Open 53: Near-Vanilla - Game over!

[Justin Playfair]

Hi all,

Will reread quickly and post this weekend. Great to be here!

[Justin Playfair]

This first, as deadline is approaching.

TheSweatpantsNinja,

TSpN’s well discussed wishy-washy post about Disciple Slayer was the kind of small tell that tends to get early first day discussion. On its own I wouldn’t have thought too much about it, but it was followed by some rather odd activities toward RossWilliams. There’s this post:

Hey, I'm not voting for rosswilliam, am I? Oh, he replaced opposedforce.
Actually, I think I'm ok with that vote.

Discuss (please?)

I’d like to say a couple of things about the above. TSpN later explains the first part of this post as being a joke of some kind. This is quite possibly the truth, but there is certainly the possibility that this was used to “make a case” without actually making a case. Sort of ‘did you see what that guy just posted? glad I’m voting him already’. The second part bothers me more. Because although the addition of (please?) at the end of this could demonstrate a genuine desire to start discussion on any topic, I’m always bothered by a player pointing to someone in town and saying they’re suspicious of them, and then instead of presenting a case themselves asking others to do so.

It’s rather like this post from TSpN, just a bit later:

Generally, I'd say jumping on a bandwagon is more of a scumtell, but in any case, it is Day 1, and our information is always going to very limited.

This was in response to Ross Williams telling TSpN it might seem scummy to start a bandwagon based on little information. But the thing is, TSpN wasn’t the first one on this wagon. It would have seemed pointing that out might have been a more appropriate response, but it also may be that, responding to Ross Williams, TSpN simply accepted what RW had posted.

Here’s where I get to feeling a bit worse about TSpN:

January 17:

I still don't like ross' play much. Let's run him up a little more.

January 18:

Well. . . we could lynch an inactive player. I'm having to suggest that in too many games, but it is an option.

January 19 (although to be fair, this was in response to a pretty bad post of Ross Williams. And I’ll quote this post of RW’s here, because it is important to something that happens later):

to all the people who are voting for me, i think it says something to my innocence that I'm still here posting and defending myself when it would be so gosh-darn easy for to slip into lurking and let the whole thing blow other.

It might have blown over before. I hope it doesn't now.

I don’t like this level of eagerness to just get a lynch. I also don’t like this series of posts, made after TSpN stated that he still supported a Ross Williams lynch:

He's been a little too buddy-buddy for my tastes. Its not much to go off of, but we spent the first few pages sucked in by DS's foolishness.

Me, mostly, when he defended me in post 131. But also shanba after he voted him. He's just too nice. Puts me on edge.

Now the above answers as to why TSpN supports a Ross Williams lynch are given on January 28. But on February 5 TSpN posts this:

Man, this day's gone on too long. I'm getting desperate to get someone lynched. The post that really sets me off wrong about rw is:

to all the people who are voting for me, i think it says something to my innocence that I'm still here posting and defending myself when it would be so gosh-darn easy for to slip into lurking and let the whole thing blow other.

So TSpN responds to this post when it was made, doesn’t include it as part of the reason for his suspicions when asked why he is suspicious of RossWilliams, then puts it forth as what bothers him the most about RossWilliams much later. This looks less like scum hunting than victim hunting to me. As a matter of fact, that’s what most of TSpN’s behavior strikes me as, up to and including his current vote on MelodyMan.

With a deadline coming up this is the best lynch I see.

Vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

[Justin Playfair]

A quick overview of others. Korlash, Skitzer, Killa Seven and RossWilliams in this one. I may not get to the second batch until tomorrow.

Korlash: Just a few questions:

In your first post of substance you ask others if they’ve seen evidence of a connection between Shanba and TheSweatpantsNinja. You then point a finger of suspicion at anyone who ends their post with “discuss”. What, precisely, is the difference between asking for others to provide evidence of a connection between two players which you yourself could not and asking people to discuss the likely guilt of someone who they are suspicious of without providing evidence themselves?

You post this:

If Ninja had perhaps done more then just that one fence sitting post I could understand the constant "Lynch that guy" attitude Shan has.

And then near the end of your post you post this:

Also FoS: Anyone who ever ended a post with "Discuss"

Well, it was TheSweatpantsNinja who ended a post with “Discuss”. Can you reconcile these two statements?

