Newbie 384: All over 'cept the finger-pointing!

[LlamaHunter]

First things first,

unvote

.

Secondly, I've had a quick read through of this game and can say I am sufficiently confused as to who everyone is and who said what that I'm not sure who I think is scummy at the moment. But I'll be reading through it again pretty soon and I'll get back to you with more. For the moment, I'll just say I am keeping my eye on truncator. I mean, sure, he got reactions with his 3rd vote, but it's not like he's made any comment on the discussion that's opened up due to it.

Was really just checking in to say hi.

[LlamaHunter]

I have another question for truncator - from the reactions you've generated, who do you think is scummy and who do you think isn't, and why?

[LlamaHunter]

Wow, living in a different time zone makes you miss quite a lot. I, personally, am suspicious of truncator, and would support a 3rd vote on him. Obviously, there is the risk of scum then creating some kind of excuse to lynch him if he's town, or possibly feigning impatience and lynch him if he continues to lurk.

On the other hand, some kind of pressure needs to be put on truncator to post something of substance and actually respond to the questions posed to him. So far, his answers seem to go along the lines of "sorry, but it's done now, deal with it." He also claims to have generated information from the vote and its subsequent events, but doesn't tell us what this is.

Theoretically, I guess truncator wouldn't have to claim if he were put at L-1 until he thought there was significant risk of his lynch.

Albert, on a quick re-read of the game, it appears you've completely avoided the truncator issue, besides seconding my question of truncator in post 95. Instead, you have cast suspicion on WindFish. Any reason for this avoidance? What are your thoughts on truncator at the moment?

[LlamaHunter]

EBWOP:
Albert, on a quick re-read of the game, it appears you've completely avoided the truncator issue, besides seconding my question of truncator in post 95. Instead, you have cast suspicion on

Yosarian

. Any reason for this avoidance? What are your thoughts on truncator at the moment?

[LlamaHunter]

EBWOP:
Albert, on a quick re-read of the game, it appears you've completely avoided the truncator issue, besides seconding my question of truncator in post 95. Instead, you have cast suspicion on Yosarian. Any reason for this avoidance? What are your thoughts on truncator at the moment?

Maybe he's quiet because he is enjoying watching the paranoid town mob jump on the Lynch Truncator bandwagon and accomplishing his dirty work in the meantime. Put me at -1 and whomever casts the 4th vote, remember them. Remember the 3rd vote as well.

You should probably let Albert answer his own questions, instead of just throwing suspicion around. Even better, answer the questions directed at you instead of the ones directed at Albert.

Albert, I refer you to post 104-105's questions.

Truncator, why the faith in WindFish and Albert? Is it to do with your 3rd vote?

[LlamaHunter]

Theoretically, I guess truncator wouldn't have to claim if he were put at L-1 until he thought there was significant risk of his lynch.

But that's exactly the point of L-1: you ARE at significant risk of lynch.

Sorry, I probably didn't make my point completely clear. What I meant was, he wouldn't have to claim until he

himself

thought there was a risk of his lynch. At the time, even at L-1, I don't know if he would have considered it likely that he would be hammered. From what I see though, his sentiments have now changed, and it looks like he thinks he's going to be lynched no matter what: "Put me at -1 and whomever casts the 4th vote, remember them. Remember the 3rd vote as well." I'm not quite sure where that leaves us, however.

On the other hand, if we put him at L-1, no one's explicitly stated any actual desire to lynch him, besides Yosarian:

If you don't try to actually defend yourself/answer questions/state who you think is scum very, very soon, we WILL lynch you.

However, I interpret this to be a sentiment arising from misinterpreting truncator's post 106, and therefore possibly will be reconsidered. I initially didn't understand why Yosarian replied as he did in post 109, but now I see how truncator's post could be misinterpreted.

Truncator, you say pickemgenius is scum and WindFish/Albert have your faith (post 108). In post 76, however, you say: "At least now I have a pretty good idea of where you stand," referring to Yosarian. If you have a pretty good idea, do you think Yosarian is scum or town (I'm assuming town), and did things change between post 76 and 108? If so, what changed, and if not, why not list him in post 108?

[LlamaHunter]

Umm your statement was asking him to unvote you. LAL anyone?

Probably shouldn't be so hasty about it, technically it was a statement of sentiment rather than a request, but it was an implied request.

I'm thinking an Albert/truncator pair could be likely as well. Albert's last few posts during this whole truncator issue haven't added very much to the discussion.

[LlamaHunter]

Albert's play has been inconsistent to me. He casts accusations, pursues aggressively, then swings around and says he has faith in people.

Solid effort, WindFish, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Not only that, but he hasn't made a substantial post for a long time. With no votes on him, I think it's pretty safe to

vote: Albert

. Although it might not be scummy behaviour, it also might be. Might as well look into it.

