Mini 568 - Nubigena (Game over!)

[gorckat]

I got herded! Reading now and will post either at lunch or this evening (either 2 or ~8 hours from now).

[gorckat]

All read up. I'm gonna make a few posts looking at several players in isolation, each, going in alphabetical order.

[gorckat]

My daughter had some stuff to do on the computer last night, so I'm hoping to finish my note-taking this morning. I'll post as soon as I can.

[gorckat]

Hah! jerubbaal rolled Lowell

I'll be on lunch soon, and will hopefully finish my notes and post for real.

[gorckat]

This game is fast leaving me in the dust, so rather than try to figure it out and make a single grand post, I've gotta jump in with my opinions on people where they are. If someone wants me to cover something specific, ask away. I've made notes for everything up to my replacement, and have kept up since then. I'm hitting highlights that jumped out at me.

---

Near

: His early vote hops do seem scummy. I move my vote a lot because its the only thing a townie's got, but his reasons in this game look really thin.

In the same post he admits that a too townie argument may be crap, says jerubbaal is too logical:

my townie argument could be crap but that was the impression I got re-reading your posts. you are too logical you are too poised .

Too Logical to be town? Too Poised? Makes no sense.

IMO, the probability of your being a townie AND getting the dice result to vote for yourself (1/11) is very small that it makes me think that probability of your being scum AND rigging the dice result to vote for yourself in order to show us that you are "fair" is significantly higher.

Two separate issues:

-The probability of Sammich being town: Assuming a standard 9/3 split and no SK, then its a ~72% chance of him being town, much higher than him being scum.
-If he's not scum, then the likelihood that he concocted the dice result: If he were scum and botched the tag, is it likely that he did it on purpose to invent his real world result? If he didn't screw it up on purpose, is it likely that he'd then invent a way to vote himself?

There are too many moving pieces to make him scum for rigging the die roll, and its bad logic to say so.

And on the Too Townie train, again:

Ok, here's yet another speculation by me, but isn't he trying too hard to look townie here?

Stop using too townie. Its WRONG. Take it the other way- can someone be too scummy to be scum?

And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.

That is actually a fantastic way to setup mislynches, especially if the townie being buddied up to is already considered scummy.

vote: Near

---

Sammich's vouching for MP is just bizarre. This caught my eye, too:

It's been a while since I had a night start, I'm having fun.

That's a weird sentiment and one that strikes me as scummy with the vig dieing N0.

His either/or FoS on Incognito and Lowell also seemed scummy, like leaving the door open for whichever way people went.

---

Imat's rant about a restart reads like scum putting on townie airs. The rest of his posts seemed pretty good, however.

---

Like I said, I've got everything noted up to my replacement, including some things saved for later, pending info and connections. I'm gonna make a quick read and comment on what's gone on since I came in.

[gorckat]

The things I commented are, to me, the most promising leads. Like I said, I've got some minor things here and there that caught my eye, but didn't pan out when I went back for a second view in context. I'll hold them close to see for now.

MP is obviously useless. Everyone else ranges from slightly scummy to mostly townie.

As far as the "physical impossibility" of Sammich completing the rolls and coin flip- what makes it impossible?

-I have dice on hand at my desk
-I have coins in my pocket or in my desk drawer
-I have quick post enabled

Surely two people with the requisite equipment on hand to look at a player list and roll dice and then flip a coin must be scum! Although I'd have stuck with a d6 and rolled prime (me) /not prime (whoever i was rolling against) to see who to vote. Or maybe pips in the middle or odd/even or high/low. The only thing I'd question for an instant is the coin, but its not damning.

Plus, we don't see seconds, so there are really a full 1:59 he could have had to make his post.

[gorckat]

Y: For the record, my attempt to vote Near was

not

a well calculated gambit for reactions

Unvote

I did not see the disjointed list that Sammich claimed to have used; I thought he was just rolling against the player list. Its not impossible for him to recall what he was basing it on, but he has not alluded to anything that makes it seem likely.

I had read 203 as a frustrated "Shut up and bugger off already".

Sammich:

Was

the die roll made up?

@Near: The reason I voted you was not just using bad logic, it was because you pushed bad logic

after

acknowledging it was bad with the second two townie argument, the loose feel of your early votes.