There seems a bit of closeness between you and TSpN. Korlash, do you feel especially comfortable with TSpN? If so, could you tell us why?


Skitzer,

I have to say in advance that I replaced Skitzer in the now abandoned New C9 (Open 50). He was town, but if I hadn’t been replacing him I would have certainly been making a case against him, for the same lurking, trailing and odd posting he’s done here. But even so:

Shanba: I think that a DS lynch is not a good idea, as I aforementioned, he is quite hard to read, and although the sanity of this game would be increased with him gone, the well-being may be severely detrimented because we have no hard evidence on him except for his blatant posts.

TheSweatpantsNinja was likely trying to lynch DS for easier gameplay. I can see both sides of this argument.

FomS: Shanba
FomS: TheSweatpantsNinja

Bolded makes me somewhat suspicious of TSN. Although TSN quoted a very suspicious post by RW too.

Not very big leads, but suspicions all the same.

In both cases you see two sides of the discussion and opt to throw a little dirt on both people in the exchange, but without even taking the step of casting a vote. In fact, since you made this post:

unvote

First vote count; I'm no longer random voting.

Time to get serious.

You have not voted. And you haven’t taken a serious look at anyone or anything. And I invite any interested player to view Skitzer’s posts in isolation. I understand that this very well may be play style in your case, Skitzer. But this is clearly purposeful lurking. Please give us some sort of thoughts on the game before deadline.


Killa Seven,

Drama Moose gave us nothing, and everything Killa Seven’s done seems more like a newbie trying to get his legs under him than anything else. I’m a lot more curious about the people who have seized on him as an easy target than I am of him, at least for now.


RossWilliams,

Let’s see…Curious interpretations of OMGUS and scum motivations, appeals to emotion, votes for a no-lynch and some oddly conciliatory posts. Maybe this can all be put down to you being new, but there’s a lot of it, and so much of it is self-serving I’m not going to ignore it. And I would like to ask you a question based on these two statements…

I hate when people use the excuse that they did it to get a reaction.

Just some pressure then. He never defended himself for his mistakes, and I want that defense.

vote: melodyman23

Would not your example about accidentally lynching someone to get a reaction be equally applicable to doing something to exert “Just some pressure then”? And your pressure “excuse” came armed with a vote. Not only a vote, but a vote close to a deadline, which would seem to create a very great danger of the worse case scenario you outlined above. How do you reconcile your expressed opinion with your later action?

[Justin Playfair]

RossWilliam,

So are you now saying that your vote was not for the purpose of bringing "Just some pressure then"? If so why did you initially portray it in this way?

[Justin Playfair]

More of the overview:

Klebian,

Klebian have cast one vote so far, early on Ross Williams, and have let it dangle there for some time. He hasn’t made a case against anyone, and has, at this point, said that…

I am still ok with the Ross wagon though I don't see it developing into a lynch too soon and I don't think that at this point it even should be a lynch without some more discussion.

Klebian, we are approaching deadline and your vote is still on Ross Williams. Do you now think there should be a lynch? Or are you planning at some point before deadline to engage in some more discussion?

I like a good deal of post 266 and wish you were doing more of this. But I am curious how in such a post, clearly based on comprehensive reading of the thread, you missed that six out of Neko’s previous nine posts had discussed or been directed, in whole or in part, at TSpN and/or Korlash. And one of the three that didn’t was a help post about game mechanics. Just out of curiosity, who do you think should have been at the top of his list? And who would be at the top of yours, since you haven’t addressed as much attention to any one player as Neko had to both of these?



Neko286,

I like almost everything Neko has posted. He seems to be looking around pretty thoroughly and explains his actions and reasoning well. The one thing I am curious about is Neko’s vote on Phate, in relation to this statement and our rather soonish deadline:

Whether Phate's reason here is any good is debatable, but at it's a reason nonetheless. Unfortunately, it still appears that he's only contributing enough to get by. He's given us something, but it's not much. When he starts contributing something significant/meaningful/helpful/etc., I'll consider moving my vote.

And then…

Good response from Phate

Are you seriously considering pushing for a day one lynch on Phate? If not why is your vote still with him? I would be interested in reading your overall view of his play.

Oh, and in response to your two questions:

About Melody Man: My feeling at this point is that Melody Man acted like a newbie. He replaced Disciple Slayer who I’ve already participated in lynching in another game for his goofy play (ironically enough, in that game he was the doctor). This is a null to me at the moment. There may well be a time for lynching a player for whom bad play has rendered the usual methods of scum hunting inadequate, but it should not be day one.

