Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[petroleumjelly]

Correction: Given that the site was down, an extension is necessary here. The new deadline is

January 11, 9:59 pm CDT

.

[destructor]

desctructor Post #426:

Votes Nat and says "Because I don't know what else to do with my vote." That struck me as odd then and it strikes me as odd now, because it seems very listless and even potentially lazy and I don't really see those as destructor traits.

There was nothing to be gained in keeping my vote on CC. I wasn't going to vote CR, and neither did I want him lynched. I was okay with a Nat lynch. So I voted Nat.

desctructor Post #449:

He seems to be saying he's okay with a Nat mislynch because he was a) the least pro-town and b) could have been the traitor. I can understand a) but b) bothers me.

The Traitor comment was in response to MM's question to me.

desctructor Post #505:

More wishy-washiness and not a lot of real content here. A couple questions, one good point, but the rest is all very unsolid.

I said a number of things in this post. What did you find wishy-washy? What was the good point?

I think the CC case has some merit but it took other people talking about CC in order for me to feel that way. I mostly have a gut feeling forming (which is new, by the way, as of re-reading to do this post) but that's not enough for me to act on.

Is that good gut or bad gut? Leaning town/scum? On CC?


A few of the points you bring up are vague, and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say to them. Like the comment about day-time abilities pinging.. something. You also make a special note of aggressiveness without any clear indication of what you think this means. I'm okay with people acting on feelings and gut, but you've used the terms without explaining what it is they're making you think. This makes it hard for me to respond to you.

Also, I assume you missed my latest post (545) at the end of which I said I was going to get a reread done.

I don't deny that I haven't contributed as much as I normally would, which was largely due to how much time I could commit to ms. Since the site was down for the last few days, I wasn't able to finish my reread either. That'll come later today. That said, I'm very comfortable with keeping my vote on CC.

[CarnCarn]

Well I'm going to focus on those four. To start off, I'll order them from scummiest to least scummiest:

CarnCarn
ClockworkRuse
Destructor
Urza

CC- When lookng back at vote records, CC seemed to hop on and off all the major wagons. When the wagon seemed to plateau, CC seemed to jump off. At the end of yesterday, CC was on the wagon that would have been lynched until Ort unvoted minutes before deadline hit.

I think CC has the best chance to be scum and therefore...

Vote: CarnCarn

Wait... I was on a wagon that didn't lead to yesterday's lynch of a townie (in fact, I was pretty opposed to it, like you), who never even claimed a role, so I'm more likely to be scum for that?

You were on a wagon in which I think that you thought was going to be the final wagon. This supports my reasoning (and is why I have it last in my reasonings) that you were trying really hard to get anybody lynched.

That's garbage. Nat would have been much easier to lynch if I wanted to lynch just anyone.

Hopping on and off wagons is not a real scumtell at all, either. If anything, it shows active scumhunting, or just aggressive playstyle.

That's a matter of opinion and circumstances. I think you were aggressive, yes, but I think your reason to be aggressive was to get a lynch.

So what? How does that make me more likely to be scum?

Also, can you point to specific examples of where I "jumped off" when wagons started to "plateau"? If you look closely enough, I actually unvoted when CR had 4 votes and Urza had 4 votes

Which vote count was that?

I don't remember exactly; I'm going off of your summary table. I could look it up if you don't believe it, but I think you've already done the work yourself.

(making them "not lynchable" (at deadline) by your definition), so that's not hopping off when the wagons were stalling at all, since my unvotes were what apparently caused the stalling you're talking about.

My reasonings were directly from the post counts that I posted. From those, when you made CR unlynchable, CR went from 4 to 5 votes through vote counts 6-8. In this I find it stalling as the momentum deterorated, especially in vote count 9 when MM jumps off which surely marked the end of the momentum. My whole case about you is really that you are really trying to get anybody lynched.

MM jumped off, but CR still had 4 votes at the time, I believe (enough to be lynched at deadline). If I really wanted to get anyone lynched, why would I have jumped off that wagon so quickly? Your accusation is inconsistent with my actions.