[LlamaHunter]

Vote: LlamaHunter

Everyone should do the same. He based a vote on evidence he didn't even care to verify.

I presented my reason. Your play is inconsistent. Your vote doesn't appear to have any more backing than mine does.


From page 3, your posts go along the lines of the following:

Unvote, vote Yosarian2

I don't like him much, and would readily lynch him today unless something unexpected happens.

You already express the desire to lynch Yosarian. Note this happens after the other issue currently occurring, that of truncator's 3rd vote.

Definitely scummy.

In response to WindFish's question, "Do you consider those actions to be pro-scum? To be anti-town?" Again, this emphasises Albert's views on Yosarian.

Not quite, Yos. You sounded over-defensive when WindFish made a mistake. Then the next post you submitted, you stated the obvious, and FoS'd me with questions instead of explanations. I find that scummy. Your reactions ?

Again, note "I find that scummy."

Post 63 is a hugely substantial post, but ends with

You are a scumbag because you misrepresent people and their intentions, which are both very strong indicators of your scumminess.

Albert even goes so far as to use "scum" twice in the one sentence.

Post 66 ends with

Excuse me, Yos, but I don't see the irony. What I see, is possible scum that I would like to continue to interact with.

Note that after this, Albert only very minimally continues to interact with Yosarian, even less so appears to consider him scum from this point on.

Post 73, Albert says he's answered Yosarian's questions.

Now, in posts 80 and 83, Albert asks Yosarian what he thinks of thedocsalive, and asks thedocsalive what he thinks of Yosarian. Following this, after being asked about truncator, he replies:

I share Yosarian's views on the question.

and

Like Yosarian, I believe...

To then illustrate the other point I raised,

Not only that, but he hasn't made a substantial post for a long time.

you will note that of this page and last page before post 136, Albert has made these posts:
110: "I share Yosarian's views on the question."
112: "Like Yosarian, I believe truncator shouldn't act scummy on purpose, or he will have my vote too. For now he is treading on dangerous grounds, but isn't satisfactory for a lynch.
My vote on WF could be because he followed my lead and unvoted, maybe to avoid suspicion."
119: "Nah, random vote. Wow, my reason didn't make sense whatsoever."
129: "OMGUS"
I personally find very little substance in those posts. The first two express agreement with Yosarian, which is inconsistent in itself, 119 merely corrects 112 to nullify your "My vote on WF could be..." statement, and 129 is a one word post.

"

Everyone should do the same

. He based a vote on evidence he didn't even care to verify." - Albert, post 141 (emphasis mine).
Attempting to get everyone to vote me is very suspicious behaviour indeed.

[LlamaHunter]

EBWOP: I missed the final analysis for the first point, but it should be self explanatory. Considering Yosarian "definitely scummy" and then turning around and sharing his views is inconsistent. It is possible that Albert is hiding his own views of truncator to avoid interaction with his scum partner.

[LlamaHunter]

Ooooh, don't I feel stupid.

unvote

When I made that argument, I'm not sure why but I had the inherent assumption that Albert's "What I see, is possible scum that I would like to continue to interact with." came

after

Yosarian's defense and not before. I was probably too focused on Albert to look at the bigger picture and avoid being chronologically-challenged.

I retract everything I just said.

[LlamaHunter]

Sorry pickem/everyone, been pretty busy these last few days. Looks like I missed a lot of interesting stuff.

WindFish raises a good point, truncator and pickem could be scum. Also, now that pickem is the first vote on truncator, that helps avoid suspicions (he was the 2nd to vote him at the beginning of the game). However, pickem has been pretty consistent with his suspicion of truncator, so its a scenario that's staying at the back of my head at best. I think it's likely that the drama's just a result of truncator being frustrating.

If you are voting for me at this point, I believe you to be scum. But if it's between me and Llama Hunter, I don't want to go down first.

I don't like the fact that truncator instantly put me on L-1 (obviously). The vote looks like an excuse to off someone, making sure a lynch goes through. The problem with "If you are voting for me..." is, even townies will vote for you if you're suspicious.

Hmm, I got a prod as I was typing this. Anyway, moving on.

I assure you, Albert, I'm not scum. My suspicions were a complete mistake and I've already stated my retraction of them, and they were a result of replacing into the game and not being attentive enough to notice Yosarian had defended himself after you were still expressing suspicion of him, and not spotting a post where you accepted his defense as valid. Considering this, to thedocsalive, do you have any suspicions regarding pickemgenius or WindFish? Over in post 152, you mentioned by the process of elimination, they were left over. Personally, I can't find too much to say about either of them, and you had your vote on WindFish for a little while, so do your suspicions of him still apply?