In 207, what you push as facts are not indisputable:

The facts are:
1. It was physically impossible for Sammich to roll the dice like he described the process of in reality.
2. Therefore, Sammich lied. Repeatedly. He made up a story in order to convince us that he had in fact rolled the dice.
3. A townie (at least I would) just give up in the middle of it and admitted I was joking or I lied.
4. I think it's worth it to re-quote what Sammich has said:

<explains process>

5. EVEN AFTER XreyoX pointed out the time difference of one minute between his posts that made it physically impossible for him to do this, he still maintained he didn't lie. See post 200
6. In my opinion, there is very small chance that Sammich is town. Add the fact that Sammich vouched for MP in order to imply that he is a vanilla townie.

1. It was not impossible. I've already said I have the stuff on hand.
2. He may not have lied. It was possible.
3. This is your opinion
4. ---
5. Again- it is physically possible
6. Opinion as fact?

The way you present your theories and opinion as fact is scummy.

[gorckat]

They all posted by the time he did?

[gorckat]

The facts are:
1. It was physically impossible for Sammich to roll the dice like he described the process of in reality.

I'm not getting too technical with the post attacking this sequence. You were saying its a fact something is impossible, but its not impossible.

Upon your satisfactory answer, I will let go of this incident. Sammich, please answer:

1. Did you roll the dice in real life?
2. If yes, is your post at #175 an accurate description of what happened?
3. How did you remember which pip on the dice represented who? Did you write this down?

Haven't you and several others asked this throughout the discussion? It looks like you want everyone to see how reasonable you can be in letting it go.

Second XReyoX- what test? What was asked there or answered in such a fashion that it wasn't before?

Second second XReyox: SAMMICH- ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!

@Incognito: Sometimes townies lie, but not often in a pro-town way unless it is a well-thought out gambit. LAL has its uses, but like most blanket policies, can be misused. I support lynching liars that hurt the town.



On Preview: @Incognito- my thoughts on Near and Sammich exactly.

[gorckat]

My own feeling is that the whole issue of Sammich and the dice ought to be cleared up now, as far as possible to everyone's satisfaction, or else there's a real danger it'll just rear its head again in ten pages or twenty pages, and it'll be a chore then to revisit the issue whereas now it's fresh in everyone's mind.

QFT. The less confusion later, the better.

I'm starting to wonder if MP has some private win condition relating to invalid votes (I think he's managed five so far, all for different people. Maybe he's going for the full set.)

That seems like a reach. I suppose its possible to make a win condition requiring every player in the game be voted for, no more than one per page counting. It would explain the vote for avi, but:

I think Occam's razor says to take MP for what he's been before- a poor player- and not invent rationale to justify his play.

And if MP is going to make -1 votes as good as lynches, then it brings us back to a policy lynch.

Let's get Sammich wrapped up (hehe- sandwich...wrap ) and revisit MP.

[gorckat]

vote: Sammich

You're not the only one whose been pushing for it.

[gorckat]

Or they could have ended it, to prove their towniness, but that's not the key point:

He still hasn't answered why he

vouched

for MP. Why did his being a townie enable him to say MP was?

[gorckat]

@Y: Earlier, you said you had a thought about Sammich's claim that you were saving for later. Since he hasn't answered Near or XReyoX about why he did it and how he can vouch for MP or Ripley's Night start questions, what do you think of it now? What did you think then?

@Imat: Does an attack have to be well formed for a person to be town?

[gorckat]

unvote, vote gorkat. I'm not really sure I understand the point of his defense of sammich. It seems like he saw someone in trouble and used it as an opportunity to make himself look good. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't do much (yes, yes, pot, kettle, black, whatever) is good enough.

My defending Sammich was based on a significant amount of weight being put behind crap arguments about how it was impossible for him to have made the die roll in <2 minutes (disbelief about people having dice at the desk, and the list was shown by XReyoX, iirc, to be simply who had posted at the time he rolled).

Note that I'm now voting him for his uncooperation and unwillingness to answer questions about why he felt he could back MP up.

I actually need to re-read from the point I replaced in because I got pretty wound up in Sammich's dice roll and never kept up on my notes.