Don't have much time now, but with deadline looming I felt answering your defense deserved at least some time to avoid losing time later.

[destructor]

That is my feeling about town lists in general, but, if you think about it, it's a way for the Traitor to communicate with mafia ("hey guys, these are pretty townie looking people, you might want to think about NKing them")

in this game

.

I don't believe that this is what you were thinking when you FOS'd Axelrod and rofl.

3. Where have I suggested that I wanted to lynch Urza? I am not prepared to take a position on this yet. I think it's obvious that that was what you were trying to get me to say in your initial question on the topic. I.e., you created an argument against me then tried to get me to act in a way to support it. If you really thought I was trying to set lynches up, why would you have needed to ask me those questions?

I gave you a chance to clarify what you meant but you choose to just attack me for asking the questions. I pointed out what I felt was a contradiction in what you said (there must be scum on the CR wagon; Urza is town to me, CC is scum; then I asked, what if I'm not? does your initial belief still hold? you choose to just ignore answering that at all, which suggested to me that I was probably on to something about you)

What was there to clarify? I've said since day 1 that I think scum were on CR's wagon. It looked to me like you were trying to get me to

put in stone

something that I couldn't possible know for certain barring an investigation and then use that to accuse me of setting lynches up.

CC is pretty obvScum, guys.

For what, again? You didn't answer the question from my previous post, asking what I've done makes me scum.
If you're talking about the FoSing stuff, that's pure BS and I think everyone sees that. It's clearly a way for cross-communication, which I, as scum, would have no need to speak up about and discourage as I've done.

You're play makes me think you're more likely to be scum than town. I don't believe you're being sincere about the FOSes and that your explanation for them is contrived. I think a townie would have been more likely to say, "Yes, you're right, FOSing them makes no sense." Instead, you've backtracked and tried to justify yourself. You wagon-hopped yesterday. You assumed that Urza had a guilty on you. You tried to set me up. I conclude that you are most likely to be scum.

[CarnCarn]

I don't believe that this is what you were thinking when you FOS'd Axelrod and rofl.

Why not? Don't you think it's possible anti-town behavior? I suggested that's what I thought it was quite early. No, I didn't come out and say exactly what I said above, but I FoSed for anti-town behavior. What's contrived about that explanation? Why does FoSing for what I thought was anti-town "make no sense"?

You wagon-hopped yesterday.

I hopped from CR to Caboose to CR; look at Batt's vote analysis and you'll see that I unvoted them in positions that scum are not likely to unvote.

You assumed that Urza had a guilty on you.

Blatant misrep - I never thought he was a cop. Not much more to say about this one.

You tried to set me up.

I asked you a hypothetical question which you gave a very politically-correct answer. A townie would have responded with more conviction.

[ClockworkRuse]

Re-reading/posting tomorrow. I just found out the site was back up.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

Just checking in right now, I'll have a post later today.

[Battousai]

Well I'm going to focus on those four. To start off, I'll order them from scummiest to least scummiest:

CarnCarn
ClockworkRuse
Destructor
Urza

CC- When lookng back at vote records, CC seemed to hop on and off all the major wagons. When the wagon seemed to plateau, CC seemed to jump off. At the end of yesterday, CC was on the wagon that would have been lynched until Ort unvoted minutes before deadline hit.

I think CC has the best chance to be scum and therefore...

Vote: CarnCarn

Wait... I was on a wagon that didn't lead to yesterday's lynch of a townie (in fact, I was pretty opposed to it, like you), who never even claimed a role, so I'm more likely to be scum for that?

You were on a wagon in which I think that you thought was going to be the final wagon. This supports my reasoning (and is why I have it last in my reasonings) that you were trying really hard to get anybody lynched.

That's garbage. Nat would have been much easier to lynch if I wanted to lynch just anyone.

Hopping on and off wagons is not a real scumtell at all, either. If anything, it shows active scumhunting, or just aggressive playstyle.

That's a matter of opinion and circumstances. I think you were aggressive, yes, but I think your reason to be aggressive was to get a lynch.

So what? How does that make me more likely to be scum?

