technique, it was a straight-up direct question after a line of questioning hadn't been met with a satisfactory response.

I'm finding Cheery somewhat passive in his commitment to reads and wagons, and I'm doing my best to suss it out. He seems intent on not rocking the boat too much, just nudging it a little from time to time, which I'm picking up as a survival technique and one that has me questioning his alignment. And in doing so, I'm all about listening, reading and processing (as Safety would put it) and I don't count misrepping or making

infantile, asinine accusations

as part of my schtick or method.

Since you're nit-picking me so much, implosion, do you feel like sharing your thoughts on myself? And it'd also be nice to hear if there are alternative wagons that you consider viable.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Hmph.

Just replace out already.

It's pathetic having to actually describe the attributes of

lurking, unhelpful, vague, scummy etc. etc.

as your "meta".

It's not meta at all. It's called being lazy and half-arsed, and making it incredibly difficult for people who want to involve themselves and commit to a game to stay motivated.

The constant flow of excuses about how play will improve or some reads will come in a while or going off to think about something while everyone is left to supposedly tap their fingers for a week is grossly unfair. It shouldn't become a hindrance to scum cases, that we need to distract our attention with a discussion about your inevitable policy lynch. We shouldn't have to bet on a coin toss whether your flip will be beneficial or not for town, and comfort ourselves with the thought that it may be beneficial since it'll reveal nothing beyond that.

I say, let's do this. Before it continues to be the elephant in the room, we should lynch NS and regather to fight another day.

UNVOTE:

VOTE: Nobody Special

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion

Well, we'll never really know on the Cheery situation as you've more or less "cleared" it all up for him. I was wrong - as usual- and my opponent was inevitably right.

Your example is preposterous, as it is not only grossly slanted towards your side of the argument (naturally), but doesn't represent an equivalent of what was said or what element of the interpretation we're debating. If forced to use your example to illustrate my interpretation I'd say that the mood I'd picked up from Cheery regarding both his

"The site's meta really doesn't support it currently."

and his quoting of scum wagons from former games was that he was angling towards an alternative theory. In other words "we don't want to nuke China" becomes "we may want to nuke countries other than China".

If he says that's not what he did, then yeah sure, fair enough. But I don't have to take that at face value do I?

While you continue to hammer away at my continued terrible reign of fabricating and misrepresenting every word thus typed by another player you might want to think about what statements you're applying this critique towards. I can pull sentences like

"unless you can actually show me how"

,

"I'd be inclined to [..]"

,

"I'm not quite sure what you think [...]"

"If you think [...]"

, which certainly don't seem to represent someone who is talking in absolutes or putting words into other peoples mouths. It kind of actually sounds like someone is reading things, interpreting them in a particular way and asking questions about it. Perhaps for clarification and/or informative purposes. Or whatever... Could just be how I see it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

You do realise if I was going with wagon analyse, I'd actually have posted my thoughts on the wagons from this game, I haven't quoted any of them, so whatever my "new theory" was meant to be must be pretty good if I was using it.

The whole purpose of it is that HD is still looking for slips and generic scum behaviour rather than motivations.

You do realise that I don't have the benefit of knowing your alignment, so am I to take everything you do as completely town-sided? Perhaps you merely want to keep suspicion on HD without explicitly being clear about it. Perhaps you want to limit the amount of analysis - wagon or otherwise - you provide and remain obscure by

"not [being] convinced on anybody else at this stage."

You do realise I have no idea what you actually will and will not do, or what you may

choose

to do or not to do.

But thanks for clearing that up. I'll read your purpose as literally as possible and make sure I stop doing whatever it is I'm doing with what you, or anyone else, says since there's something so intrinsically wrong about it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

With so many people V/LA, or just passive in general I think NS makes for the only satisfactory lynch for today.

With other potential lynch candidates I'd prefer a lot more commentary and discussion, but that's give or take with NS as I don't believe it'll result in alignment tells.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I've never been as opposed to an NS lynch as you've represented me being, Safety.

Since you're applying comments to others, did you feel like applying all your tunneling remarks to implosion? What do you make of implosion's tunneling on me? Does it have your full support? Where is he on your scumdar?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Well new blood would come as a relief.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I hope that NS is lying through his teeth, because goddamn...