About Ross Williams: I am actually quite suspicious of Ross Williams, but at this stage the possibility that he is just newbie is keeping him from the top of my list. I would contrast his “newbie” activities with those of Killa Seven, though. Killa Seven makes some good points, shows some good instincts, then follows with bad stuff in a way that seems very naturally like a new player getting their game legs. Ross Williams does things consistently that reek of newness but also seem almost invariably self-serving.

Running long so I will break this here and continue below.

[Justin Playfair]

Ack,

Sorry, Neko. Didn’t see that you had already unvoted Phate. Guess that’s a pretty good answer to my question, though.

Phate,

Did Korlash miss your point? Yes. But you missed the heart of his point, too. Or maybe you ignored it and purposefully lead the discussion away from it. It’s a very simple sequence, really:

Ross Williams (I remember who it was) posted to complain about the lack of activity.

You posted this curious gem:

RossWilliams, while I agree, your post declaring that is useless to the town; in fact, I think a town complaining about inactivity (without actually doing anything about it) is more likely to make more people lurk.

Post an analysis! Vote a lurker! Stay silent! But don't complain about lack of content when you're not giving any.

In this post you agree with Ross Williams about the lack of activity, criticize him for expressing the opinion you share with him, make the odd claim that it will make people even less active, then include as one of your pieces of advice that he stay silent. Which was, given what has happened since, clearly pretty bad advice, as his post prompted yours and has, in fact, engendered quite a bit of discussion.

Korlash was, I believe, pointing out that you have not contributed overmuch so far and that it was curious, therefore, that you would seize this opportunity to make a (largely contentless) post of your own. In short, that you too were attempting to be seen as contributing without actually contributing.

And to be excruciatingly clear about this, I understand that you were criticizing Ross Williams for complaining about the lack of contribution when he himself was making a post that did not help town. You spent your post complaining about him for doing so without, as far as I can see, helping town either.

And I really don’t like this:

I am criticising someone's (at this point, I've frankly forgotten who) attempt to look like they're contributing when they actually aren't.

You made that post less than three days ago. So either you’re pretending you forgot to try to minimize the discussion and hopefully make it go away before it attracts too much attention from people other than Korlash or the initial post really was just an attempt to appear to be contributing when you weren’t. Because if Ross Williams’ post really did raise honest interest on your behalf, it’s sort of hard to believe that you would have forgotten who had done that so soon, especially when it embroiled you in the subsequent discussion. The second wouldn’t have to indicate you were scum, but it does indicate that Korlash had a reasonable point when he initially responded to you.

So a simple question. In what way was your initial post to Ross Williams more helpful to town than the post Ross Williams made to which you were responding?

[Justin Playfair]

What a twist indeed.

Nekko, from where I'm sitting this looks like a lurker lynch. Are you comfortable carrying such a lynch through to conclusion, now that it has gathered two more votes? If so, why? And why JDodge, as opposed to another low content contributor?

Killa Seven, do you have any non-expletive reasoning behind your vote?

Korlash, are you suggesting your vote is only on JDodge until he speaks up? And are you willing to lynch him if he doesn't?

Thanks for any answers provided.

[Justin Playfair]

Neko2086,

No reason at all. But not much to think he's scum, either. Still, I'm pretty comfortable with all three of your answers, at this point.

[Justin Playfair]

Unvote. Vote JDodge

I still don't have anything against JDodge and I don't even mind his Melodyman vote so much, because it's a reasonably good line, but Phate, how about a few words on why you would want to give TheSweatpantsNinja the vote on Melodyman he was asking for?

[Justin Playfair]

Oh, Crub,

I just wanted to see if it would get someone whose only posts on MelodyMan were to defend him to join Phate, who hasn't said a word about him, on his wagon.

MelodyMan had just tied JDodge. I untied it to see what would happen.

We've lost the chance to get a serious, content-based lynch today. If I'm counting correctly we're at 5-5 right now.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

[Justin Playfair]

It's a dilemma. I trust the way the wagon arose on JDodge less than I do the one on MelodyMan, but the people I suspect the most are on the MelodyMan wagon.