Also, can you point to specific examples of where I "jumped off" when wagons started to "plateau"? If you look closely enough, I actually unvoted when CR had 4 votes and Urza had 4 votes

Which vote count was that?

I don't remember exactly; I'm going off of your summary table. I could look it up if you don't believe it, but I think you've already done the work yourself.

(making them "not lynchable" (at deadline) by your definition), so that's not hopping off when the wagons were stalling at all, since my unvotes were what apparently caused the stalling you're talking about.

My reasonings were directly from the post counts that I posted. From those, when you made CR unlynchable, CR went from 4 to 5 votes through vote counts 6-8. In this I find it stalling as the momentum deterorated, especially in vote count 9 when MM jumps off which surely marked the end of the momentum. My whole case about you is really that you are really trying to get anybody lynched.

MM jumped off, but CR still had 4 votes at the time, I believe (enough to be lynched at deadline). If I really wanted to get anyone lynched, why would I have jumped off that wagon so quickly? Your accusation is inconsistent with my actions.

Don't have much time now, but with deadline looming I felt answering your defense deserved at least some time to avoid losing time later.

To avoid more bolding/underlining/etc....

1) But the CR lynch was coming to fruitation at the end of the day. If both Ort and Destructor did not change their votes, CR would have been lynched.

2) It makes you more likely to be scum because I find it more likely that scum would try and lynch ANYONE. Emphasis on ANYONE.

3) Ok, but you have to look at the actual vote counts to notice when there is a plateau and not just the summary. I already explained the unvoting of CR, but the unvoting of Urza is different. You unvoted Urza after 2 vote counts. You were the second to unvote him after people (myself and Mizzy at the top of my head) called suspicion onto that wagon.

4)When the deadline was retracted, I think that you thought the wagon wasn't going into fruitation, even with the bare minimum votes required, so you went with a wagon that might come to fruitation due to a policy of lynching active lurkers. Then when Caboose actually starts to scumhunt your main reason is gone and you have to unvote. Then when deadline comes close again you go back to your CR vote. (this is all page 9 and 10 for reference)

[Mizzy]

Oh hey, the site is back I'll catch up tomorrow; tonight my son is acting like he's been possessed by a screaming demon soul and I can't even think straight.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

Having a look at the vote counts from yesterday I noticed that two people, machiavellian-mafia and axelrod, were on the clockwork wagon at one point and ended up on the natirasha wagon.

What's the significance in moving from CR to Nat?

I am currently not really excited about any other wagon.

[destructor]

So, I didn't get that reread done, and to be honest, I don't think I will, at least before the day ends. I think my time will be better spent responding to CC.

Also, without rereading, I have MM and Mizzy down as CC's most likely scum-buddies right now based on MM giving CC a pass for the FOS thing and Mizzy 'missing' my case on him. MM needs to die asap if CC flips scum.

I don't believe that this is what you were thinking when you FOS'd Axelrod and rofl.

Why not? Don't you think it's possible anti-town behavior? I suggested that's what I thought it was quite early. No, I didn't come out and say exactly what I said above, but I FoSed for anti-town behavior. What's contrived about that explanation? Why does FoSing for what I thought was anti-town "make no sense"?

Point by point:
• Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing.
• I can understand and appreciate FOSing someone for doing something anti-town that might allude to scummy intentions.
• So, there is a gap between what is anti-town and what is scummy.
• What you FOSed Axelrod and rofl for did not bridge this gap and your attempt at demonstrating that there was one - that one of them might have been the Traitor trying to help the Mafia choose a night kill - is a humongous reach.
• On top of that, I see no indication that this was even part of your thought process when you made the FOSes in the first place, which implies that you were backtracking when you suggested the Traitor theory.

You assumed that Urza had a guilty on you.

Blatant misrep - I never thought he was a cop. Not much more to say about this one.

?

I expected him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me, because that was what I thought he was suggesting...

You tried to set me up.

I asked you a hypothetical question which you gave a very politically-correct answer. A townie would have responded with more conviction.

Based on what?

