Open 60: The New C9 - Game over!

[The Fonz]

Zero, one, or two players received this PM:

You are a Cop. Each night, you may PM me the name of a player. I will tell you

whether that player is mafia or not.

Your results are guaranteed to be accurate. You win when all threats to the town are eliminated.

It would be, frankly, bizarre if a serial killer came up as 'mafia' on investigation, since the SK isn't mafia.

[Oman]

SK is inv. immune in this setup.

[Rigel]

Wow. I definitely did not expect that reaction.

I don't know exactly why I'm getting jumped on for this. For one thing, it's not like I arbitrarily picked SC at random to vote for. I believe that SC is very likely to be scum. Maybe my push for votes for him was a bit aggressive, especially the one I addressed at LML, but I'm not planning on making this strategy a habit. However, at the time, it seemed like a good idea to throw out there.

On the other hand, it did bring up some stuff I can discuss...

Okay, well then, did you read the part where I said that whether or not Spacecase is scum, he should be lynched today regardless? I don't think that going out on a limb and casting a single vote on Farside is very pro-town at this point.

I might have missed that post, can you reference it for me?

Has the game landscape changed so much in the 5 months I was gone?

Me placing a vote on Farside (and game rationale for it), got the response of

Okay, well then, did you read the part where I said that whether or not Spacecase is scum, he should be lynched today regardless? I don't think that going out on a limb and casting a single vote on Farside is very pro-town at this point.

I think your overt protection of farside is noted. I think, my friends, we have a link.

Unvote: Farside, but FoS: Farside

--> Linkage between Rigel and Farside.

Vote: Rigel

Okay, I don't like this at all. In the first post, LML is merely asking for the post where I suggested we lynch Spacecase and analyze his lynch afterwards. In the second, he's out for my blood. What happened in between? MadCrawdad and The Fonz started accusing me. Note also that neither MadCrawdad nor The Fonz voted for me--but LML did. I'd like to know what precisely was so compelling about my post the second time you read it that made you want to vote for me, LML, or, perhaps more accurately, what was so compelling about MadCrawdad and The Fonz's posts.

@MadCrawdad: I don't feel that you're taking the post that you are quoting in the context of my argument. I'm not saying that we should lynch any player regardless of alignment. I'm saying that we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole. I also want to point out that, with further reading of LML's posts, his accusations on farside aren't all that damning. They are worth noting, but I don't honestly feel as if he put forth enough evidence to have justified a vote for him at this point. However, the fact that he did accuse farside personally had nothing to do with my response. If he had voted for anyone else without a vote, I would have likely had the same response.

As for who would be interesting to look at once SC's alignment is revealed; I think that if SC is scum, as I believe, the people to look at are those who either didn't vote for him, voted late, or voted after being dead set on voting for someone else. Conversely, if he is revealed to be town, I would look at those most interested in getting him lynched, and those who were against his lynch would get a smidgen less critiqued. This would all be hinging, of course, on whatever happened overnight.

Also, I'd be willing to look at the Kabenon lynch, since you seem insistent upon it. I'll try to devote some time to it over the next few days and post what I find later on.

I find it interesting that I am being looked at for this statement and Phate is being lumped in with me, but Shteven, who openly agreed with my original post, has no suspicion thrown upon him. I think the problem is that no one bothered to link the post I directly referenced in the short post that keeps being brought up. Out of the blue, my short post is scummy, yes. But the rationalization I made in the original post clarifies it and makes it a more viable option.

@Vollkan: I agree with your post, except for two things. One is that I know that I am not scum, which none of you will believe but I know to be true. The second is that I am only being called out for this one particular 'mistake', whereas Spacecase has had an entire case leveled against him.

@The Fonz: Your post makes sense. I hadn't really thought the situation out far enough to reach this point, but you are correct. My plan does leave scum an escape to vote Spacecase w/o any real fear of repercussions. That said, I retract my previous statement, but I'm retaining my vote on Spacecase because I still find him to be scummy.

@Spacecase: When you are in danger of becoming lynched, the best thing to do is not make posts that help the town in no way, shape or form. And you still have continued to ignore the question that I posed earlier. I'll post it again in case you forgot what it was.

Spacecase, I would like you to answer me one question: aside from the "because I am town" argument, can you give me any solid reason why I should be voting for someone else at this given moment? Or better yet, who do you think is scummy? All your posts today have been about your reason for voting Kab, and I already think that's scummy. But you haven't done anything but defend yourself, and I want to know if you have any actual opinions regarding the game thus far.

