Mini 578 - Mistery at Montescuro - Game Over!

[Yosarian2]

That post had so many double entende in it, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make other than the,

'Both cups could be poisoned' logic.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.

[Near]

2) Non-committal scum-hunting can be a scum-tell. It could also be a sign of townie who doesn't have good idea who the scums are. Like I said before, I can try to fabricate an accusation on someone to try to make that person look scummy. Doing so can possibly make me look less scummy, but it conflicts with my top objective of finding the actual scums.

If you're town and don't have much idea who the scum are, you should be asking lots of questions looking for reactions that give you an idea.

Fair enough.

3) My joke FOS was a case of WIFOM? HOW?

I believe Dasquian is referring to your defense of calling it a joke here. It could have been a joke... or it could have been distancing that you wanted us to think was a joke.

Wow. Seriously? You guys are saying I was making a reference to WIFOM when I random voted and then said it was a joke? That is a WIFOM???

If you're going to make jokes past the random stage, you should be indicating it somehow when we make them. Remember that text doesn't convey humor nearly as well as speech.

I did. My reasons for FOSes were stupid. They were jokes. More importantly, my reason for voting Yossarian was complete joke. Like I said, I was making a reference to the book Catch-22. Here is my post:

Vote Yosarian

because he thinks everyone's crazy.

hi everyone!
FOS VampanezeHunter for not falling for OMGUS trap and voting for Dasquian or Macavenger.

FOS Joudas for talking weird. Watch for post game restriction.

Plus I explained this a while ago. At the time of my explanation, you said that the main reason for your voting me was my lurking, NOT my random vote in non random stage. Dasquian said this also. What, now you guys need to fabricate more reasons to come up with why I am a scum?

Secondly, my defense that scums are not as likely to be put at L-2, which requires 5 total votes, is not WIFOM. It's not the strongest defense, but townies are more likely to be put at L-2 for lurking than a scum.

You could be a townie getting run up by scums. But what if you're also scum getting bussed? See the WIFOM? Why don't you analyze everyone's reasons for getting on your wagon and tell us which ones are the scums?

Both are possible, but that doesn't make this WIFOM. I said, townies are more likely to be put at L-2 because scums are on the same team and can act together to join the same bandwagon.

If a scum was being pushed to be put at L-2, it would take 5 real townies to put him at L-2. If a townie is being pushed to be put at L-2, and if 3 scums decide to join the bandwagon, it would only take 2 townies to put him at L-2. Of course things are not as simple as this in reality, but I do consider it a fact that townie is more likely to be bandwagon-ed more easily than a scum.

And my reaction to potential cop investigation? Again, I was not using WIFOM to defend myself. I was pointing out that either answer to Guardian's question would result in WIFOM.

Your first reaction to the accusation of the slip was this:

So you seem to think I made a slip here. Don't you think my saying this was too deliberate to be a slip?

As several people have pointed out, this is not only WIFOM, but a particularly bad example of it as well.

Dude, it was Guardian who said "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip ."

[Near]

I do see Macavenger + Dasquian scum partner.

[Macavenger]

I second Dasquain's motion,

You should probably be voting for Near then. By supporting Dasquian's motion, you're supporting Near's bandwagon but not voting for him, which is generally considered a scum tactic.

I also agree with Dasquian here, which should be obvious based on the way I've been calling for Near to be lynched for a while now.

Agree with Joudas that Darla's mistakes look more like "new player" than "scum" to me. It's certainly something to keep in mind, but Near is a far better lynch today.

[Near]

I second Dasquain's motion,

You should probably be voting for Near then. By supporting Dasquian's motion, you're supporting Near's bandwagon but not voting for him, which is generally considered a scum tactic.

I also agree with Dasquian here, which should be obvious based on the way I've been calling for Near to be lynched for a while now.

Agree with Joudas that Darla's mistakes look more like "new player" than "scum" to me. It's certainly something to keep in mind, but Near is a far better lynch today.

Unvote

Vote: Macvenger

so, you were a scum...

Also don't mind voting for Dasquian.

[Guardian]

This game is next on my re-read list.

[DarlaBlueEyes]

Near is seeming much less scummy to me (yes Watch me be totally wrong lol) but this game is incredibly slow, and we need a majority decision, which atm would be Near. Even if I do suspect Mac the most.

Dunno where our Mod is, but I believe Mac has three votes right now, which would mean he only would need one more to be tied as the majority rule. We need someone to reconsider their vote I think.

my vote stands.