And I

didn't

answer your question, so political correctness, whatever it means in this context, doesn't come into the picture. I thought it was obvious that I ignored your question and called you scum instead. I saw were you were going and didn't want to go down that path, but you went there anyway.

I would have to look at your vote changes from Day 1 again to see what you mean. My issue with the vote changes was how they happened rather than when they happened. But really, I'm swayed by the irrational FOSes more than anything.

[Mizzy]

Wait, I'm a scumbuddy because I didn't see your case on CC? I didn't see YOUR case on CC because of how you posted it. And this whole suspicion on me because I couldn't agree with your case reinforces how I feel about your posting as of late; it's half-cocked and silly.

[destructor]

You spotted that line fine.

The disagreement you've expressed with me over the CC case has been vague and entirely non-specific. I found your initial comment on the case odd because you'd reduced the case to this:

Your case seemed to consist of "CC was voting CR." Why vote one of Urza or CC when they were both doing the same thing and you hadn't yet re-read Urza? Not an attack, that's a real question.

Even more, you make a point to ask a question about it, which tell me that you were apparently interested in an answer. But, you never followed it up even after I posted a response in my very next post. For a number of days you continue to post without a mention of it, despite me noting that I'm still waiting for an answer twice, and only refer to the CC case again on the last page in a way that is vague to the point of basically giving us nothing to work with at all.

And that isn't all. I responded to your last post and you neglected to respond to that but find the time to protest against me linking you to CC. I found that really interesting in light of this:

What I mean, is that CC I think may be a possibility but I really think the wagon there (with the exception of Bat) is a lazyish one. Possibly with some distancing going on.

Firsty, the wagon is lazy, so he might not be scum. But then maybe those scummy people who are pushing it are actually

bussing

CC. That is, a weak defence of CC followed by a mention of

distancing

to cover the base when CC flips scum.

I'm really interested in hearing what it is that made you think that Urza, Batt or I were distancing because I'm really not seeing it.

[destructor]

The deadline is fast approaching.

@ MM, ort and ThAd

- Do you think the people you're voting for are going to get lynched today? We need 4 votes to lynch by deadline, no wagon has reached this and you're the only ones voting on your respective wagons.

@ Axelrod and CR

- You should probably be voting sometime soon...

Mod:

I just noticed that the last vote count was missing ThAd's Axelrod vote.

[CarnCarn]

Point by point:
• Anti-town and scummy are not the same thing.
• I can understand and appreciate FOSing someone for doing something anti-town that might allude to scummy intentions.
• So, there is a gap between what is anti-town and what is scummy.
• What you FOSed Axelrod and rofl for did not bridge this gap and your attempt at demonstrating that there was one - that one of them might have been the Traitor trying to help the Mafia choose a night kill - is a humongous reach.
• On top of that, I see no indication that this was even part of your thought process when you made the FOSes in the first place, which implies that you were backtracking when you suggested the Traitor theory.

I hate the anti-town =/= scum arguments. I really do. And they carry even less merit in this game when there is a townie working with the scum. The point is not that only Traitors can use town lists, but that both scum AND traitor can use them as a way for

cross

-communication.
This was certainly part of my thought process. I said very early that I don't like town lists because the people on them end up dead the next day. That's pretty much the condensed version of my explanation of town lists being possible method of cross-communication.
And really what is so scummy about FoSing Axel and rofl for this anyway? I never voted them, never pushed suspicion on them after the FoSes. Basically, the FoSes served their purpose of stopping town lists, which is what I wanted to see happen. You're pushing this absurd FoS theory so hard (and for so long, now), and with no one else agreeing, that I'm beginning to consider that you're just confused at this point, and not actually scum.

Regarding the cop thing, I never believed he was a cop because I don't think a cop would have acted the way he did. Therefore he could not have a real guilty on me. He could be making one up, however. Thus, expecting him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me doesn't mean that I actually thought he was a cop.

And I didn't answer your question, so political correctness, whatever it means in this context, doesn't come into the picture. I thought it was obvious that I ignored your question and called you scum instead. I saw were you were going and didn't want to go down that path, but you went there anyway.