[LoudmouthLee]

Okay, I don't like this at all. In the first post, LML is merely asking for the post where I suggested we lynch Spacecase and analyze his lynch afterwards. In the second, he's out for my blood. What happened in between? MadCrawdad and The Fonz started accusing me. Note also that neither MadCrawdad nor The Fonz voted for me--but LML did. I'd like to know what precisely was so compelling about my post the second time you read it that made you want to vote for me, LML, or, perhaps more accurately, what was so compelling about MadCrawdad and The Fonz's posts.

I thought this was a fairly obvious thought process... I will, though, outline it for you and let you know how I felt about it.

It was neither McCrawdad's post nor The Fonz's post that cause me to vote you. Instead, it was a further look at the defensiveness (which is now being claimed as aggressiveness) of the situation.

I felt you were defending Farside in a way that looked incredibly odd... almost like one that has knowledge of Farside's role... the only way you can have that information is if you're a cop or scum. Obviously, with 1 cop dead and another claimed, you can't claim an information role.

You could be masons, sure... but if you were a masonry, then holy cow, don't be this damn obvious about it.

When you make a post that reads something to the effect of:

Okay, well then, did you read the part where I said that whether or not Spacecase is scum, he should be lynched today regardless? I don't think that going out on a limb and casting a single vote on Farside is very pro-town at this point.

You are calling me scum for casting a vote in a different direction from you. I also cast a single vote against you, and now, people are looking at you with a close eye.

I also do not know, Rigel, if you thought I was some newbie who could be railroaded. Holy cow. Exactly the opposite. Ask Oman.

I currently like my vote on Rigel.

[MadCrawdad]

@ Rigel

(Bold is mine)

@MadCrawdad: I don't feel that you're taking the post that you are quoting in the context of my argument

. I'm not saying that we should lynch any player regardless of alignment. I'm saying that we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole. I also want to point out that, with further reading of LML's posts, his accusations on farside aren't all that damning. They are worth noting, but I don't honestly feel as if he put forth enough evidence to have justified a vote for him at this point. However, the fact that he did accuse farside personally had nothing to do with my response. If he had voted for anyone else without a vote, I would have likely had the same response.

As for who would be interesting to look at once SC's alignment is revealed; I think that if SC is scum, as I believe, the people to look at are those who either didn't vote for him, voted late, or voted after being dead set on voting for someone else. Conversely, if he is revealed to be town, I would look at those most interested in getting him lynched, and those who were against his lynch would get a smidgen less critiqued. This would all be hinging, of course, on whatever happened overnight.

Also, I'd be willing to look at the Kabenon lynch, since you seem insistent upon it.

I'll try to devote some time to it over the next few days and post what I find later on.

I find it interesting that I am being looked at for this statement and Phate is being lumped in with me,

but Shteven, who openly agreed with my original post, has no suspicion thrown upon him

. I think the problem is that no one bothered to link the post I directly referenced in the short post that keeps being brought up. Out of the blue, my short post is scummy, yes. But the rationalization I made in the original post clarifies it and makes it a more viable option.

Pretty sure I'm not taking anything out of context with regard to your argument. Here you say the town should lynch SC regardless of whether they believe that he's scum or not.

In the end, I guess what I basically want to say is that we should, and likely need to lynch Spacecase today.

Regardless of whether or not you believe he is scum

. Spacecase's lynch will do two things. It will reveal his alignment, allowing us to further study his lynch in terms of that, and will progress us to Night, where Cypher can investigate someone else. Yes, it will also allow scum and the possible SK to act, but we've still got a lot of townies out there. I think we can make a potentially dangerous strategic play for one night.

Secondly, I'm not insistent that you look at the Kab lynch, but think that it might be a good place to start...as opposed to asking folks to lynch SC (regardless of their beliefs) so that you can look at that wagon.

Lastly, saying that no suspicion has been cast on Shteven is wrong. Check back a few posts, and you'll see that I called him on it. Probably more because he's now denying that he ever agreed.

[Shteven]

I agreed with the idea of lynching spacecase; I was far too hasty in supporting any post that shared that goal regardless of the reason.

It was a poorly thought out post on my part when I just agreed wholesale with a very large post without taking the time to go through it. That was certainly a mistake.

[MadCrawdad]

I agreed with the idea of lynching spacecase; I was far too hasty in supporting any post that shared that goal regardless of the reason.

It was a poorly thought out post on my part when I just agreed wholesale with a very large post without taking the time to go through it. That was certainly a mistake.

You keep saying that you just expressed an overall general agreement with Rigel's post, and that his argument for lynching SC just kind of slipped by you... That's not the case. You didn't just give blanket agreement to the post, you referred to his argument for lynching SC when you said

And finally...How can people read Rigel's last post and not be voting Spacecase? It's about that time...

