Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[SerialClergyman]

Hmm.. that's a shame.. Is there a possibility of tweaking the setup and randomising the roles again? The same sort of thing happened in a game i was playing here

The mod just changed the setup and started from scratch, sent out new role PMs, re-confirmed everyone and away we went - is that a possibility?

[SerialClergyman]

Out of curiosity ekim, I've decided I disagree with most of your rules about claiming. There are plenty of times when an early claim is worthwhile (not the least of which is actually finding scum). In a limited reveal that might be even more important.

Plus in general claiming is what all the cool kids do. I seem to always be asking for massclaims earlier than everyone.

Big thanks to Bigbear for turning a revised setup around in 24 hours

I'm also going to regularly fail to put my vote at the bottom of the post. Just for future reference, I promise no trickery in that regard, I find such moves distasteful.

I'm voting sando because I'll never not enjoy it.

vote sando

[SerialClergyman]

You are a cop who has a guilty - what do you do?

[SerialClergyman]

I think we are still in the RVS with maybe a nod to the talk about meta/theory stage.

Ekim - fair enough. But even then, anyone with some results, even innocents or whatever should claim as soon as it hits l-1 IMO.

[SerialClergyman]

I'll drink to that!

[SerialClergyman]

I think my wagon is trying to tell me something.

Amished = famished
ekim = eating
Papa Zito = sounds like a pizza place.

famished, eating at Papa Zito's?

[SerialClergyman]

Vote hopping a bit nervously there amished. I want the game to go the distance, no giving away your scumminess too early...

[SerialClergyman]

You don't suck! No OMGUS here.. Just noting your edgy vote hopping.

I'm waiting for VP to vote me and I'll omgus the hell out of him

PS, did you realise that you just said you were voting me because you felt you should be on a wagon but before voting Sando you were

on my wagon

? What is your goal with your vote at the moment?

[SerialClergyman]

Your SILVER medal, young follower

[SerialClergyman]

Amished - how could you not have known you were voting for me - I specifically made a post about my wagon with your name included in the joke! ><

Also - where is everyone? You filthy chimps were all more active in the QT.

[SerialClergyman]

*slap*

Pay attention to joke posts, pay attention to vote counts and pay attention to where your vote is.

And get some sleep

[SerialClergyman]

Arg.

I went to write this post in trollspeak and had to stop myself.. that's so catchy..

So far I have no idea what I've done to attract votes, but I like early bandwagons in principle so I can't complain. I count 4 or 5 players all uselessly saying something like 'I await PZ's case with fervour', which might indicate a lack of desire to scumhunt rather than just a lack of desire to commit too early.

I don't think I've particularly done anything to NOT attract votes either, but that's not particularly high on my priorities at the moment.

[SerialClergyman]

Guess I'll wait and see if it's the same thing PZ is on---or if PZ even has anything at all. That's not to say I'll be sitting on my ass in the meantime.

Congrats on finding a way to say 'I'm awaiting PZ's case with fervour' while still directly addressing my point about scumhunting in the meantime lol

This is me on D1. Hello. I'm not very good at the whole jumping at shadows schtick. Having said that, you'll note I was the one who raised Amished's possible vote hopping, so I'd say I've at least done my share.

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry Raskol, I just don't operate that way on D1. I tend to try to find a couple of people who I wouldn't want to lynch and then be happy to lynch any of the rest. It's how I roll.

And it's not an excuse - it's challenging the idea that those who chase shadows to try to find scum D1 are more pro-town than those who are more realistic about how likely you are to find scum that way. If there's a way to consistently get a significantly better chance of hitting scum than random D1, it eludes me.

As for Amished's play, it's been edgy. He's attacked one target who couldn't defend himself (lurker) and as soon as he materialised he attacked a target where he could share responsibility (joining the wagon). Looks vaugely scummy to me. (but again, scumtells D1 suck)

[SerialClergyman]

I took my vote off of Sando before he "rematerialized", btw.

Point conceded, but it was still going after someone unlikely to defend himself.

I don't have many thoughts about other people, not really enough play has materialised. (I barely think it's worth commenting about you)

Raskol - I disagree fundamentally that you need chasing shadows scumhunting D1 to look for scum on D2. In fact, I think it obscures scum, because chasing shadows is EXACTLY what scum want to do. You can make anyone look scummy in a PBPA, yet people who do this are regarded as protown for no reason. Scum depend on being able to use such scumhunting to both get townies lynched and appear pro-town. And you can use town reads just as well as scum reads to determine alignment.