On one hand, JDodge is actually lurking, while MelodyMan has probably just sung his tuneless way out of all of our lives, so lynching MelodyMan would at least spare us the bother of replacing him.

On the other, JDodge is actually lurking. I understand this is his MO, but we should all be working to push this game along. He's not just hitching a ride, he's stealing from us the opportunity to judge his play. So it probably does us the most practical good to lynch him.

Not happy that this has devolved to one of these two, but of the two I guess I'll take JDodge.

[Justin Playfair]

Though now the votes are:

MelodyMan: 6
JDodge: 4

[Justin Playfair]

Just a few questions:

Crub: Could you detail, so that the rest of us might have a chance to understand, your reasons for being suspicious of Klebian?

Nekko: When you cast the first vote on JDodge so close to deadline you intimated that it was in an effort to make JDodge contribute. You also suggesting that JDodge was the lurker who troubled you most, and that it was interesting to watch how votes joined a bandwagon. I would like to ask you when your vote on JDodge became a hard vote to lynch, if it ever did, and what the votes that were attracted to that wagon have told you.

Killa Seven: You revoted JDodge immediately at the start of this day. Does this mean that you have a certainty that he is scum, and if so, what is your certainty based on?

Thank you all for any answers.

[Justin Playfair]

Killa Seven,

When you say you gave reasons after your expletive post are you referring to this post:

well j dodge hasnt posted anything in ages except, 2 one sentance posts, and tsn atleas tries to defend himself and answer questions.. cant say the same for j dodge, and mm seems like a new guy making a few mistakes, he should atleast get another day to redeem himsef.
however im not completely commited to my vote.

Because aside from you saying you’re not committed to the vote, which would make an immediate next day revote perhaps something which would need a bit of explanation, the totality of your reasoning is that JDodge is lurking, which would seem a curious thing to settle for when we had a new day on which to investigate. More curious yet, considering the results of the last lurker lynch town committed to. So did you believe, waking up on the second day, that another lurker lynch was the best town would be able to manage on day two?

Or is it this post:

im comfortable with my vote now, j dodge made a joke after the 1st vote on him like he dont care " dun dun dun" doesnt even ask why ay of the votes are on him or defends himself.. i mean i exspected him to ask me a question or something.

Why do you believe that a lack of defense from someone who is clearly purposefully lurking would make it more likely they were scum?

Thank you for your answers.

[Justin Playfair]

Crub,

Repeating over and over again that you find Klebian scummy without making a case isn't helping to lynch him. Which, if you really believe he is scum, you would seemingly wish to see happen.

Trying to discover who Klebian's partners might be before you establish that Klebian is scum seems a rather disingenuous reason for delaying giving us the reasons for your suspicions.

You said you would do so after Ross Williams answered you. You have now reneged on that. You began to broadcast your suspicion of Klebian on day one which makes me believe something Klebian did on day one made you suspicious of him.

Would you be willing to tell us what initial actions of Klebian on day one first began to make you suspicious?

I would very much like an answer to this question.

[Justin Playfair]

Sorry.

I'm not sure I see the big point on Crub. He may have been analysing something that needed this retrospect. If he's trying to help the game, let it be.

Skitzer,

About the above. Do you have any reason to believe that Crub is analyzing something that needed to be kept confidential? Do you have any notion of what it might be?

You say “if” he’s trying to help the game, which seems odd to me on a couple of levels, one of which may just be a matter of poor word choice, but the other being just confounding.

Do you have any reason, based on Crub’s activities to this point, that he is trying to help town? If so, please enumerate them.

Could you explain why you chose the phrase “help the game” as opposed to “help the town” or perhaps “hunt scum”? This seems likely to be nothing more than a poor word choice, but please confirm this, or if I’m incorrect, please explain why you phrased this in this manner.

[Justin Playfair]

Justin, please explain to me how my actions make me more like to be scum?

Crub,

Well I wasn’t making a case on you being scum, at least not as yet. But I am a bit curious now why you would think my questions to Skitzer, trying to discern the reasoning behind his statement defending you implied that I believe you to be scum.

On the other hand, in a game where we have already lynched one person at the 11th hour based on little more than lurker activity, the repeated suggestion, sans evidence, of one person as scum does have potentially nefarious motives. I don’t believe, at this point, that you are acting on such motives, but I was certainly interested in discovering what those motives were. At the moment I’m content to watch you play this out a bit longer. But I am suspicious of anyone looking at your activity in this matter (most especially previous to your making a case) and declaring it unquestionably wholesome, as Skitzer did. The fact that Skitzer seems to have changed his mind after you made a case troubles me even more.