[gorckat]

Well...propping him up with a vigorous defense (that I still stand by) only to vote him for reasons I think, iirc, that I was pointing to then as legitimate flaws doesn't make much sense.

If I was scum trying to look good by buddying up to a townie going down, I'd

stay

on the good side wouldn't I?

If you were saying that I was taking a middle road, fence-riding postition in order to go whichever way the wind blew, that would be understandable. But you're not; you're picking and choosing what you want to say is scummy.

Since this is what you're choosing to focus on: Should a townie not defend someone they think is getting a raw deal?

[gorckat]

I believed Sammich based on my own having dice on hand (at home, anyways), and what I thought was the first die being the people who had posted, and the second off the mod list.

I think I misunderstood Reyo or whomever posted that was how they thought Sammich had ordered the dice. I think they were actually saying that's how he got them for his fabrication. (I'm not trying to put those words in anyone's mouth- correct me if I'm wrong.)

[gorckat]

I'm here, and in the same boat as Reyo and incognito- wanting Sammich to answer the questions he said he would.

Throw my hat in the ring with those saying "no way its a jester". Not in a closed mini, not with the flavor we've been presented with.

Although the suggestion does move me to think that there's definitely a possibility that both Near and Sammich could be scum

Forget distancing- Near has been way to hard on Sammich for me to think they are partners. Is there anything specific that is making you think they are?

[gorckat]

Early on Near was pushing "too townie" arguments even after being told they were bad logic. His jester speculation and other role specukation is also a bit suspect; I can't decide if looking for bizarre roles to fit behavior is scummy or newbie.

What is making me vote Near right now is the bizarre flip from 'Sammich passing his test' (in which Sammich said he did not make up the die roll) to going after him for not posting a scum list and then becoming convinced he lied again. I admit I got wrapped in Sammich's 'uncooperativeness' and wanted his answers, too, but since he has seemingly flaked I can assume he wasn't keeping up with things.

unvote
vote: Near

[gorckat]

And since the vote count wrapped to the last page- that should be -1.

[gorckat]

mod:

psst...Mizzy replaced MP

[gorckat]

It seemed a little like Y was coaching Near a bit in his post. Again, this isn't exactly a smoking gun, but it's good enough.

unvote, vote gorkat. I'm not really sure I understand the point of his defense of sammich. It seems like he saw someone in trouble and used it as an opportunity to make himself look good. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't do much (yes, yes, pot, kettle, black, whatever) is good enough.

Twice you've qualified your vote reasons as "good enough". Earlier you got tangled in Incognito's web of voting back and forth on Y/Near. Now, despite a lot, including my response to your vote, you're "keeping [your] vote where it is."

FoS: Lowell

I don't like "good enough" reasons when there's been as much animated back and forth as we've had. It sounds really non-committal.

[gorckat]

He's looking for a replacement, per his post at the end of the last page.

[gorckat]

It IS non-committal. What do you want me to say? I'm guessing here.

So who do you want to lynch? Anyone?

[gorckat]

I really need to stop trusting that people don't misrepresent checkable facts and just start checking them myself. I twice trusted people on this post order/dice assignment crap.

You misunderstand my point. The fact is, Sammich was the fifth player to post on this game. Since he didn't know the order of players who would post after him, his list should not be similar to the list of the players who posted in this game.

What? He based 1-5 of players who had posted (including himself). Ergo: the second die is people not on that list...people who had not posted, in other words.

The order of his second die is not the same as those people who posted after him. He was never asked if they were listed in 1-6 order (which would have been a good question, in hindsight).

[gorckat]

You attributed 334 to me, but it was Lowell.

As for my own 326, I did phrase that clumsily. The way he said he didn't care what I was doing currently (voting Sammich after defending him) struck me as odd- he was looking at my actions out of context and ignoring what came after.

[gorckat]

@Y: Forget Near's case on Sammich- what about Reyo's summary? He thoroughly brought together each point against him.

Both Near and Sammich look scummy, but not aligned with each other. Everyone's been involved one way or the other with Sammich, too. From a purely information perspective, either one will give us fat to chew.