But in the end, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm telling you how I play the game, irregardless of your demands. If you don't like it and vote me because of it, you're playing badly, or at the very least policy voting someone for a very poor reason. If you disagree, fair enough, get on with the game.

[SerialClergyman]

He seems less edgy and is asking better questions.

Why are you pushing this issue? I've been about the most non-threatening person calling out a scumtell ever, constantly qualifying it with my overall concept of the early game being specifically not about finding scumtells and talking about how I think it's barely worth mentioning, yet you've still got a bee in your bonnet about it. What gives?

[SerialClergyman]

Yes, I think less edgy early means more likely to be town. This is from a very basic read as early scum = excited and overly conscious of themselves. Relaxed and settling into a long game = town. But it's vague. Pushy is not the same as edgy though.

I don't expect everyone to play like me and usually people don't. I've adopted a changing playstyle in order to evolve my previously useless D1 play.

Asking what is there to go off is a sillier question than it appears though. How do you scumhunt when there's no information? The RVS plus early votes and early meta opinions - these things will happen even if everyone adopts my playstyle.

In short - there's just as little solid information to go off whether the entire town uses your playstyle or mine.

As for judging me, imagine I was scum using this playstyle. I have to either name my scum mates as town D1 or risk getting them lynched semi-randomly. Plus you'll have my opinion and scumreads as they come. Sorry, but I'm not going to be changing how I play.

[SerialClergyman]

I am passive until I find something concrete. I rarely find something concrete on D1, so I'm often passive. That's probably the best way I can describe it.

Yes, the experience of the player involved does impact it, but that applies to any scumtell I think.

I think it would - I generally rarely bus and like to keep my scumteam intact. And even if you had to lose a scum member, you at least want to bus and get some town points for it. In that scenario, you wouldn't even get any town points for losing a partner. I think that a semi-random scum lynch in that manner would be a real hassle for scum.

[SerialClergyman]

Raskol, what you don't seem to be getting is that if I was searching for ridiculous scumtells on day 1 I'd be lying and faking scumhunting, and that doesn't help the town in the least. Generating noise is not the same as generating information.

I'm not excusing myself from scumhunting, I'm excusing myself from giving reads I don't have, or using evidence I don't believe in.

I'm surprised in particular at you because you JUST PLAYED a game with me when I was town when I had a similar approach and you saw that my approach alone picked up 3 people who looked protown which contained the 2 scum. You just saw how the standard play of following the trail of attacks and defences and looking for 'pro-town scumhunting' allowed almost everyone to essentially clear Hoopla and Cyberbob until the claims.

[SerialClergyman]

Amished - fair enough. I usually don't like the overdefensive scumtell but people who go overboard trying to slap down someone's read of them look more concerned about their own safety than doing something more worthwhile, especially this early when there isn't any real danger. But if you're looking for hypocrisy, I'm all for that.

Don't have any town reads atm.

[SerialClergyman]

No offence taken - I'm not saying D3 is the same as D1, I'm saying you in particular know that I have a different playstyle that gets results, and you in particular would know that your conventional approach fails while dealing with good scum players because they do exactly what you're telling me to do - pick at half-tells and language slips. Noone using your methods for sucmhunting as outlined to me now would have made the leap that I made. So I'm happy with my style.

Zzz. I'm aware I don't have to be certain, but I also should be more likely than random.

Nor, as you'll note, am I staring at anything and saying zero. You have a full account of my reads and an open and honest account of what I'm thinking but I refuse and will continue to refuse to make things up to satisfy what you feel should happen on D1.

Amished - fair enough on your reasoning. I've only ever been lynched as town, so I've got the opposite problem . In fact, my playstyle change was done specifically to improve my town play, which started out pretty mediocre while my scum play started very well. I think I now have a playstyle that makes me more likely to get lynched and more likely to catch scum, which is definitely favouring my town play rather than my scum play.

And, in case you couldn't tell by my comments so far, you're not getting a vote on someone because you asked me to.

(It's also worth noting that at the moment there is a bandwagon on me for unspecified purposes and a bunch of people questioning my playstyle and threatening the possibility of easier lynches - none of that is particularly inspiring to my pro-town reads.)