UNVOTE:

Apart from NS dropping by to claim he is in fact wasting a town PR rather than scum, Apozzle has also made an appearance. So I'll catch up with all that in a bit, and gather my thoughts with what I believe should be done today. However, right now I'm just angry.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I am not saying no to lynching NS today because of only information. I am weighing the various factors to determine whether I believe he is the best lynch. Information is one of those factors.

It should not be a factor whatsoever.

Well in this case I don't feel lynching a PR claim Day 2 is the best course of action, even if it is NS. Scum points to you, implosion, for talking a bunch of waffle-y nonsense advocating the lynch. If we mislynch a PR now that's a huge set back for us and one that we shouldn't be risking.

But for now, back to my previous vote.

VOTE: Belisarius

Case summary incoming.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Or
Or
Or
We leave NS alone for today and IF he's a PR scum will do the killing for us, IF he's lying or left alive we get to decide whether to hear results from one or two nights and then confirm that information by lynching him.

How can you be against this?

UNVOTE:

VOTE: implosion

Are you trying desperately hard to mislynch him? Because I'm starting to believe his claim due to your weird logic, which I can only read as anti-town.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I don't understand either, how Implosion is definitely pushing a mislynch or deserves a vote just for wanting one of his top scum reads lynched. Trying to create another wagon now IS scummy, imo, it's not really helping getting a consensus.

Oh and implosion

is

helping get a consensus? Keeping his vote on NS now is a bogus move, regardless of whether he still thinks NS is scummy. I certainly haven't cleared NS, I don't know if you have, but at least we - along with others - have stopped being on the wagon despite previous judgement, because the PR claim is telling us it's best to lynch elsewhere.

I haven't tried to create a wagon, it's not like I asked implosion to do scummy things, I've just reacted to the build up of actions from him that I've noted as scummy.

However, for the sake of consensus I can either push for people to vote implosion or I can switch back to Belisarius. I am not voting HD. I would much rather Belisarius if it came down to looking at the most viable of the previous wagons.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I don't understand either, how Implosion is definitely pushing a mislynch or deserves a vote just for wanting one of his top scum reads lynched. Trying to create another wagon now IS scummy, imo, it's not really helping getting a consensus.

Oh and implosion

is

helping get a consensus? Keeping his vote on NS now is a bogus move, regardless of whether he still thinks NS is scummy. I certainly haven't cleared NS, I don't know if you have, but at least we - along with others - have stopped being on the wagon despite previous judgement, because the PR claim is telling us it's best to lynch elsewhere.

I haven't tried to create a wagon, it's not like I asked implosion to do scummy things, I've just reacted to the build up of actions from him that I've noted as scummy.

Making a case for staying on NS =/= creating another wagon. If he switches and votes for say, you, then yes, that's not really helping either.

I didn't say the two are the same thing. I'm saying keeping his vote on NS not only isn't sensible, it's also not helping us reach a consensus. On top of that I also find the case for staying on NS scummy, but that's subjective.

[pieceofpecanpie]

VOTE: Belisarius

Case summary incoming.

Spoiler:

You can cut the smarmy crap. I switched votes to implosion, haven't switched back yet, have clearly stated my preferences and will assess what's happening vis-à-vis replacement and deadline to determine what I do. For the time being consider your request for me to devote my time drafting a more detailed case on Belisarius denied.

[pieceofpecanpie]

It wasn't a request. "Case incoming". Means you had something tangible. If you didn't write it up, if you have no case....well, it's just another nail in the coffin to your credibility.

What planet are you on? Keep on ego-tripping. You've indicated no interest in voting Belisarius or reading any of my reasoning. You continue to make snide remarks between others about how I make no sense, as if this backslapping is somehow a key element to the game. Forget it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

UNVOTE:

[pieceofpecanpie]

Or it's you trying to avoid your own lynch.

Or both in fact.

What a shock: a townie doesn't want their own lynch!

How surprising!

Oh I'm okay with a HD lynch now.