Well, that

is

the politically-correct response (not answering the question because it's too much of a risk to commit one way or the other). I would expect a townie to be less afraid to say what they actually thought, instead of ignoring the question and calling the questioner scum for asking it. That's just based on standard mafia theory. Scum are more likely to be fencesitting than townies.

[Axelrod]

Quick reviews of CC and Destructor have me leaning more towards a Destructor vote at the moment. I really don't like the way he abandoned responsibility for the lynch between Nat. and CR. Basically - here I am going to vote this person which now ties the votes up and I'm going to let everyone else decide who to actually lynch.

CC might be scum, he's not been super-town, but there are a few things he said which have me wondering.

I know thAdmiral made a post about me with some horribly misguided vote attached to it also, but I haven't really looked it over yet. Maybe later. And he could still be scum too.

Did I mention that I think I'm getting worse and worse at this game as it goes along?

[Battousai]

CC: Why would anti-town =/= scum carry less merit? A traitor knows they are a traitor so they would behave as scum. Traitor should only take affect when a townie is killed and people are debating on whether they are the traitor or not.

[CarnCarn]

1) But the CR lynch was coming to fruitation at the end of the day. If both Ort and Destructor did not change their votes, CR would have been lynched.

So why do I need to be on that wagon if I thought he was going to be deadline lynched anyway? Would would I do that as scum? How does adding on to the CR wagon make me more likely to be scum?

2) It makes you more likely to be scum because I find it more likely that scum would try and lynch ANYONE. Emphasis on ANYONE.

Being aggressive, on day one, doesn't mean that you want to get everyone lynched. And you didn't say "anyone" in response to the point about aggressiveness. That comment was made separately.

3) Ok, but you have to look at the actual vote counts to notice when there is a plateau and not just the summary. I already explained the unvoting of CR, but the unvoting of Urza is different. You unvoted Urza after 2 vote counts. You were the second to unvote him after people (myself and Mizzy at the top of my head) called suspicion onto that wagon.

Just because it "plateaued" doesn't mean he wasn't going to get lynched. He still had the necessary votes to be lynched at deadline at the time.

4)When the deadline was retracted, I think that you thought the wagon wasn't going into fruitation, even with the bare minimum votes required, so you went with a wagon that might come to fruitation due to a policy of lynching active lurkers. Then when Caboose actually starts to scumhunt your main reason is gone and you have to unvote. Then when deadline comes close again you go back to your CR vote. (this is all page 9 and 10 for reference)

This is one big assumption from the start and it's based on nothing, really. Yes, I choose to jump off a wagon that would be lynched at deadline to become the second vote on a wagon because that was more likely to be the lynch /sarcasm.
I went back to pages 9 and 10 and your facts of the story are simply wrong:
Caboose only gets up to 3 votes within that page. MM first, then me, then ThAd (whose vote post, on reread, is REALLY scummy). He is never lynchable during that time. And do you really consider Caboose's post on page 9 "scumhunting"? He was just answering questions here and there after his long hiatus. Also, again, ThAd's unvote post is scummy and it actually does what you are accusing

me

of. Are you by chance confusing my posts with his?

After that point, though, CR was the better lynch in my view because I felt he was at least equally scummy and had provided more content and connections that we could look back at the next day to find good leads. That wouldn't have been nearly as possible with Caboose. Basically, like I said, the CR lynch provided more info.

[CarnCarn]

CC: Why would anti-town =/= scum carry less merit? A traitor knows they are a traitor so they would behave as scum. Traitor should only take affect when a townie is killed and people are debating on whether they are the traitor or not.

Yeah, but the scum don't know who the traitor is. He has to be careful not to get lynched or NK'd by his teammates. Therefore, he has to act anti-town (but not

too

anti-town, of course), and in fact he is not much better than scum at all (we just don't need to kill him to win). There is generally little incentive for townies to act anti-town (it being against their wincon and whatnot), and even less to in this game because it just draws suspicion on yourself that you might be the traitor, even if you get lynched/NK'd and flip town. In other games, alignment reveal puts anti-town behavior in context. In this game, it doesn't, and that's why anti-town behavior by townies is even worse here than in other games. And what do you mean by "only take affect"?