[SerialClergyman]

I'll try to make this the last time I say this.

I will not conjure up a case, reads or stances because someone wants me to or because someone feels the need to judge me. I will let everyone know my case, reads or stances when I make them.

I don't think you or Raskol realise is that what you are asking me to do is lie about my reads. You will get them in thread when they are worth saying.

[SerialClergyman]

By the way, I view your method of taking the strongest evidence you have and using it as a 'small crack to work with to create a larger one' is 100% exactly how NOT to play as a townie.

What that says to me is you take some piece of evidence that is in all probability null, you then use that to pressure someone until they look more scummy (not hard) and then you have someone who seems scummy!

[SerialClergyman]

I do believe that the wedge theory suffers inherently from confirmation bias in general, and I KNOW that I suffer confirmation bias when I use it. My early games as town are a testament to that. Hence my change

[SerialClergyman]

If you have to fake an opinion, then we're already a step ahead of where we were.

I think that's black-and-white wrong.

Zorblag's post (when I asked him for his opinion) was perfectly fine, it allows us to talk about more stuff in the game

I think you've been doing nothing but talk about me all game? Go off, be free, I allow you to talk about whatever you wish!

My opinion on you is that you're liklier to be scum than average but not by much, mostly because of what I've already raised about your edginess. Your reaction to my playstyle could be opportunistic, but in reality I draw this kind of reaction in most games I play so I'd have to say null on the balance.

My opinion on Raskol is that he is engaged in a theory debate which I can see him having as town or scum. He has very strong views on how to play the game to maximal effect, views which we've at least partially clashed on before. It's possible he's scum looking for a way to lynch me without having much responsibility (hence the 'I don't care about meta or whether you do this as town, if you're acting like this I'm more likely to lynch you' talk) but I see no reason to think that's more likely than him just genuinely disagreeing totally with how I play D1.

My opinion on Zorblag is he is being particularly reasonable and intelligent in his questions and responses but again, I can see both pro-town and pro-scum motivations for it.

[SerialClergyman]

In fact, there really is a certain irony about mentioning Zorblag's post as worthy of talking about after a series of 10+ posts specifically talking about me, in a post that is specifically addressed to and about me.

[SerialClergyman]

@SC: It's not wrong cause if you're making up something, it won't look right and scum have to make up scummy if they don't want to buss.

What if I'm town without a good idea on who is scum yet? How do you determine what made up case is coming from town dealing with an unreasonable demand vs scum trying to get a townie lynched?

Yes, Troll's response brought up more discussion about you, but at the very least, it's allowed him to get a town read on you. I am leaning that way as well, so the discussion helped the town. Posts don't have to accuse somebody of being scum to be helpful.

Whose point are you making with this post? Hasn't it me who's been advocating getting reads without needlessly accusing people of being scum on low evidence and hasn't it been you and raskol who have been advocating forcing people to to make accusations, even if the evidence was only minor?

[SerialClergyman]

In the last 1.5 days, the following people haven't posted.

1. AGar
3. ekiM
4. ODDin
5. Ojanen
6. Papa Zito
9. Scien
11. VP Baltar

I'm starting to think this game is a practical joke played on us and they're all snickering in a Quicktopic somewhere wondering how long it'll take us to work it out.

[SerialClergyman]

unvote, vote ODDin

[SerialClergyman]

Of your post, I didn't like:

1) Your overreaction to my mild calling out the amount of people not participating, with your name being one of them.
2) Your supporting of the narrative that I've done nothing when I've been both a focal point of discussion and an active participant in it.
3) Your goody two-shoes mafia theory spouting.
4) Your failure to act on your goody two shoes mafia theory spouting by providing much of content outside of mafia theory.

[SerialClergyman]

Good solid post from Baltar above.

ODDin - Spouting goody two shoes town meta does not make you town. The very fact that you tried to invoke the too townie fallacy proves my point. Saying things like 'information is good for the town' and 'discussion is important' is just step one basic theory. It's so easy to say stuff like that as scum and try to pass it off as being a Good Town Citizen when it fact it tells the town nothing it doesn't already know and provides no useful data to look at.

It's like people who say 'I think we should be lynching the person with the best chance of being scum!'

Raskol was engaged in a theory debate with me about how to play D1. He wasn't assuming that I wasn't contributing, he said he'd be more likely ot lynch me if I wasn't scumhunting. Your posts made it sound like there was no participation.