[Singing Librarian]

And my reaction to potential cop investigation? Again, I was not using WIFOM to defend myself. I was pointing out that either answer to Guardian's question would result in WIFOM.

Your first reaction to the accusation of the slip was this:

So you seem to think I made a slip here. Don't you think my saying this was too deliberate to be a slip?

As several people have pointed out, this is not only WIFOM, but a particularly bad example of it as well.

Dude, it was Guardian who said "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip ."

No,no, no, no, no. That is not what concerns me, and I doubt it's what concerns anyone else either. The sentence that screams out at me is your one - "Don't you think my saying this was too deliberate to be a slip?" That is the scummiest, most problematic few words I've seen in the whole game. So you're saying that this was deliberate? That leaves various options.

1 - You're scum, and made a slip. You realise it's a dreadful slip, and instead of explaining it, you simply say you did it deliberately, though you don't explain why, in the hope that we assume it's a gambit by a member of the town.

2 - You're scum and deliberately made what looks like a slip, in order to fall back on the worst of all arguments, ie "surely I wouldn't have done something so stupid if I really was scum".

3 - You're town and made what looks like a slip, quite deliberately, for reasons unexplained.

However, if we go back far enough, it doesn't actually look like you made a slip at all, until Guardian makes his comment about investigating Dasquian. Not does it look like you said anything in a particularly deliberate way. Your explanations of it since I first highlighted that sentence of yours babble away into incoherency as well. I said:

Urgh. Don't you think that the sentence in bold is the most WIFOM-y sentence in the entire game? If your aim was to make yourself seem even more suspicious, then Mr Near, you have succeeded admirably.

And you responded:

This was the point of my argument . That is, if I was deliberate and careful, this would be WIFOM which would nullify what Guardian said initially: "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip ."

What? What? What does that actually mean? How does what you said nullify Guardian's comment, and why does it need to be nullified? I can think of no good reason why anyone allied to town would want such a comment nullified. You later argue that Guardian's comment was WIFOM, which is nonsense. If anything in this exchange smells of WIFOM, it's your comment. It's horrrible.

Also, this post:

quote="Near"]

I second Dasquain's motion,

You should probably be voting for Near then. By supporting Dasquian's motion, you're supporting Near's bandwagon but not voting for him, which is generally considered a scum tactic.

I also agree with Dasquian here, which should be obvious based on the way I've been calling for Near to be lynched for a while now.

Agree with Joudas that Darla's mistakes look more like "new player" than "scum" to me. It's certainly something to keep in mind, but Near is a far better lynch today.

Unvote

Vote: Macvenger

so, you were a scum...

Also don't mind voting for Dasquian.[/quote]

What about Macavenger's post can possibly justify the response "so, you were a scum..." There is no logic or sense to that which I can see. If you had posted any form of reasoning with your vote, this would seem much, much less scummy.

[Joudas]

Honestly, I don't see Macavenger being scum. The arguments against him don't seem very solid, and in reading his posts initially, scum was not what I took from them. Near's recent posts seem far more so. He's had a good bit of 'No, I didn't mean that...' 'What I really meant was...' - either he's making a lot of slip-ups, or he's choosing his words extremely poorly if getting his point across is his intention. Also, Near:

so, you were a scum...

Can you explain this, please, because I'm not seeing it.

Confirm vote

for Near, as he's looking like the guiltiest party at the moment.

[Claus]

Dunno where our Mod is,

Hey! I'm right here, counting your votes!

Vote Count!

Near 4 - Singing Librarian, Macavenger, Joudas, Dasquian
Macavenger 3 - DBE, Guardian, Near
DarlaBlueEyes 2 - Yosarian2, Coron
Guardian 2 - PyroDwarf, MBF

Not voting:

EvilGorrilaz

With 12 people alive and kicking, it takes 7 votes to lynch!

By the way, the deadline is on the 23rd, Wednesday, 8 am GMT (this week). Even if I'm not online at that exact time, any votes made past the deadline will not be counted.

Do you guys want anyone prodded?

[mikeburnfire]

Hmmn.

unvote, vote DarlaBlueEyes

[Joudas]

Hmmn. unvote, vote DarlaBlueEyes

What are you seeing that's making you do this? I ask because we're a few days from deadline, you moved your vote onto someone who is definitely the minority, so there must be a reason, and if you see something we don't, we need to know so we can adjust our votes accordingly if it's sensible, and verbally berate you if it's not.