[petroleumjelly]

Day Two Vote Count: #5

3 CarnCarn (destructor, Urzassedatives, Battousai)
1 Axelrod (ThAdmiral)
1 destructor (CarnCarn)
1 Mizzy (ortolan)
1 ThAdmiral (Machiavellian-Mafia)

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline! Deadline is January 11, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 3 – Axelrod, ClockworkRuse, Mizzy

ortolan, ThAdmiral, and Urzassedatives have been prodded.

[ThAdmiral]

Having a look at the vote counts from yesterday I noticed that two people, machiavellian-mafia and axelrod, were on the clockwork wagon at one point and ended up on the natirasha wagon.

What's the significance in moving from CR to Nat?

Both ostensibly towns, and I think a scum would prefer to be on the one that was seeming not to be lynched.

The deadline is fast approaching.

@ MM, ort and ThAd

- Do you think the people you're voting for are going to get lynched today? We need 4 votes to lynch by deadline, no wagon has reached this and you're the only ones voting on your respective wagons.

Since no one really responded to my case then I don't think so.
I will consider moving my vote.

I know thAdmiral made a post about me with some horribly misguided vote attached to it also, but I haven't really looked it over yet. Maybe later. And he could still be scum too.

So you haven't read it but it's obviously "horribly misguided".

[Mizzy]

I need to be on LoA until Sunday due to work (all-day release tomorrow, fun fun fun! You guys can check monster.com to see what I been killing myself on the new site goes up tomorrow.)

[Axelrod]

I know thAdmiral made a post about me with some horribly misguided vote attached to it also, but I haven't really looked it over yet. Maybe later. And he could still be scum too.

So you haven't read it but it's obviously "horribly misguided".

I don't need to read it to know it's horribly misguided. Either that, or actively misleading. One of those 2 things.

The only question is whether you are pursuing it from a genuine town mindset or not.

[Battousai]

1) But the CR lynch was coming to fruitation at the end of the day. If both Ort and Destructor did not change their votes, CR would have been lynched.

So why do I need to be on that wagon if I thought he was going to be deadline lynched anyway? Would would I do that as scum? How does adding on to the CR wagon make me more likely to be scum?

You're just going around in circles around my main point. You wanted to get someone lynched. What's the best way to do that? Vote for them...

4)When the deadline was retracted, I think that you thought the wagon wasn't going into fruitation, even with the bare minimum votes required, so you went with a wagon that might come to fruitation due to a policy of lynching active lurkers. Then when Caboose actually starts to scumhunt your main reason is gone and you have to unvote. Then when deadline comes close again you go back to your CR vote. (this is all page 9 and 10 for reference)

This is one big assumption from the start and it's based on nothing, really. Yes, I choose to jump off a wagon that would be lynched at deadline to become the second vote on a wagon because that was more likely to be the lynch /sarcasm.
I went back to pages 9 and 10 and your facts of the story are simply wrong:
Caboose only gets up to 3 votes within that page. MM first, then me, then ThAd (whose vote post, on reread, is REALLY scummy).

1)

He is never lynchable during that time. And do you really consider Caboose's post on page 9 "scumhunting"? He was just answering questions here and there after his long hiatus. Also, again, ThAd's unvote post is scummy and it actually does what you are accusing

me

of. Are you by chance confusing my posts with his?

1) Missed the point again. I claimed you went to the wagon that had a good chance of going into fruitation (due to Caboose not contributing). When Caboose actually contributed (you like this term better than scumhunting?), you had to withdrawl your vote and go back to the largest wagon.

[ortolan]

The deadline is fast approaching.

@ MM, ort and ThAd

- Do you think the people you're voting for are going to get lynched today? We need 4 votes to lynch by deadline, no wagon has reached this and you're the only ones voting on your respective wagons.

Since no one really responded to my case then I don't think so.
I will consider moving my vote.

Same with me. I'm deciding whether I find destructor or CarnCarn scummier and will post soon.