Also, you do realise that if nothing happens D1 then D2 becomes the new D1, right?

Well, at least that got you to do something.

Clearly, given I've probably got the most posts in the game, this narrative is false.

And an overreaction is an overreaction. I made the point that 2/3 of the town hadn't posted in 1.5 days in a 2 day prod game. This made for quite lonely playing for the other four of us. You then seemed to take it as a personal attack about your time management. I think that's more likely than average to be a foil. After all, as you say in your goody two shoes manner, more info is pro-town, so people who are hanging on to post just before being prodded should be scrutinised, yes?

[SerialClergyman]

(I got simulposted - I meant VP's first content post on this page was good. That one was meh.)

I forgot to say since when do you base your scumhunting on whether or not discussion is lively?

[SerialClergyman]

Reaching point of diminishing returns.

Overreaction to being called out = awareness of how you're viewed and putting effort into rejecting it = scummy.

Also - seems you've found time now there's a vote on you.

Spouting goody-two-shoes theory = sounding town without doing anything that is pro-town or anti-scum = scummy.

[SerialClergyman]

Ok, maybe my post about activity came off as harsher than intended. I was somewhat frustrated that we have a lot of good active players and yet only about 1/3 of people were posting. I expected that given 48 hours was prod-able, there would be more activity.

I am not the activity warden, I've lurked through D1 before, and not posted for a while before, I don't mean to be overly critical, I just felt the game could use more participation than just the 4 players who were (lets face it) writing semi-walls about theory that noone else would read.

AGar - unlike Sando, I don't have a problem with giving my reads. What I object to is people asking me to tell them who is scum or who is town when I don't have a good enough idea yet. It makes me feel like I have to take a stance I don't believe in, or 'make up' reasons why they are scum, and I know for a fact doing that leads me to tunnelling and playing badly. So if someone asks me a question I don't have an answer to, like tell me who is scum, or place your vote on someone non-random, I can't give them what they want. Believe me, you'll hear a lot about my reads throughout the game.

[SerialClergyman]

Zorblag, any thoughts on alignments? So far you've called me officially null and not much else, unless I missed something?

[SerialClergyman]

I was very tempted to put zorblag on it but I just finished a game with a player who reminds me of his early posts - very intelligent and reasonable. There was one reason that sort of gave her away by mid game though, so I'm waiting to see where he goes with it.

As for backing off, I haven't got enough to push on yet. Need some wagons on people who aren't me.

[SerialClergyman]

Mmm good point.

I guess I wouldn't want him lynched, no.

[SerialClergyman]

Out of curiosity, what's the PZscum thought process to that bit of play? What was he trying to achieve?

And amished, thoughts on that development?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry Zorblag, you are completely correct. My bad.

@ all - I'm still waiting for a convincing reason why PZ would do what he did as scum any more than he would as town. To be honest, if he wanted to cover his tracks he could just make a lame playstyle/theory case if he wanted to dodge suspicion over the expectations around his 'case'. He didn't, admitted it was a general wagon on nothing and that reads town to me.

Amished - you watch me push for an early massclaim if I think it's worthwhile. I think VP has been in at least 2 games where i rammed a massclaim request down a town's throat. People are too scared of massclaims, and often of claims in general, imo.

I've been looking at your scumhunting and noting a light pattern - PZ was scummy because if the wagon took off he'd be in a position to accuse someone on it. SC is scummy because he was setting the groundwork for tryign to force a claim. Do you usually look for these kinds of tells on D1? The 'setting up a situation where you'd later be able to do something scummy' type tells?

[SerialClergyman]

VP - Meh on your PZ case. If he was serious about his attack on you I imagine he would have said he was voting me for my opinion on claiming and then his attack on you would have stood. The fact he admitted even in the face of your criticism that his attack was just a bandwagon says he's unlikely to be scum to me. I appreciate that acting as it it's serious and then turning up days later saying it absolutely wasn't isn't cool, but I don't think it's likely to come from scum.