[Coron]

Hmmn. unvote, vote DarlaBlueEyes

What are you seeing that's making you do this? I ask because we're a few days from deadline, you moved your vote onto someone who is definitely the minority, so there must be a reason, and if you see something we don't, we need to know so we can adjust our votes accordingly if it's sensible, and verbally berate you if it's not.

He moved his vote to someone with more votes than the person he was voting(not including his own vote). Also, deadline is no reason to vote someone you don't think is scum.

FOS to the Max: Joudas

I mean, if I weren't voting DBE I would definately be voting Joudas, and I would most certainly switch to him if the bandwagon were bigger than that for DBE.

[Dasquian]

This is ridiculous. 4 days from deadline and we have the votes split 4 ways, 3/3/3/2. We don't want to lynch blind. We don't want to miss a lynch. Ergo we need to jump on someone

fast

and get a claim. This game is turning into another Lost Boys as far as lynch-shyness goes.

Obviously my first choice is Near. He's dragged this day out and really should've been forced to claim far earlier than now. My second choice is Guardian, though I think he's a bad lynch right now. My third choice is DBE, who I agree seems more newbie than scummy. My last choice is Macavenger, who has set off no scum alarms at all and has newbie, maybe-scum and scum on his bandwagon.

FOS mbf

for putting us in this situation with not so much as a word of explanation. Everyone needs to chip in now as to who they're prepared to bandwagon, and whoever that person is needs to get a super-fast turnaround on a claim so we can react.

May I once again posit that Near is the only truly sensible bandwagon right now and that if two people join his bandwagon we can just about avoid a rushlynch.

[DarlaBlueEyes]

This is ridiculous. 4 days from deadline and we have the votes split 4 ways, 3/3/3/2. We don't want to lynch blind. We don't want to miss a lynch. Ergo we need to jump on someone

fast

and get a claim. This game is turning into another Lost Boys as far as lynch-shyness goes.

Obviously my first choice is Near. He's dragged this day out and really should've been forced to claim far earlier than now. My second choice is Guardian, though I think he's a bad lynch right now. My third choice is DBE, who I agree seems more newbie than scummy. My last choice is Macavenger, who has set off no scum alarms at all and has newbie, maybe-scum and scum on his bandwagon.

FOS mbf

for putting us in this situation with not so much as a word of explanation. Everyone needs to chip in now as to who they're prepared to bandwagon, and whoever that person is needs to get a super-fast turnaround on a claim so we can react.

May I once again posit that Near is the only truly sensible bandwagon right now and that if two people join his bandwagon we can just about avoid a rushlynch.

I agree there needs to be a bandwagon, and I must say Mike, your vote for me seems less than justified, but at the current time I have to ignore that and for the good of the town say,

unvote; vote: Near

[Coron]

This is ridiculous. 4 days from deadline and we have the votes split 4 ways, 3/3/3/2. We don't want to lynch blind. We don't want to miss a lynch. Ergo we need to jump on someone

fast

and get a claim. This game is turning into another Lost Boys as far as lynch-shyness goes.[/wuote] I don't want to miss a lynch, but I'd rather miss a lynch than lynch a townie(aka protown person not the specific role). I don't support the Near OR the Macavenger bandwagons, though Macavenger would be the prefered of the 2. I agree that Near should claim though, I'm with you on that, because it looks like we won't get anywhere today without it.

Obviously my first choice is Near. He's dragged this day out and really should've been forced to claim far earlier than now. My second choice is Guardian, though I think he's a bad lynch right now. My third choice is DBE, who I agree seems more newbie than scummy. My last choice is Macavenger, who has set off no scum alarms at all and has newbie, maybe-scum and scum on his bandwagon.

at this point a Guardian lynch is a little far-fetched, I doubt we'll have that big of a turn around in votes in the small time left.

FOS mbf

for putting us in this situation with not so much as a word of explanation. Everyone needs to chip in now as to who they're prepared to bandwagon, and whoever that person is needs to get a super-fast turnaround on a claim so we can react.

I don't really see why MBF's vote is suspicious at all, but whatever. I agree that people NEED to show up and say who they're willing to vote.

May I once again posit that Near is the only truly sensible bandwagon right now and that if two people join his bandwagon we can just about avoid a rushlynch.

You say this without any real backing... I don't really understand this.