You had to be referring to his argument, as Rigel really made no other points about lynching SC in that post.

vote: Shteven

[Oman]

I also do not know, Rigel, if you thought I was some newbie who could be railroaded. Holy cow. Exactly the opposite. Ask Oman.

True dat. This guy will eat your balls.

[LoudmouthLee]

Wow, this game is SLOW.

There is no discussion, no action.

@Others

: How do you feel about Rigel? Shteven?

[Shteven]

I agreed with the idea of lynching spacecase; I was far too hasty in supporting any post that shared that goal regardless of the reason.

You had to be referring to his argument, as Rigel really made no other points about lynching SC in that post.

I feel like we're saying the same thing, only you don't realize it. I was referring to his argument, when I said "I was far too hasty in supporting any post that shared that goal regardless of the reason."

It's what I get for posting a response while only causally reading his post. The far more complete response is in my post 747.

[MadCrawdad]

I agreed with the idea of lynching spacecase; I was far too hasty in supporting any post that shared that goal regardless of the reason.

You had to be referring to his argument, as Rigel really made no other points about lynching SC in that post.

I feel like we're saying the same thing, only you don't realize it. I was referring to his argument, when I said "I was far too hasty in supporting any post that shared that goal regardless of the reason."

It's what I get for posting a response while only causally reading his post. The far more complete response is in my post 747.

Nope, we're absolutely NOT saying the same thing...

You're saying

that Rigel posted his argument for lynching SC regardless of affiliation, along with some points on other players, and you just said 'Nice job, Rigel,' without noticing the reasoning for voting SC...

I'm saying

that Rigel posted his argument for lynching SC regardless of affiliation, and you specifically said

'How can people read Rigel's last post and not be voting Spacecase? It's about that time...'

This would imply to me that you did read Rigel's argument, and found it quite compelling. So much so that you question why EVERYONE was not voting SC at that time.

BIG DIFFERENCE...

One more question for you Shteven. On Day 1, you mentioned that you were uncomfortable with the speed of Six Aces' lynch, but went on to vote for him in the same post. As that seems to be a contradiction, can you explain why you would vote for somebody if you were uncomfortable doing so?

I am uncomfortable with the speed of this lynch. Page 5 is not going to give us very much to go on for day 2. That said, I'll admit that even though I'm not very fond of jessie's soft claiming method, having a claimed guilty result is going to be a better chance than most day 1 lynches. With apologies to six aces, and your sister:

Vote: Six Aces

[-TinVision-]

Mod gets out the Prodomatic 5000.

[dahill1]

Wow, this game is SLOW.

There is no discussion, no action.

@Others

: How do you feel about Rigel? Shteven?

you noticed the rigel--farside connection, and i also wanted to point out that as soon as i made a case against phate and voted for him, farside voted for me almost immediatly
as for shteven, i think madcrawdad makes the best point with this post

I'm saying

that Rigel posted his argument for lynching SC regardless of affiliation, and you specifically said

'How can people read Rigel's last post and not be voting Spacecase? It's about that time...'

This would imply to me that you did read Rigel's argument, and found it quite compelling. So much so that you question why EVERYONE was not voting SC at that time.

shteven implied that he did read through rigel's post with his comment
and he also clearly said "how can people not be voting SC now?"

[Shteven]

So my first post implied I read it. I later explicitly stated I didn't give it the attention it deserved. That seems pretty clear that I'm claiming I didn't give it enough thought. You should be suspicious of me because I posted too quickly without considering it. But you can't say that because of the initial post that I clearly read the post carefully when I've flat out stated that I didn't.

As for six aces, you seem to be digging up much of nothing. The answer is right in the quoted post. I don't like speedy lynches, but "having a claimed guilty result is going to be a better chance than most day 1 lynches". You know, the whole cop saying he had a guilty result. That certainly counts for more than being uncomfortable with speedy lynches as rule. Was that not clear?

[MadCrawdad]

So my first post implied I read it. I later explicitly stated I didn't give it the attention it deserved. That seems pretty clear that I'm claiming I didn't give it enough thought. You should be suspicious of me because I posted too quickly without considering it. But you can't say that because of the initial post that I clearly read the post carefully when I've flat out stated that I didn't.

As for six aces, you seem to be digging up much of nothing. The answer is right in the quoted post. I don't like speedy lynches, but "having a claimed guilty result is going to be a better chance than most day 1 lynches". You know, the whole cop saying he had a guilty result. That certainly counts for more than being uncomfortable with speedy lynches as rule. Was that not clear?

You didn't say that you disliked speedy lynches in general, you said that you were uncomfortable with the speed of the SixAces lynch specifically...