[gorckat]

unvote, vote Niv

. I'm willing to build on this bandwagon, and I too think his quitting under pressure is major scum-tell. Usually townies don't quit under pressure, if for no other reason so they can post a posthumus "Bah, I told you!" post.

I've seen townies flake or even self-hammer under pressure. Flaking in and of itself is a null-tell (but huge pain in the rear), for me.

The reasons to vote him stand independent of his flaking.

[gorckat]

Don't think I posted in any game over the weekend. I'm going to work and then Opening Day today. I'll post either from work or this evening.

[gorckat]

I've lost big posts like Niv has. What Niv hasn't done is to at least summarize the findings. Instead of a paragraph per person or w/e, a line or three about what was significant and what you think is worth looking at or basing judgements on- a commitment and a position, in other words.

@Reyo: Were you going to be defending Near in you 'case breakdown'? If you think he's town, then preventing him from going down is good, right?

And never mind. Hi ooba.

[gorckat]

just got back from bruce springstean ( the boss is amazing).

</jealous>

[gorckat]

I'm a Springsteen fan. I'm jealous Niv got to see him in concert. I suppose the correct tag is <jealous>.

[gorckat]

Your vote on a third person will be no more "wasted" than not using it at all.

[gorckat]

Gunsmith looks like a pretty safe claim for scum, especially with the vig dead. I'd assume that no one else would have a gun in those circumstances.

[gorckat]

I suppose my question is this: Are you comfortable with lynching an un-countered power-role claimer?

He claimed a role that is just common enough to be believed and uncommon enough to likely not be countered. I wasn't gonna say it earlier, but like Y said, any real cop or smith knows if he's lying, and getting them outed would be just fine for the scum.

Also, like I did say earlier, with the vig dead, its a great claim.

He misrepresents a lot of facts, distorts people's words, puts a lot of pressure in unneeded places, wastes time, confuses the town, uses bad logic, vote hopping and so on...

As Y pointed out, he's done enough to be lynched, even without a sketchy claim that he's already done a 180 on as far as Reyo having a gun or not.

[gorckat]

Y's change of stance on Sammich/Niv bothers me. He says he had thought Sammich was a cop, but if he did, he was basically asking him to claim it back here:

@ Sammich: I still want to know how do you know Mafiaplayer's real role.
I have a theory about that claim, but I want you to answer first.

The way he went about it doesn't jive with how he claims he was handling it (bold mine):

Night start, vouching for a townie, claiming as some one who's not really vanilla. Most things that go against him, would fit perfectly if he was a cop. Since I noticed he isn't a good player, I figured out that he might have slipped when he vouched for MP (After investigating him N0). I also pointed out several times that I have a theory about him,

but I didn't want to help him if he's not the real cop, and I didn't want scum to know he might be the cop

(Or even worse, get the real cop to counter-claim).

What could Sammich have said to make Y think he was a cop without outing himself as one? Any kind of hint that he had a pre-game night action would make him a target.

unvote
vote: Y

[gorckat]

unvote
vote: Niv

[gorckat]

Oh- missed that there was a page after the vote count and threw out a hammer since my clock says the deadline is hitting.

[gorckat]

Like ooba and Imat, I, too have an idea or two why waiting might be good to reveal, but only if he hadn't told us he had a Loaded right off the bat.

[gorckat]

Honestly, he pushes the most useless questions, runs the Town 'round in circles, then comes up with this nonsense about some plan that had little chance of success to begin with.

I think you're scum and should be lynched.

Here, here.

vote: Near

[gorckat]

Lowell- what post are you seeing an over the top reaction in, because I'm not seeing it?

Why is scum more likely to be over-the-top than town?

[gorckat]

@Y: I feel like I've been pretty straightforward with my thoughts. Near and Niv/Sammich were reasonable lynches yesterday, and you and Lowell had earned some attention, too.

Right now, with hindsight being what it is, I think Near is scum.

(And no one claimed a cop-ish like role).

Or they're being smart and breadcrumbing their investigations so they can come out when Near-scum goes down with several confirmed townies at once.

[gorckat]

3) FOS gorckat. He's a follower. Post 553 mimic's Y's opinion, then 651 jumps on a bandwagon.