So, Skitzer,

What happened which made you change your mind about Crub? Specifically?

[Justin Playfair]

This game I've commited to how I feel about klebian. How does that make me scum? I think klebian's reaction to my vote and my withholding analysis does add to my case.

Crub,

It’s things like the above that keep me from being able to let go of this. Because I can think of possible scummy motives for your behavior (I listed one above, which, like so much else, you have chosen not to respond to). And then you say that you believe that your withholding analysis adds to your case.

Your strong suspicion of Klebian began on Day One. And it was expressed with a degree of certainty that not even the case you’ve presented here on day two would seem to logically warrant. So how, precisely, would withholding an analysis add to your case?

One other thing. Your suspicion of Klebian seems to have developed over the Ross Williams wagon, particularly from Klebian quizzing you about what you thought about it. But you include nothing about this in the case you finally did make against Klebian here on day two. I am speaking specifically of this exchange:

Any sort of bandwagon which sparks some conversation is welcome at this point.

What do you think of the rw miniwagon

I still support it for the record.

I don't know what to think of it. I'm not jumping on if thats what you're asking.

unvote Nothing happening there.

Two posts later you cast your first vote on Klebian.

Today you said you didn’t want to answer questions until Ross Williams told you what he thought of Klebian and Shanba. Yesterday you asked Klebian why he asked Shanba specifically about his opinions.

So a couple questions about this. First, can you explain the difference, if you believe there is one, between you asking specifically Ross Williams (and later TSpN) for their opinions and Klebian asking Shanba for his? Second, the above exchange (where Klebian specifically asks you for an opinion) seems likely to be what distinguished Klebian from the other folks on the Ross Williams wagon for your suspicion. If it was, why didn’t you bring this up when you later formed your case against him? If it wasn’t, why was Klebian asking a question of Shanba specifically any different than him asking one of you?

Thank you for any answers provided.

[Justin Playfair]

Having said the above…

Klebian,

Your actions over the last little bit just bother the heck out of me.

Not sure what you mean here. If you see here, some people consider acting against the interest of town a viable reason to lynch, and a plurality of people believe this is part of the reason to lynch. On the other hand, I am merely voting you on the belief that you were acting against the interest of the town (being too vague about your suspicions on me) and in the hope that this vote would stop you from doing so.

Because boiled down this reads like “I voted you for picking on me”. And using a poll on the site to justify your opinion smacks of an appeal to authority, and in a situation which wouldn’t seem to require one. Then, when Crub challenges you as to why you still had your vote on him you post this:

This is true. I have spent the last few posts responding to you/discussing. I think the vote served its purpose. unvote

Which in addition to being conciliatory in a way that makes me a bit uncertain about you also begs the following two questions:

If your purpose was, as you stated before, to get more information, what information did you get?

What in that information has led you to the decision that now is the time to remove your vote from Crub?

Thank you for any answers.

[Justin Playfair]

Vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

You’re the Ninja I would have preferred to lynch yesterday, TSpN, and in a lesser key I’m seeing the same kind of opportunistic behavior from you today. At the end of day one you switched your vote from MelodyMan to JDodge while calling out for others to vote MelodyMan so you could switch your vote back. You then came into today renewing a vote on JDodge for no real reason at all. Now, with Crub under fire, you make the jump onto his wagon.

Too opportunistic, too many times, and it’s the same song as yesterday. You’re not playing like somebody looking for scum. You’re playing like someone looking for people to lynch.

[Justin Playfair]

TheSweatpantsNinja,

No problem. I mean day one first wanting to lynch Disciple Slayer on principle when he was acting badly, but only “sort of”, in a way that signaled it would be easy for your vote to move that way while striving to expose yourself as little as possible.

Disciple Slayer, a seemingly easy, not convincingly scummy target. And as we saw later, when MelodyMan was lynched, not actually scum.

Ross Williams. A better suspect here, but once again one who seemed unable to mount a proper defense on his behalf and who you rode in a fashion that looked to me (you can check my previous post from day one on this) more like running down the sick antelope than trying to tackle a wolf.