Just struck me odd that you'd be uncomfortable with the speed, then vote and keep the wagon rolling is all.

Another interesting post: After Jesse came out as cop, Ryan voted for SixAces, and you called him on it by telling him that a FoS was more in order than a vote...

unvote/vote: Six Aces

I'm interested to see where this development takes us

As am I but I didn't really think I had to jump on the bandwagon to get an answer from him. Worth a FOS.

[The Fonz]

So my first post implied I read it. I later explicitly stated I didn't give it the attention it deserved. That seems pretty clear that I'm claiming I didn't give it enough thought. You should be suspicious of me because I posted too quickly without considering it. But you can't say that because of the initial post that I clearly read the post carefully when I've flat out stated that I didn't.

Yes, because we absolutely have to believe you when you say you didn't read it properly, right? Oh, wait. I think it's quite obvious MCD is suggesting that you are, in fact, lying.

I do find it very hard to believe that you said 'how can anyone not want to lynch SC having read Rigel's post?' if you yourself hadn't really read it. That statement implies that you felt Rigel's post contained compelling reasons for voting spacecase. Why would you say that if you hadn't properly read it?

That said, shouldn't we be voting a player who has:

1. FoSed someone, then in the next post claimed they were a bad lynch, then in the next post hammered them?
2. FoSed a player because using 'feelings' is apparently a weak argument, then justified a subsequent vote by
3. Done little-to-no scumhunting throughout.
4. Used craplogic (because you [vollkan] agreed with the lynch, my flip-flop can't be scummy).
5. Hasn't answered half the questions directly posed to him.
6. Claimed to be 'not trying to lurk' and didn't add anything else, therefore active lurking.
7. Has claimed townie.

[The Fonz]

*2. Then justified a subsequent vote by 'gut.'

[vollkan]

So my first post implied I read it. I later explicitly stated I didn't give it the attention it deserved. That seems pretty clear that I'm claiming I didn't give it enough thought. You should be suspicious of me because I posted too quickly without considering it. But you can't say that because of the initial post that I clearly read the post carefully when I've flat out stated that I didn't.

Now, the problem I have with this is that I cannot envisage any reasonable townie posting "How can people read Rigel's last post and not be voting Spacecase? It's about that time..." (Which is seriously strong language) without having actually read the argument.

It suggests very strongly that you are simply being driven by a desire to lynch, rather than a desire to lynch well (ie. to lynch scum).

@MadCrawdad: I don't feel that you're taking the post that you are quoting in the context of my argument. I'm not saying that we should lynch any player regardless of alignment. I'm saying that we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole.

This is immensely slippery.

Let's go back to your initial thoughts shall we:

In the end, I guess what I basically want to say is that we should, and likely need to lynch Spacecase today. Regardless of whether or not you believe he is scum. Spacecase's lynch will do two things. It will reveal his alignment, allowing us to further study his lynch in terms of that, and will progress us to Night, where Cypher can investigate someone else. Yes, it will also allow scum and the possible SK to act, but we've still got a lot of townies out there. I think we can make a potentially dangerous strategic play for one night.

In other words, you are calling on people to lynch SC even if they don't suspect him due to information and progressing the game. As I have already shown, this logic applies to absolute anybody.

Now, in your latest explanation (the quote above which begins with "@madcrawdad") you alter that to say "we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole". That wasn't your initial position, which was to lynch SC no matter what just for info and progress. You slip in the adjective "scummy" now, to make it seem less ridiculous, but that just amounts to a sneaky adjustment of the position you initially advocated, despite you attempting to appear consistent.

@Vollkan: I agree with your post, except for two things. One is that I know that I am not scum, which none of you will believe but I know to be true. The second is that I am only being called out for this one particular 'mistake', whereas Spacecase has had an entire case leveled against him.

So your defence amounts to:
1) I'm town
2) SC is worse

That said, shouldn't we be voting a player who has:

1. FoSed someone, then in the next post claimed they were a bad lynch, then in the next post hammered them?
2. FoSed a player because using 'feelings' is apparently a weak argument, then justified a subsequent vote by
3. Done little-to-no scumhunting throughout.
4. Used craplogic (because you [vollkan] agreed with the lynch, my flip-flop can't be scummy).
5. Hasn't answered half the questions directly posed to him.
6. Claimed to be 'not trying to lurk' and didn't add anything else, therefore active lurking.
7. Has claimed townie.

We really should be, but we are pretty much spoiled for choice right now

[MadCrawdad]

So my first post implied I read it. I later explicitly stated I didn't give it the attention it deserved. That seems pretty clear that I'm claiming I didn't give it enough thought. You should be suspicious of me because I posted too quickly without considering it. But you can't say that because of the initial post that I clearly read the post carefully when I've flat out stated that I didn't.