Yes- two posts out of forty make me a follower.

553 was me weighing in on Near's claim.

651 was me agreeing that Near is scum, for reasons covered in Day 1, for the most part. And the first, and so far, only vote on the "bandwagon".

[gorckat]

Gokrat I found him suspicious since his vote hopping toward the end of Day 1. I briefly considered checking him out instead of Y at night. The fact that he doesn't believe I am a gunsmith and his insistence on trying to lynch me today makes me suspect him. Scummy.

I'm a cat, not a rat

iirc, I voted Y towards the end of Day One because he said he thought Sammich/Niv could have been a Doc, but his early questioning of him looked like it was designed to

out

a cop. Then I tried to hammer Niv at deadline (unnecessarily and a minute late) to avoid a No-Lynch.

Please illuminate how that was scummy.

If I don't believe your claim, should I shut up about it?

[gorckat]

@ gorckat: I thought him to be a cop, not a doc. What do you you think about it now that we know his alignment?

I understand where you'd get the idea, the way he vouched for MP, but even in the post you pointed out to clarify when you started to think he was the cop you said:

@ Sammich: My question was "How do you know Mafiaplayer's role?". I didn't see an answer.

It still seems like fishing.

@Ripley: I've also not liked his "<insert reason> is good enough" attitude on a couple of his votes.

---

I don't like the way Near clamped down on Sammich so long for "dicey" (pun intended) reasons- if he truly was a gunsmith, why wouldn't he have waited to look at him last night rather than push on the way he did, even as most of the town was pointing out his bad logic and unsupported assertions?

Toss in the test/there was no test, the results double-take on Reyo and the guilty/there was no guilty and his claim looks flat out fabricated to me.

[gorckat]

It's clearly stated that the vigilante was carrying a gun and therefore there is known to be a case in which a gunsmith would receive a misleading result. This is what I meant by "inaccurate".

That's pretty hair-splitty (pun

not

intended )- a gunsmith would

accurately

identify a vig as having a gun.

[gorckat]

I know you did- I'm just saying it looks revisionist.

[gorckat]

It wasn't an accident.

The point was- you repeated the question. I didn't read the second line as saying 'don't bother answering it now'. Something like 'this is what I had asked, but forget it for now' would've been clear.

It still looks like an invitation for a cop to themselves.

[gorckat]

The quotes implied I had left it out scummily and I wanted to be clear I knew what it was I quoted and didn't.

[gorckat]

Because my point was that you were still presenting to a player, that 1) you thought was a cop and 2) was under pressure, a question that looks like an invitation to out them.

The rest of the post gave

me

no feeling that you were backing of off it significantly (as in- don't answer the question) so I didn't quote it.

On further review, the latter half looks loaded to

get

him to out himself- 'you're so clueless I don't care how you know MP's role'.

[gorckat]

Mizzy: Not clearly and not recently, actually.

[gorckat]

Since Near said he'll self-vote, and I knew other people will be here in time (He was overkilled without the self-vote), I decided to take the chance.

Can you point to the post he said that? It sounds familiar, but I couldn't find it with CTRL-F or skimming his posts the end of Day One.

[gorckat]

No- I'm curious, like Lowell, I assume, why you're voting the person cleared by a claimed gunsmith.

If you don't believe the claim, then Near is the logical target of your vote.

At the very least, he is not harming us,

Unless, you know...you're just gonna vote everyone he "clears".

When I skimmed your posts for thoughts on Near you've been ambivalent and guarded saying things like (paraphrasing off the top of my head here) 'believe it for now with no counter' and 'we're focusing on it too much'.

Nothing clear. If you believe him, why vote his innocents? If you don't, why let him do harm?

[gorckat]

Since Near said he'll self-vote, and I knew other people will be here in time (He was overkilled without the self-vote), I decided to take the chance.

Can you point to the post he said that? It sounds familiar, but I couldn't find it with CTRL-F or skimming his posts the end of Day One.

It was Niv, not Near, who said that. I think that's what Y meant to say.

I never played a game modded by destructor before, so I had no idea how strict he is.

Gotcha- I parsed/read Y wrong.