Moving back to MelodyMan when it was clear the Ross Williams wagon had stalled. Finding a newbie getting easily spooked somehow more sinister than all of Ross Williams activities combined. That makes it seem very clear the Ross Williams vote was not one of conviction but just an easy target to aim at. You found an easier target and with flimsy reasoning moved your vote.

Moving your vote to JDodge, the wagon on whom you had earlier questioned. Some justification here in that you said you were doing so to save yourself, but even as you move your vote you make a call for others to vote MelodyMan so you can move your vote back.

Day Two, you wake up and vote JDodge, even after being confronted with the results of a lurker lynch, even after questioning the wagon on JDodge on day one before joining it to save yourself.

You change from voting JDodge saying:

I don't have such a strong case on jdodge that I'm not willing to switch.

You had, precisely, no case at all, but on the other hand quite a few people had voted JDodge at the end of yesterday. Now there were people voting Crub.

That’s what I mean by opportunistic. It’s pretty much always what I mean when I call someone that. You know, that their votes and actions seem to be more about seizing opportunities to push a wagon to the hanging tree than finding actual scum. Once, twice, it could just be suspicions following those of others, but you’ve been just a little too consistent.

[Justin Playfair]

Crub,

I've ask you about a zillion questions you haven't answered at this point, but I would really like one on this subject. How sure were you that Klebian was scum on day one? And how sure are you that Klebian is scum today? I would really like this answered in a way that let's me know how full the bottle is for you on each of these two days.

[Justin Playfair]

TheSweatpantsNinja,

And srsly, a Day 1 vote without conviction? That's unheard of!

Are you now agreeing that your day one vote on Ross Williams was without conviction?
If so, in what way was it lacking conviction?

Do you have an issue with crub's play? Do you really find my 'opportunistic' play more anti-town than his?

Yes, I do have an issue with Crub’s play. But I can also see possible town motives for his play. It is also possible that your voting pattern and behavior toward various lynch candidates is a matter of play style. But at the moment I am still seeing your overall behavior as more likely to be that of scum than Crub’s.

Killa Seven,

Could you please give us your full list of reasons for finding JDodge scummy?

Thank you both for your answers.

[Justin Playfair]

I have read your damn posts, JDodge, and have a damned question:

Earlier you suggested that Crub and TSpN were distancing so obviously that it was painful for you to observe.

You now seem to be suggesting Crub is OMGUSing TSpN with a serious intent to lynch.

Have you forsaken your earlier certain analysis or are you suggesting that distancing has given way to bussing?

[Justin Playfair]

First things first, I suppose. Shanba, Skitzer, any particular reason you didn't cast a vote before deadline? Does this indicate a happiness with the Crub lynch?

[Justin Playfair]

Actually, your saying that put me in a catch 22. If I voted you, lo and behold, you were right so I must be scum. If I didn't vote you, well, it was because I 'knew' that I would be 'outed as scum' if I did.

it doesn't make me scum but it puts me in a difficult situation
basically i'm saying such a 'prediction' was completely unnecessary and put double the meaning on how I voted

Klebian,

The above two posts seem defensive in a way that doesn’t comfortably correspond to town play. If you truly thought Crub was scum his statement about you shouldn’t have bothered you. You would have voted him in the honest belief that he was scum and his statement would have been shown to be scummy nonsense. If you thought another person was most worthy of your vote you would have voted that other person, perhaps pointing out to Crub that your vote wasn’t going on him because he wasn’t quite number one on your list.

These posts have bothered me since I first read them, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on why until now.

If I voted you, lo and behold, you were right so I must be scum.

Well, not if Crub turned out to be scum. And lynching scum, would, theoretically, be what you would be doing with your vote. I mean, there’s no comment about what you feel about Crub’s alignment in either of these. No “and then if you did turn out to be town…”, nothing about “I have made my current feelings about your alignment clear”, which you had when you voted Killa 7. I mean you clearly analyzed your possible strategies for dealing with what Crub had said, but scum hunting didn’t seem to play any part in your calculations.

Thank you for your response.

[Justin Playfair]

Skitzer,

Then, I noticed, at one point, TSN voted crub, which I totally didn't see any reasoning behind, seeing as I had reread Crub right before TSN, and I saw crub as a distinctly town player.

Please provide your reasons for seeing Crub as a distinctly town player. Thank you.