Sitting back passively, making a lazy

"someone should tell me who to vote"

-style post in #818 and then making a

"yeah, but I'm town"

defence doesn't gel well.

This is better than NS lynch, on par with Belisarius and infinitely better than a NL. I feel this is one that'll move a lot easier than trying to drum up a Belisarius lynch before deadline.

VOTE: Human Destroyer

[pieceofpecanpie]

Oh you're saying that after someone had put those cases out there you wouldn't just sheep them?

The only proactive thing you've done today is start giving reads on yesterday practically post-by-post, but you abandoned this protracted process and left it completely unresolved.

There's also a huge difference between a player who has been actively scumhunting asking for reads, and someone who has alternated between active and passive lurking asking for reads.

pedit: claim noted, by I'll stick with my vote and pretense for it.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Interesting that you didn't get on me for doing exactly that yesterday though. Why's that?

I'm still waiting on an answer to this.

The answer to this is along similar lines to the following:

There's also a huge difference between a player who has been actively scumhunting asking for reads, and someone who has alternated between active and passive lurking asking for reads.

So what I mean is that I'm not unequivocally saying that a certain action premeditates your scumminess, but given these circumstances I think it goes towards you looking one way rather than the other.

In Day 1 the flow of the game was different, you'd barely made an appearance, and due to those circumstances it would've been rather weak to jump on you for asking for reads.

But now, not only have you done it twice, it would be strange to think that works in your defence and is somehow a counterpoint on me. It only shows repeated examples of you not being proactive and gives me all the more reason to vote you.

On a different note, I don't think that's a super scum-slip you've just discovered Belisarius. Looks more like derp-town, which is turn makes the whole situation pretty

[pieceofpecanpie]

Maybe you should focus on just contributing to one game.

As for the HD claim. I'm confused, but it's too WIFOM to justify an unvote. I'll just be pissed if it turns out to be true.

[pieceofpecanpie]

There's a lot more to say than that.

For a start you can explain where you're town read is coming from.

[pieceofpecanpie]

How can you even purport that to be factual?

If there's one alignment that are looking to fakeclaim, it's scum. Also, if there's one alignment who shouldn't have to fakeclaim or claim twice, it's town.

If he completely derped then that's just wonderful, another valued member of the town team doing little, saying little and that clueless about this game they don't even know where they're at.

I consider the claim a WIFOM situation, so I'm not sure how you're able to draw a conclusion one way or the other.

How does the rest of HD's play read to you?

[pieceofpecanpie]

On a different note, is Edo still in this game?

Thurhame replaced Zaicon yeah? So Edo has been awol for over a week?

@Mod

What's going on with Edosurist?

Missed that he hasn't posted in so long with the other replacement stuff, he's prodded now

[pieceofpecanpie]

POPP told us to call him Susan.

Only if it makes you happy.

Sooo, let me take a brief moment to assess these claims and whatnot. I just want to theory craft a little.

I'll just UNVOTE: Human Destroyer for a sec, lest someone do something funny.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion

Yeah, I'd read your #691 along with other posts of yours relating to HD. It's just he hadn't been your topic of conversation for a while, so I thought the sudden

"urghhh don't vote, he's town"

post was a bit out of the blue. I've made a note of that for later, but for now I'm actually coming around to what you said in your #691.

And there must be something about going away and coming back to look over things, because this:

It is, in a way, a wifom situation. Wifom situations aren't unreadable, though. In essence, there are two possibilities: either town-HD forgot his role genuinely, or scum-HD deliberately fakeclaimed a role thinking that it would give him towncred. Both are very improbable situations: townies rarely forget their roles, and it is highly unlikely that scum would see it as beneficial to retract a claim they've already made. My intuition says the first is more likely.

Seems like good intuition. Either HD has played a gambit bordering on genius to create such confusion in the hope of unvotes, or he's just derped pretty hard.

@everyone

So let's run by a little bit of light theory. With two PR claims on top of the 2 masons we seem to be more than likely sitting on 3 scum, although that balance could be thrown out if NS' claim is false. I'm not certain of his claim and I know he's got zero credibility, but I'd like to give him life at least until tomorrow.