[gorckat]

@Mizzy- sometimes indirection gets people to say more than they intend. I'll chew on your post later and respond (sometime this evening- leaving work now).

@Y- I thought what Ripley said was that you were referring to Niv saying they'd self vote, but looking back you clearly said Near. I didn't bother to read the part I quoted when I responded to Ripley, else I'd have said this then:

Did you mean Niv, or did Near say he'd self-vote somewhere?

[gorckat]

Sorry for my absence the last few days- RL stuff (b-day parties, in-laws visiting, angling for a job interview and now my daughter apparently fracturing her elbow/wrist) are keeping me from doing anything productive.

I'll post this evening if I can sit down and read up.

[gorckat]

Reasons for voting Y:

1) Pressure.
2) Possibility that Near is not sane.

1) For what? Do you think he's scum?
2) Do you think ooba is scum?

I believe that it is probable that:
1) That Near is at least pro-town.
2) That Near is at best a pro-town power role.
3) That there is no reason to lynch Near or talk much about his claims at this time.
4) That Y has posted some "interesting" things and I want to see if there is more information behind it.
5) That Y has a chance of being a second Godfather based on the idea (which is a plausible one) that someone posed about "The king is dead, long live the king!"
6) That there is currently no better place for my vote, in my opinion.

There, happy now?

If 1, then 2

must

be true. Near couldn't be pro-town and

not

a power role at this point, given his claim.

3 I disagree with, as I've been pushing. 4, if Y is scum, come out and say it.6, point out the scummy things he's done and make a case.

Right now, this looks just like one of Lowell's "good enough" votes.

Mizzy, I think lynching Y is an awful idea.

Well, thanks for that opinion, but I never said I wanted to lynch him, now did I?

If you don't want to lynch him, then there are better places for your vote.

I don't intend to leave the vote on you, but I want it on the record that your actions have bothered me to the extreme and I would want you dead if it weren't for Near.

It is on record. Right there where you said it. No voting someone you don't want dead required.

unvote, vote gorkat

. No smoking gun here, but the nature of his posting seems to be strange.

I'd love elaboration.

gorckat: I got the impression the last few days he was picking pernickety little arguments with anybody who was around, and I did wonder if he might be doing this to deflect attention away from the Lowell bandwagon, which had climbed up to three votes in a pretty low-key sort of a way.

I've very much disliked Lowells casual votes all over the place. If he gets lynched in Near's place, I won't cry or anything.

The reason you sum up for gorckat is pretty much mine. He just seems to be in the thick of things... but not really.

This implies I haven't given my thoughts or taken a stand, which I believe is very much not the case.

[gorckat]

I want more content from him, though, so the vote stays for now.

What about Imat? You haven't even mentioned him once.

[gorckat]

Mizzy, I've been one of the most active player this game, and the main contributor to the Near case. You're getting more content from me all the time. If you want something specific to come up, ask for it, there's no point waiting until I accidentally talk about it. If there's nothing special you're looking for, try to use these fake accusations on some else. Thank you.

I'm watching your reactions, there's nothing I want to respond to specifically. Getting pissy with me isn't helping since you're not in any danger and I already said I'd move the vote. I'm just waiting for other responses from other players, though I think I know who I'll move it to.

Mizzy- that kind of "plan" is scummy because you could never get the reaction you were 'looking for' and no one could ever say otherwise. If you know you're going to vote for someone else, then this whole non-pursuit of Y is just noise to the signal.

Lowell- Like Incognito said, you hardly mentioned Imat after voting him Day 1, and your reasons for that vote are a little sketchy, especially because you said you agreed with him on his early game behavior.

Imat- Like Ripley, not posting quotes, or at least links looks like scum justification for being lazy. Got a completed game where you did this as town?

[gorckat]

Sorry for my lagging- started a new job Friday and don't yet have my own desk and was doing a load of yard projects over the weekend. Haven't sat down much at home.

Those wanting to vote someone Near has claimed to have investigated to 'test his claim' is ignoring that scum can say 'no gun', too.

[gorckat]

I meant: Scum can say 'no gun' about someone who is not on their side.