Neko2086,

I'll vote: TSN for now. I'm really having a hard time believing that Crub is scum, simply because I don't see how his play could help him as scum. I don't think it helps much as town either, except for the reactions he got from TSN and maybe klebian, though the case against him isn't very solid.

I'd honestly rather lynch killa seven, for reasons I think are pretty clear (if not, just ask). If there is support there, I'll switch, unless he posts soon with content that is actually helpful and answers my questions.

We have a few days, so there is still time to form a different bandwagon.

Now here’s the thing. At this point you seem to be stating rather clearly that you would prefer to lynch TSpN over Crub.

But you do point out you would rather lynch Killa 7 if the opportunity arises.

At this point there is one vote, that of RossWilliam, on Killa 7. And TSpN is in the hot seat for a lynching.

Later, one more vote, that of Klebian, is cast on Killa 7. TSpN is still in the hot seat. Then, with a day until deadline, you switch your vote to Killa 7.

This puts Crub in the hot seat, not Killa 7.

You leave it there, no more votes are cast on Killa 7, and Crub swings. Now I left my vote on TSpN because he was who I thought was most likely scum, but if he wasn’t going to hang my next preference was Crub, both because his actions gave me real doubt about his alignment and because a lynch of a town Crub seemed more likely to give us information than a lynch of a town Killa 7.

So why with deadline coming did you leave your vote with Killa 7, though it brought about a lynch of Crub? Because unless something had changed your mind in the waning hours of the day you had suggested you would prefer a lynch of TSpN over Crub.

[Justin Playfair]

Nek02086,

About the events surrounding the Crub lynch there is one thing which I will not discuss at this time. However, there is no doubt that the totality of Klebian’s actions during the end of yesterday, from his moving to the opening you had provided for a late bandwagon on Killa Seven, to his curious reaction to Crub’s statement about him, make me more suspicious of Klebian. My suspicions of Skitzer have also been piqued, by his post-lynch certainty that Crub was town and his lack of a day two vote to express this certainty, and perhaps most especially his expressed in thread opinions of Crub throughout this period:

I'm not sure I see the big point on Crub. He may have been analysing something that needed this retrospect. If he's trying to help the game, let it be.

Justin: I don't really have an opinion on Crub right now. But if he's trying to help the town, which yes, was wrongly worded, then it would be ok. I think it would help if Crub could explain his true intentions.

neko: I feel Crub's tunnel-vision did not help the game, which did give a somewhat reasonable reason for Korlash's vote, but I don't get why you asked someone to answer a question after another. Explain.

Well if he's "recuperated" from his tunnel-vision, then I don't see it as much more then something to note. The "oh ok" was because his remark concerning curbs.

The above was in a response to a question from Neko2086, trying to ascertain what you actually thought of Crub.

On what? I'm confused. I guess I didn't read it correctly. For some reason I thought Crub asked a question, and Korlash voted him for asking the question, and thats why I found Crub suspicious...I had the wrong people.

And this was Skitzer’s final pre-lynch thought on Crub, in response to me asking him specifically what caused him to go from declaring that Crub was trying to help the game to refusing to defend that opinion and decrying Crub’s tunnel vision.

The reason my interest hasn’t been more than piqued by the above is the quite real possibility that Skitzer was, in fact…confused. But I still don’t like his postmortem certainty that…

I had reread Crub right before TSN, and I saw crub as a distinctly town player.

Which after a single question became…

Justin - he hasn't really done anything to harm the town, It just seems like he's not scum.

Which is oddly lacking in detail for someone who has recently done a reread.

Finally, although it would be an overstatement to say it made me more suspicious of you, your signaling that you would be happy to switch votes rather late in the day, when a one or two vote swing which could be powered easily by scum could (and did) make a difference, and not being conscious enough of this to monitor what the results were, make me less certain than I was before that you are town. It’s a pretty small thing, and I could see myself doing it, but I also can’t ignore it.

[Justin Playfair]

Vote: Korlash

You've posted more than thirty times in other games in the last week, including multiple posts in games that are on day two and day one. So this statement is…ummm…not so true:

I'm here. My work schedual keeps changing and all my free time is put into sleeping. my time on MS is limited so I've been putting more time into games that are in endgame then in those that still have a bit to go.

You posted in your day two game on both the 12th and 14th. The post above was made on the 13th.