Why is that?

you may ask, well here's the brief version:

• - With a 3-man scum team they have extremely strong manipulative potential
  - With a large group of players being flakey, lurking or just plain neglectful and considering that at least some of those players are town then town has been at a disadvantage all day when it comes to setting up wagons (note the split wagon syndrome we've suffered)
  - Combine those two elements and scum aren't exactly feeling the pressure, so I find it more likely that they mislead wagons forming on good targets instead of getting into situations where they would immediately want to claim PRs
  - I've seen little support for NS from anyone (this goes without saying), but also little to throw us off his scent, which doesn't seem right from a 3-man scum team. Either scum have ditched him from Day 1, or he's just a useless townie who so happens to have been given a PR, which we're now debating about destroying for good

I don't want to vote NS, I've come around on the idea of HD being genuine and just playing bad, so I'd like to see Belisarius flip.

Belisarius has essentially been active lurking, the bait on Apozzle in #632 to make a case on him was both bizarre and scummy. I believe that's been his way of staying a part of the conversation without actually having to contribute. I believe drawing out a case on him has worked because now all he's really been interested in doing all day is launching some sort of great defence. This has shown him to be completely devoid of scumhunting or in-game analysis and the only time he's committed to voting anyone is in #809, where he says he'd vote implosion (a non-existent wagon) and, bizarrely enough, myself for not making a case on him. So his subsequent vote on HD in #839 comes across as a little too quick and opportunistic.

This lynch would open up the door to look at some interesting interactions between players and isn't putting any PR claims at risk. This guy's looked scummy all day, yet when it's come to the crunch the pressure's disappeared. Let's make it stick.

VOTE: Belisarius

[pieceofpecanpie]

UNVOTE:

Ow, my head.

Alright, so there's 8 hours left till deadline by my count. Uhhh, at least I hope so? I have to convert to EST and I'm always confused by deadlines before I do that because I'm so far ahead. Hence why I've jumped on at 7 in the am on a Saturday shitting bricks about this lynch. You have no idea how disconcerting it is to be posting here on the 30th, when your head keeps telling you the day's over.

From this edit it's almost exactly 7 hours until deadline.

I'll take a moment on this.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@HD

Ah okay, must've converted wrong time. Well now I need to look at Zaicon's slot some more, because some sort of lynch consensus is vital. And I was just about to start suggesting NS again.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Belisarius

Cop claim is consistent with your unwillingness to vote Safety Day 2, but you're lack of input has still felt scummy. And asking Apozzle to make a case on you, what's with that? The passiveness didn't work well at all for me in my only Cop game. It got me unstuck by town who considered the passiveness scummy and forced me into a claim, much like yourself. Either way, you're in hot water now, so you may as well contribute to reads and cases more.

I'd also like to point out that with a Godfather very likely, we're all going to have to take your results at less than face value. You shouldn't assume innocence either, an investigation showing as much is only a temporary sanctuary until proven beyond reasonable doubt ie. a flip

[pieceofpecanpie]

Thanks for the countdown timer, daylight saving trolled me.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Thurhame

Could you explain in a bit more detail why you switched from Cheery to Edo? Both Cheery and Edo were sitting at no votes, so why does Edo have the best chance of going through? You've had a scum read on Cheery, but no such mention of one on Edo.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Time to summarise:

Players I

don't

want to lynch:

Apozzle

- mason

Human Destroyer

- 1-shot vig claim, my thoughts on this are here

Belisarius

- cop claim, my thoughts on this are here

Nobody Special

- roleblock claim, my thoughts are from here onward. He's on short notice, I have the intention of putting him on the lynch pile tomorrow.

Safety Dance

- investigated innocent according to Belisarius, so a temporary no-no for today, but I believe he shouldn't be granted immunity in the future.

Susan

- moi

Players that

can

be lynched:

ac1983fan

- weak scum read, my thoughts on this are here, here and here. He's ventured into null territory since then, but since we're running low on lynch alternatives I'd definitely reconsider voting him.