[gorckat]

I'm having a hard time figuring how two people aren't getting what I'm saying-

If you doubt Near's claim and want to test it...lynching someone he cleared doesn't do it. If he's scum, he can sit there and 'clear' people all game, tossing a partner out as needed to cement his place.

1) The vig is dead
2) Near claimed Gunsmith
3) Nearscum knows who does and does not have a gun

Doubts about Near shouldn't be directed at anyone other than Near.

[gorckat]

jerubbal- you're dead.

[gorckat]

braaaaaainsssss

Read the mod's post, I'm replacing Imat.

Creepy

[gorckat]

@jerubbaal: Yes, I'm ok lynching Lowell. He's been voting for "good enough" reasons all game, and he's not even paying attention:

1) He's already voting 'Imat'
2) Imat is now jerubbaal

I accept now that no one else wants to lynch Near today, so we'll deal with that tomorrow.

unvote, vote: Lowell

[gorckat]

More later, when my wife takes a Mother's Day nap, but:

@ooba- I hammered because I thought he was scum.

[gorckat]

@jerubbaal: Why not let ooba set the order? Near claimed unloaded on him, too.

@ooba: I really thought Near was scum. Best play for scum Night One was to shoot at Near- not doing so would leave them in the dark as to the presence of a doc. When someone else died, plus the sketchy test/no test and loaded/no loaded events, I

really

figured he was scum, so i sat on him all day long.

When I 1) realized that no one else had an interest in voting Near and 2) saw that Lowell wasn't paying attention, combined with his weak votes all game long for reasons that were never backed up and the fact he said he believed Near's claim, but 'warned' ooba he was looking at him, I laid down the hammer.

Quick? Yes, but like I said- I thought he was scum.

The scum shooting Near Night Two shocked me; I was outplayed. I'd protected him Night One, swallowing my concerns and giving him the benefit of the doubt, but then turned my attentions someone I did think was pro-town Night Two, convinced Near was scum.

And yeah- I just claimed doc, but I'm pretty sure my ass is on the line, with my hammer yesterday and the fact I'm claiming to have not covered Near last night.

We can either go forth with a popcorn name claim (each person picking the next) or have ooba or Y do it- they were both cleared by Near and, barring a godfather, are likely clear.

[gorckat]

gorckat, who did you protect Night 0?

Fat_Tony/Y, per the mod (it was cat_herder in my role, then)

[gorckat]

I'm not ignoring this game- I've been very short of time and have a newbie and another game at endgame (plus one at night, thankfully), none of which are getting enough attention.

I'll try to post tonight, but I may not be able to until Saturday afternoon/night (Prince Caspian tomorrow night )

[gorckat]

I just read over following players since the mass claim:

jerubbaal: His 'vote Ripley quick with no questions' was horrible, and his backtrack on being surprised at Mizzy being scum then having no doubts is dicey, too.

Incognito: His sudden outpouring of analysis is suspect, but it all seems above board, especially his breakdown on Imat. He wouldn't be the first person who's posting habits change at critical stages of the game.

Ripley: I've actually found him pretty solid all game. He posts clear and reasoned posts, but it is a bit hard to pin him to any one position. He's the player I would have the hardest time voting for.

Mizzy: She appeals pretty strongly to emotion with her 'not caring/look on jerubbaal's face' bit. jerubbaal is back and forth her quite a bit, like he's testing the waters to figure out of he has to bus her or if he can get some action on either Ripley or Incognito (whichever one is town).

I think Mizzy and jerubbaal are scum together. Incognito seems marginally scummier than Ripley to me, so I'd bet he's the third.

FOS: Mizzy
vote: jerubbaal

[gorckat]

Again with not counting ooba as a confirmed townie. If there is a GF, then I'd bet on ooba being it.

And I am taking this seriously. I just don't think we need to stand around and hold our [self-censored] for three weeks deciding that we need to actually vote at some point.

[gorckat]

plus our doc was an idiot and let our cop die.

Piss off. Near was hardly clean looking adn had done an ass load of shit that would have gotten him lynched.

[gorckat]

Right, cause scummy players have NEVER claimed cop before.

[gorckat]

But you did say Ripley should be lynched w/o question, and then said we should do nothing w/o a lot of question- its a position flip and looks like a "change of heart".