So you voted Crub, later said you weren’t very suspicious of Crub but only voted him to get him to talk, left your vote on him to lynch without any other substantive comment, and are currently posting heavily in multiple other games while showing up here only just enough to keep yourself going.

Now maybe you’re just not feeling this game. It happens to everybody sometimes. But you seem to be not feeling this game in a way that’s a tad too convenient for my taste.

Hope to hear from you soon.

[Justin Playfair]

Klebian,

My feeling on Killa Seven is that he does the least amount of work to get by in the thread. Any thread. In every game he’s in. I even defended him in another game, where he turned out to be scum, based on the exact same style of posting he has demonstrated here. The problem is, he’s the same in games where he’s town. Look at mini 570, where he was lynched as town. Look at Mafia 75, where he died as an SK and replaced back in. He may well be scum in this game, and I sure wouldn’t be comfortable with him floating to endgame, but I think there are better folks for today. Korlash for one. TSpN for another. You for a third. I’d rather go for content today, and I’m more than a little uncomfortable at this point with the continuous push toward the easy lynch.

On that score...

Neko,

Are you really comfortable with the vote for today coming down to between Killa Seven and Skitzer? When a bad lynch today would put us in lylo? A choice that sort of randomly assumes that since Skitzer and Killa Seven don't pay attention much, and don't help town much, one of them is most likely scum? We did that day one and it didn't work out so well. And it seems to play right into the hands of scum, who can push a pretty much unexplained vote in whatever direction seems most convenient, or whatever direction isn't a partner. Can you explain what the difference would be between what you have suggested will be your course of action today and what happened on day one?

[Justin Playfair]

Korlash,

ha ha ha I laughed at Justin's post when I read it.

I’m glad to have given you the gift of laughter. The last time I inspired that sort of merriment from someone I was making a case on they turned out to be scum.

Now let’s take the rest step by step:

You happen to run across the other games I'm in I've been slacking in for the exact reason I have this one? no? I believe that one is the day 1. day two games the preveious one I mentioned, and yeah if this post ruins It i swear ill quit MS. And my last game is in fact in what I call endgame, with it's own list of lurkers/bad logic/and very likely town loss if i fail to keep up with it. i agree with my statement 100% and I'll defend my priority list any day of the week.

I’m not sure what you’re saying above. Since you did post in these early games I assume you are saying there was something going on in these that demanded your attention. Which would have been a fine thing to say but wasn’t what you said. And thirty posts in a week doesn’t make it seem as though you had limited time here. Which was also what you said.

Finally, of course, taking a look at a deadline lynch in a game would seem to be a matter of some high priority. Crub died on April 4th, and you made ten posts in your day two games from March 29th through April 4th. One of these was early on day two, the other one of the most ghastly horrible games I have ever seen, but certainly not close to the resolution of the day. So I do question your priorities here.

Onto the rest:

plus any lynch that happens you have to assume is scum run. So I see reason for town to drop the game a little on their radar. So why dont you meta people and find someone (active) that is in... oh... 5-6 other games that they are more or less ignoring simply to post in this one and I guarentee you just hit scum. I dont have the time to meta you, and I highly doubt your actually ignoring other games, but I would expect to find interesting results on that one.

So you posting in many other games, one a long stale day two, another an early day two, while avoiding this game as it comes to a deadline lynch is town behavior. But someone else ignoring other games to post in this one as it reached a deadline lynch is scum behavior. And by the way, sorry you didn’t find anything in that meta other than that I’ve mostly only been able to post on weekends the last couple of weeks, and have made a point to try to hit every game. Glad you then turned it around to:

Anything else? I mean It's obviusly worth voting me for being inactive as long as the person voting me can get on every 5 days or so right... right?

Because unable to find something to prove your initial, unfounded accusation you might as well change course. But it wasn’t you lurking I found suspicious so much. It was the effect your lurking had on this game.

Also I find this from the above very interesting:

plus any lynch that happens you have to assume is scum run.

I am assuming exactly this. And of those who lynched Crub I find your actions the most suspicious. So I am glad you agree with my vote. I am hoping to wrest lynching out of scum hands now. Because, just as a curiosity, Korlash, if what you posted above is true are you not suggesting that scum will certainly win? And if this was a real concern to you, wouldn’t the way to have countered it have been to try to find a lynch target who you didn’t believe, by your own words, was probably town on day two?

And finally, I love long posts. Gives me things to think about. So thank you.