Edosurist

- barely present, lurky. Looking through his ISO I'm still leaning slightly town. At times when he's actually been around to post he's posted reasonably well. Previous read is here.

implosion

- previously a weak town read, now I'm unsure. Continuously butts in to address questions or critique

not

directed at him

before

the player in question has responded. I consider that VERY wrong and questionable, but the only circumstances under which that can pertain to alignment is what I mulled over here. I consider interpreting this as scum distracting or manipulating cases before they are under way plausible. I'm open to voting him to help figure out what the deal has been with that.

Cheery Dog

- weak scum read, previous read is here. I've thrown questions at Cheery on a semi-regular basis (you'll have to ISO me b/c I can't be bothered linking them all), which has resulted in generally satisfactory answers coming from him, so I haven't pursued it. However, I'm finding him more passive than the previous game I had with him, he's still active but feels less scumhunty-active and more saying-stuff-that-won't-lead-too-far-active. I'd consider voting him, but to be honest I'd rather an investigation paved the way.

Thurhame

- replacement for Zaicon, previous null read. Currently I'm not really far into reading him because he's just replaced in. I find his jump from Cheery to Edo (ISO #15 & #20) a little awkward, but apart from that it's still null territory.

Well, that's everyone, so out of the remaining pile people that I'd consider lynching are

ac1983fan

,

implosion

,

Cheery Dog

and perhaps even

Thurhame

if we get into a pinch. I'd like to leave Edosurist for now, doesn't seem like good value at all given his absence.

I'm going to re-read Cheery Dog and report back in a bit, because out of the 4 potential lynchees he's the one I've spent the least amount of time on ISOing (just been reacting to his posts when he's made them) and a few things caught my attention when I was getting this summary together.

[pieceofpecanpie]

OK can we lynch Edosurist now then instead?

No.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Seriously, out of all of them he's been missing for most of the Day. He's a pretty worthless lynch. I also don't know where the "Edo is scummy" idea is coming from. Where are these cases?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Seriously, out of all of them he's been missing for most of the Day. He's a pretty worthless lynch. I also don't know where the "Edo is scummy" idea is coming from. Where are these cases?

I made mine way back when I started the day...Then his behavior didn't change much; plus I stand by the theory that the four stalled wagons indicated at least one of them was scum. Also, didn't you JUST SAY you'd be willing to lynch him?

Did you even read my #897?

[pieceofpecanpie]

Seriously, out of all of them he's been missing for most of the Day. He's a pretty worthless lynch. I also don't know where the "Edo is scummy" idea is coming from. Where are these cases?

I made mine way back when I started the day...Then his behavior didn't change much; plus I stand by the theory that the four stalled wagons indicated at least one of them was scum. Also, didn't you JUST SAY you'd be willing to lynch him?

Did you even read my #897?

Yeah, I did. You put Edos in your list of players we

can

lynch. that indicates a willingness to lynch him, does it not?

Or try actually

reading

my #897... Seriously, why do I bother putting effort into posts?

Well, that's everyone, so out of the remaining pile people that I'd consider lynching are ac1983fan, implosion, Cheery Dog and perhaps even Thurhame if we get into a pinch. I'd like to leave Edosurist for now, doesn't seem like good value at all given his absence.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'll vote Edo before deadline if I'm needed, with all these PR claims this town needs flips to see what's up.

@Belisarius

I want you to answer my #894.

[pieceofpecanpie]

You clearly stated you'd be willing to lynch Edos.

No. He said Edos was one of the players who can be lynched - as opposed to the claimed power roles + Beli's inno. He did NOT say that he

personally

was willing to lynch Edos.

Thanks for making that clear.

That's exactly my point. It can be put to rest now.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Vote: Edosurist

That should be hammer.

Mmmm. Little bit hasty? We're a hub of activity currently.

Still anyone with things to add should add them.

[pieceofpecanpie]

@Safety

Chill out. There's no doubting Edo was getting lynched.

We're a hub of activity

currently

.

That's saying little about the past two weeks. I was commenting on the current activity level being high.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'd like to see a massclaim tomorrow. If we're lucky, it could tell us a little about who's telling the truth and/or lying. Opinions?

If we have a doc, protect Beli. Period.

If we have a one-shot cop, investigate tonight.
Beli should let us know who he's investigating tonight, so that the one-shot cop (if we have one) can investigate someone different.