Your 3rd point is basically calling Ripley "too townie" to be townie.

If there's someone who looks to be unwilling to bus, its you. You've been debunking the idea of a GF all day, saying that Ripley, Incog and Mizzy must be scum, but then you also express surprise that Mizzy must be scum and don't want to lynch anyone but Ripley.

[gorckat]

That was @ jerubbaal, obv.

[gorckat]

I don't think jerubbaal and Ripley are scum together at all, unless today is some kind of Scummy winning distancing.

Incognito's calling out on Mizzy looks like it could be scum calling out a partner to get on board with pushing Ripley so they can win today.

I still feel most comfortable lynching jerubbaal out of the four of them.

[gorckat]

I do wish gorckat would say more though.

I'm here. All three of my games have been making my head hurt and this one got backburnered as far as me responding to anything.

I still think jerubbaal is the best bet, with Mizzy at his side. I think either Incog is the third scum (my earlier thoughts on him poking at Mizzy), or Y if there is a triator/GF role. Both of them fit.

[gorckat]

WTF? Case much?

unvote
vote: Mizzy

No- I

don't

want to be lynched today- I like to win. And, FWIW, I don't like a Ripley lynch either. We can lynch jerubbaal tomorrow.

[gorckat]

@ooba: cat_herder protected Fat_Tony(Y) Night 0. Last night I protected you.

[gorckat]

I made that GF comment specifically in reference to jerubbaal not counting you as confirmed, which he did at least twice. Everything you've done since then makes you the least likely candidate for a GF.

[gorckat]

@ooba- this was all on Day 3 and the posts where jerubbaal wasn't counting you as confirmed:

The first had to do with having Y pick the order of mass claim because he was cleared, but not considering you to do it (no time to dig it up, I already found the second and my break is almost up).

Gorckat, at least don't vote until we've discussed this. Neither you or Y seem to be taking this terribly seriously, and you're our confirmed townies. I don't want to walk into a quicklynch.

And then I said:

Again with not counting ooba as a confirmed townie.

If there is a GF, then I'd bet on ooba being it.

Italics for the part you left out a few posts back.

[gorckat]

-I protected you Night 2.
-jerubbaal was leaving you out of Near-cleared townies on Day 3.

You being a GF never entered my mind Night 2 when I protected you. I figured Near was clearing townies to use in support of a guilty on someone, or that he was gonna kill one to cement his place. That's what went into my thoughts Night 2.

I figured, at that moment, that you were more likely a GF than Y because it looked like jerubbaal was unable to convince himself you were innocent.

[gorckat]

Holy crap that was a roller coaster

I really expected to get run up for hammering Lowell. I hoped my doc claim would ferret out the real doc, or maybe even a tracker who could confirm I did what I said on Night 0 or 2. I believed that the lack of a counter meant the real doc was staying low believing I was not going to be believed and was really worried that my lynch would lead everyone else to Ripley and Incognito.

Good game, guys! Sorry I lied so hard right in ya'lls face Or not

[gorckat]

I wanted to kick the computer for gorckat hammering the way he did lol.

Hah! You kept that quiet last night, didn't you? iirc, I felt it was the right move because of my thoughts that Near was gonna look at me and that Lowell was starting to look at me harder and back up his 'good enough' votes.

And I was grateful that ooba didn't set to work a week earlier than he did. I didn't like the way that was going at all.

QF'inT! I still don't think there's any incongruity between thinking ooba was town Night 2, but thinking he could be a GF given one of the obv scum wasn't counting him as cleared, but I could see where others might go for it.

One thing I was real careful of Day 3 was, once I began to feel assured there was never gonna be a counter, was to not overextend my position. Fo example, I almost dug into ooba a bit for calling Ripley 'too townie' with his concern that Ripley was at the back of everyone's list, but I'd already been sniffed at a little by him and I didn't want to provoke him further.

[gorckat]

Would a tracker or wathcer have balanced things out?

The idea of the doc being innocent Night 0 is kinda elegant.

[gorckat]

Something I forgot to ask of the town (hope this is still on people's wathced topics, its off mine )

Was my reaction to jerubbaal, or whomever I told to piss off about the 'bad doc' stuff believable? Too much?