[Coron]

I agree there needs to be a bandwagon, and I must say Mike, your vote for me seems less than justified, but at the current time I have to ignore that and for the good of the town say,

unvote; vote: Near

So the justification for *your* vote is that there needs to be a bandwagon, solid if I do say so myself, and the emphasis on "for the good of the town" makes me think your a little overdoing your acting job here.

[mikeburnfire]

Joudas, you seem to be angry. Is it because I've bumped your scumpartner up from being in the "minority" to "a viable candidate"?

Of course, Dasquian is expressing even more irritability at my move. "Putting us in a bad situation" just seems like his way of attacking me because he doesn't like me moving my vote from Guardian to DBE.

I don't want Near lynched. I'd like to pressure DBE more.

[Guardian]

unvote, vote DarlaBlueEyes

Pressure cat is pressuring.

[Singing Librarian]

Of the people who currently have votes, I obviously prefer Near as lynch target. However, as Coron has asked who we'd be willing to vote for if needed at deadline, I have to say that the only other one I'd be happy voting for at present is DBE, and I think she's much less likely scum than Near. Her mistakes seem like genuine new-ness to me so far, whereas Near just looks like backpedalling scum.

[Guardian]

Alright, well obviously to protect myself, I am going to

vote:Near

Self preservation first!

Is just so blatant...

Upon re-read, I'm really not sold on lynching Near.

I'd prefer Macavenger or Dasquian.

DBE is a close but significantly behind third preference.

unvote vote: Macavenger

DBE, you will probably get my vote at the end of the day if it is between you and Near.

So don't think I'm letting off .

[Coron]

Alright, well obviously to protect myself, I am going to

vote:Near

Self preservation first!

Is just so blatant...

Upon re-read, I'm really not sold on lynching Near.

I'd prefer Macavenger or Dasquian.

DBE is a close but significantly behind third preference.

unvote vote: Macavenger

DBE, you will probably get my vote at the end of the day if it is between you and Near.

So don't think I'm letting off .

I am not sold on the Macavenger vote. Explanation?

[Joudas]

Joudas, you seem to be angry. Is it because I've bumped your scumpartner up from being in the "minority" to "a viable candidate"?

Yes, that's it, it couldn't possibly have been a legitimate question asked for the reason I stated when I asked it.

I was asking for the reasoning behind your vote, and you still haven't provided it.

I, too, am still not sold on Macavenger. Or DBE, for that matter.

[Guardian]

He's been of one mind pushing the Near lynch, in great part due to Near's "lurking", which I find more fair to classify as "inactivity".

His other main target of suspicion has been me. He attacked me, voted me, unvoted but still said I was suspicious -- up until the post where I said that he was probably town.

Then, he made 323, right after I said he was probably town, and said

I'm also totally confused by post 301. Despite seeing several things in it I shouldn't like (buddying with me, radical change of posting style, conclusion that duck = scum that I'm not sold on), I get hit with this overwhelming townvibe when I read it. Very confusing.

I'm reasonable, and that change of heart could be true and coincidental.

However, when I recently say I'm suspicious of him for his possibly knowing for a fact that I'm town in this game, he changes his stance in 392, now saying he's somewhat suspicious of me again.

So when I find him townlike... I'm townlike, giving an overwhelming town vibe... when I make a case against him... I'm not?

That seems to be the general pattern from my POV.

Then, there's the logical slip I pointed out, that seems highly indicative to me that he knows I'm town in this game, because he wondered if I was pointing out something as a newbie town tell "for his benefit" -- 'in order to look like I consistently do this as pro town' -- 'so I look pro-town in the other game'.

His trend of buddying with me/finding me suspicious when I find him, his logical slip that indicates to me he knows I am town in this game, and his one-minded attack of Near, who's play (at least read in isolation, thus ignoring timing) seems pretty reasonable, make me question his motives.

[Macavenger]

Looking over the deadline rules, Near is the only bandwagon I'm willing to support currently. It's four to lynch at deadline, and it seems like Dasquian, Joudas, Librarian and I are all pretty committed to seeing Near strung up, so I don't think we're going to have any no lynch issues, which is the only thing that would make me even consider any of these other wagons right now. Obviously I won't support my own, I don't think Dasquian is likely to be scum, and DBE's play reads newbie far more than scum. Not saying she's confirmed innocent by any means, but she's a bad Day 1 lynch unless there's no other decent target, which there is. I'd rather vote for Coron, MBF, EG, or Guardian than DBE currently, in roughly that order. None of them have wagons currently though, so they're more suspects for tomorrow for me at this point.