Nobody Special should block one of the non-claims, but not say which one he's blocking until tomorrow.

I agree with the massclaim, but I'm not sure it'll tell us much. Plenty of time for scum to coordinate.

I'm not sure if Beli should claim who he's investigating, since if he hasn't hit godfather already then he may choose them and scum could let him live the night and use the innocent result for power tomorrow. Remember they still have a mason and a lot of other claimed PRs to consider killing.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Also what made you protect pecan over the claimed masons?

Yeah.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Hey I'm back from V/LA. Just popped in to say I'll lay down something soon. I've only had time to skim the thread.

So we're claiming 'ey, I see no harm in me putting it out there that I'm a

Vanilla Townie

.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Well good game scum.

You played well. Actually your well played game has unfortunately been overshadowed by some stupidity on the part of certain townies, no need to mention names...

Cheery I had issues with your posts all game and kept hassling you about them, but could never see reason to take it further. Well played on your part.

Belisarius, you made a good claim, that certainly helped. Your play was pretty obv-scum for the most part, but it blended in just fine with the anti-town and derp-town players. In a different scenario I reckon your Day 2 play would see you lynched without question.

Cub and Apozzle, I liked your mason play and crumbing a lot, it helped so much and put town in a very strong position early. A pity it didn't see us through.

ac1983fan you shouldn't beat yourself up about your play, from what little I'd seen of you before this game I thought you were a good player and you played fine here. Besides the more you confront your weaknesses and work on them the better you'll get. Having said that I'll just repeat that I really don't see what's bad about your play.

As for everyone I haven't mentioned, I hate you and I wish you were all... Nah, just kidding, good game. I'm disappointed and pissed about my lynch, but I've made that clear enough in the dead thread and moved on.

Thank you for moderating Gamma. I thought you were pretty attentive and gave us a hassle-free game. Much appreciated.

[pieceofpecanpie]

When I say that I was assuming no townies were lying, I mean the following logical argument: Premise 1, if pecan is town then there is a townie lying (either safety lying about his result, or some other townie (OTHER than you) lying about their claim[ ...]

All the more reason to

not

quickhammer me.

premise 2, no townies are lying; conclusion, pecan is scum.

BZZZZT WRONG, I was VT

and

I claimed VT. Therefore, Pecan is

not

scum.

Again, no justification for quickhammering me.

What argument are you making again? That it isn't reckless to blindly play follow-the-cop and quickhammer?

Well I must say, your stellar points have certainly got me convinced...

[pieceofpecanpie]

Fun fact: quickhammering [the most active] [a] player in the game before they have had a chance to speak is bad town play.

I won't be reading your guide to playing Mafia anytime soon.

No, no, let's not beat a dead horse but...

fun fact, i'm not you. I don't have information fmpov that you have fypov.

Then

wait for me to have a chance to post and share that information

... Seriously, how can you you grasp exactly what this sentence means when you follow it up with this:

you would have been absolutely justified in quickhammering me if safety had claimed a guilty on me.

and not realise that those two statements put together are absolutely balls to the wall retarded...?

[pieceofpecanpie]

@implosion

Why would I give two shits about arguing against a [gambit] cop claim... How about sharing my reads, hmmm? You know, thoughts and opinions on other players. I call that sharing information. Oh and Safety could've come and said it was all lies too, but whatever, that would be his derp problem.

Anyway, seriously enough.

[pieceofpecanpie]

I'd like to point out that you insinuating I saw the wagon run up and lynched before the thread got locked is absolutely wrong.

Nah, that was just another reason for implosion why quick hammering was a bad idea...

I'm aware you weren't back soon enough.

[pieceofpecanpie]

aaaaaactually i finished day 3's and put it up right before the last day's lynch scene

Thank you so much. It's beautiful.

[pieceofpecanpie]

N1:
Nobody Special (Roleblocker): Does Nothing

N2:
Nobody Special (Roleblocker): Does Nothing (he apparently thought he sent me a block on Cheery Dog, which would have stopped the kill buuuut nope.)

The only other game I've played with him he failed to submit actions at times as well...

[pieceofpecanpie]

Seconded.