Now, the problem I have with this is that I cannot envisage any reasonable townie posting "How can people read Rigel's last post and not be voting Spacecase? It's about that time..." (Which is seriously strong language) without having actually read the argument.

It suggests very strongly that you are simply being driven by a desire to lynch, rather than a desire to lynch well (ie. to lynch scum).

@MadCrawdad: I don't feel that you're taking the post that you are quoting in the context of my argument. I'm not saying that we should lynch any player regardless of alignment. I'm saying that we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole.

This is immensely slippery.

Let's go back to your initial thoughts shall we:

In the end, I guess what I basically want to say is that we should, and likely need to lynch Spacecase today. Regardless of whether or not you believe he is scum. Spacecase's lynch will do two things. It will reveal his alignment, allowing us to further study his lynch in terms of that, and will progress us to Night, where Cypher can investigate someone else. Yes, it will also allow scum and the possible SK to act, but we've still got a lot of townies out there. I think we can make a potentially dangerous strategic play for one night.

In other words, you are calling on people to lynch SC even if they don't suspect him due to information and progressing the game. As I have already shown, this logic applies to absolute anybody.

Now, in your latest explanation (the quote above which begins with "@madcrawdad") you alter that to say "we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole". That wasn't your initial position, which was to lynch SC no matter what just for info and progress. You slip in the adjective "scummy" now, to make it seem less ridiculous, but that just amounts to a sneaky adjustment of the position you initially advocated, despite you attempting to appear consistent.

@Vollkan: I agree with your post, except for two things. One is that I know that I am not scum, which none of you will believe but I know to be true. The second is that I am only being called out for this one particular 'mistake', whereas Spacecase has had an entire case leveled against him.

So your defence amounts to:
1) I'm town
2) SC is worse

That said, shouldn't we be voting a player who has:

1. FoSed someone, then in the next post claimed they were a bad lynch, then in the next post hammered them?
2. FoSed a player because using 'feelings' is apparently a weak argument, then justified a subsequent vote by
3. Done little-to-no scumhunting throughout.
4. Used craplogic (because you [vollkan] agreed with the lynch, my flip-flop can't be scummy).
5. Hasn't answered half the questions directly posed to him.
6. Claimed to be 'not trying to lurk' and didn't add anything else, therefore active lurking.
7. Has claimed townie.

We really should be, but we are pretty much spoiled for choice right now

That first quote in your post appears to be mis-attributed to Spacecase.... actually it was Shteven who said it...

[dahill1]

It suggests very strongly that you are simply being driven by a desire to lynch, rather than a desire to lynch well (ie. to lynch scum).

QFT this is what i was trying to say about Shteven but i couldn't think of the right words.

[vollkan]

That first quote in your post appears to be mis-attributed to Spacecase.... actually it was Shteven who said it...

oops..

They both begin with "S"

[LaptopGun]

THis is looking really weird. Frankly, it looks like Volkan is acting by himself and wants Rigel lynched, Fonz and MCD really want people to vote Shteven, Fonz really wants SC dead already before we do anything else, and dahil is like "dont forget about phate" then shteven doesnt look good. I am not liking that we are suddenly all divided (granted I think the previous consenus is a townie).

@Rigel: Why have you been trying to avoid MCD's questions? I think they have been reasonable.

In a futile attempt to add my 2 and 1/2 cents to the inquiry into Shteven: Shteeven also had weird reactions about Justin, similar to what I had. He had a somewhat less strong reaction to what I felt was scummy behavior on Justin's part. I think only one or two people commented on it, and were generally more concerned with people like kab at the time. I have no clue whatsoever that says about, but it's just a little thing I thought of which also doesnt quite make sense.

[LaptopGun]

The hypothetical phate-farside connection could also be legit as well. What the hell, I'm all confused.

[vollkan]

THis is looking really weird. Frankly, it looks like Volkan is acting by himself and wants Rigel lynched, Fonz and MCD really want people to vote Shteven, Fonz really wants SC dead already before we do anything else, and dahil is like "dont forget about phate" then shteven doesnt look good. I am not liking that we are suddenly all divided (granted I think the previous consenus is a townie).

Actually, it's not true that I am exclusively in favour of Rigel. I can see the sense in any of Rigel, Shteven or SC. The difficulty at the moment is deciding which.

[Oman]

I haven't really been reading Rigel heavily. I'm on my mobile so I won't be reading. if anyone doesn't mind showing me why they think he is town/scum, I would love to read it over the next few days.