[LlamaHunter]

Just checking in to say I'm here, but pretty busy at the moment. I'll try post this evening, in roughly 11 hours.

[LlamaHunter]

Wow, that was dangerous play Albert. Especially considering the fact that my whole case against you was a mistake and I explained that already a few times.

pickem and docs didn't quicklynch, therefore they aren't both scum.

Not necessarily, each might not have faith in the other's ability to get online quickly enough to quicklynch. Especially seeing as though it appears you were online at the time and could have unvoted and sprung them. Just theoretically.

[LlamaHunter]

Something's come up and I'm unsure of the access I'm going to have between 1-8 July, so I'm going to claim now. I'm the cop. I investigated Albert and he turned out innocent. So, that means two of Yosarian, thedocsalive and pickemgenius is scum. On the other hand, one of them is town.

That makes it so much harder.

[LlamaHunter]

Oh, hell. Well, just in case anyone had any doubts I was cop still, I breadcrumbed it in post 178:

I

assure you, Albert, I'm not scum.

M

y suspicions were a complete mistake and I've already stated my retraction of them, and they were a result of replacing into the game and not being attentive enough to notice Yosarian had defended himself after you were still expressing suspicion of him, and not spotting a post where you accepted his defense as valid.

C

onsidering this, to thedocsalive, do you have any suspicions regarding pickemgenius or WindFish?

O

ver in post 152, you mentioned by the process of elimination, they were left over.

P

ersonally, I can't find too much to say about either of them, and you had your vote on WindFish for a little while, so do your suspicions of him still apply?

First letters of each sentence spell out IM COP. I'm not sure if that confirms it more or not but in case it does, there it is... yeah. Anyway.

I chose to investigate Albert because, pretty clearly, I thought he was the scummiest at the time. The 4th vote without even letting truncator claim was scummy enough for me to reason that he would still be alive come day 2. Turns out he was town though. Sorry about that (or possibly not).

This is how I reason it. IF (and I'm not sure of this yet) one of Yosarian and pickem is actually the doc (there is still the issue of whether they're both scum claiming doc - thoughts, anyone?) then, the

best move

is to lynch thedocsalive (who would therefore be scum), me to investigate one of the two of Yosarian/pickem at night, and the real doc to protect me, and then we come out with an answer the next day.

However, don't vote for thedocsalive just yet, just in case my worst paranoia is true and Yosarian/pickem have set up an elaborate plan to trap us all. Discussion, people.

[LlamaHunter]

If one of the two of you is doc, there is no real way to ruin this idea...
NK = me --> protected.
NK = the doc --> the remaining mafia is stuffed; the counterclaim was false.
NK = Albert --> the doc is still alive and obviously the counterclaim is false, and I know who the remaining scum is.

If pickemgenius is lynched and is scum, the remaining scum will probably be forced to suicide at night.

[LlamaHunter]

That dosn't actually prove you are a cop, it just means that you as early as post 178 you were already considering making a cop claim at some point in the future. Very different thing.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say when I said I'm not sure that confirms it.

[LlamaHunter]

But today, I'd rather lynch you, the person I know is scum, and figure out the rest tommorow.

Sure, you might know he's scum, but the rest of us don't, and that's the problem. If one of you is doc and one of you is scum, I know that thedocsalive is scum. I'm probably going to wait to hear from thedocsalive again before making any kind of decision.

Cop-Llama, nobody counterclaimed (shit even a breadcrumb by a newbie, i'm impressed)

Nobody counterclaimed, but there's only a 50/50 chance there IS a cop in the game. And yes, a newbie breadcrumbed, which might mean he got the idea of breadcrumbing in code from somewhere, or it might mean his scum partner coached him before day 1 started "hey, put the word "COP" in code somewhere, just in case you need it later".

Sure I'm a newbie, but I'm not stupid. I've read other games and whatnot. I knew I'd need to back up my claim later.

At this point I'm inclined to lean with pickem here. Due to my knowledge that I am cop, if pickem was scum he wouldn't agree to the plan also knowing that I am the cop. But again, I'll see what Albert and thedocsalive have to say about it.

[LlamaHunter]

... What the hell? Albert? Your reasoning baffles me. I thought I spelt it out perfectly. Lynch thedocsalive, win on day 3. You didn't even bother to discuss it or anything. I really can't believe you were swayed by thedocsalive and Yosarian.

I was hoping thedocsalive wouldn't counter-counter-claim doc. Now that would have been spectacular. But I also really didn't expect Albert to play so badly.

Man, I totally had this game figured out and everything.

[LlamaHunter]

Oh well. Good game scum, you were certainly very effective at convincing Albert, and though from my and pickem's point of view everything was so obvious, I guess it may not have been for him.

Thank's MeMe for the game and for letting me replace in!