As for Sando - he has an abrasive argument style at times that I think is on display at the moment. He's an intelligent player who isn't likely to totally lose his marbles as scum. His last post is an excellent example of what I mean - it seemed he was just arguing for the sake of it, or maybe being scummy while defending a scummy playstyle, but when Amished attacked him for pushing for town reads from me he gave a perfectly logical dissertation of why he was doing it and the benefit it would give town. Same earlier when pointing out my stance on Zorblag meant although I wasn't saying directly he was town, I was implying I wouldn't want him lynched. These are both solid ways of approaching finding out my alignment.

In short, look past the words (and his words will generally do their best to catch your eye ) and look at the position and the scumhunting, I think that's the key to finding sando's alignment.

As it stands, I'm thinking town at the moment.

[SerialClergyman]

I think this comes down to differences in how we scumhunt. I don't see the first bit as scummy because I don't understand why he'd do it. There's no reason to invent a case this early. All scum have to do is hang around pointing out mild 'tells' until the most outspoken person gets lynched. It just doesn't read as scum play to get all incensed about somethign made up. He did admit that he was wrong, btw, although he did evolve the argument, that's true.

I did too. Amished saying he ignored jokes around the time he didn't notice there was a vote count on page and he didn't notice that he was

re

joining my wagon not joining it was scummy. You saying you were 'ignoring' PZ's posts till he came up with content was an entirely different point, it was about forcing PZ to post content, not about genuinely ignoring anything.

Still not seeing it.

[SerialClergyman]

I'll lynch amished or odddin!

And... GO!

[SerialClergyman]

Also, as an aside, I massively approve of that post. Made me laugh, made me cry - made me

feel

...

[SerialClergyman]

Err sorry to triple post but the above wasn't sarcasm... I laughed on the bus so loudly the person sitting next to me stared at me till I moved seats.

[SerialClergyman]

Hmm, a case is goign to be a stretch, but I'll try to give you more than the main reason which is gut.

Edgy voting at start,

Changed reasoning for pushign SC wagon from 'because it was there' to pushing it because he thoguth I was scum.

Pushed SC wagon when he thought PZ was leading it, when PZ pulled out he left, ignoring the 'tell' he 'found' when he thought PZ was leading it.

Odd disconnect between keeping quiet about said 'tell' and then in the reveal saying it was SC's stance on claims, which was hardly worth keeping quiet about, given it was so obvious.

That wasn't worded well, but I'll se if I can demonstrate what i mean:

I believe that PZ is entirely serious; and the reason for my vote is both for bandwagon purposes and because

I'm pretty sure I see where PZ is going with his accusation; and it's a good reason.

I hesitate to fulling state why SC is scummy; to not give PZ an out if his accusations are bogus but it's a good place to start.

Oh, I'm eagerly awaiting his case as well. I'm pretty sure I found out what he was looking at, but not going to jump the gun.

Then when PZ said he wasn't serious he summarises thusly, in a post that barely mentions me:

My vote on SC was initially due to wanting a bandwagon (and forgetting the VC on the page); and

I thought due to his post on page 3 that he was going to set up a push for a cop claim early on and try to dismiss his action as not scummy because he brought it up D1

.

So not only did he not continue with his own thoughts once PZ wasn't leading the charge, he also barely mentioned what it even was. And the tell he mentioned (my stance on claims) was so patently obvious I don't know why he felt the need to keep secret about it in the first place, and the main thing he found scummy about it was that in a couple of days I MIGHT use it as a platform to do somethign scummy THEN. Remember this was a tell he said was a 'good reason' to be pushign a case.

Then he uses a similar 'future' argument to PZ (he might have used his bogus wagon to accuse people on it of wagoning without reason) which is a pretty rubbish statement all around.

Then finally he attacks sando, who as we've discussed I think looks scummier than he is, and is a bit of a whipping boy at the moment.

Voteworthy?

[SerialClergyman]

Arg

I hate shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring. (you never NEED something to get you out of the RVS - ever had a game which stayed in the RVS for weeks because noone decided to do some stupid stunt?)

Loose vs tight playing is a poker term - playing with the best cards and rarely bluffing is playing tight, playing with a wider variety of hands and bluffing quite a lot is loose play. I imagine in mafia tight play means being careful with your votes, concentrating on obviously scummy things, where playing loose is throwing your vote around and pushing people all over the shop.

I like loose play and generally approve of it, but I'm not liking the double motivations here.

SC tinged my radar with his gameplay shenanigans, so I picked him as my Day 1 bandwagon.

10. SerialClergyman - People are attacking SC over playstyle nonsense and it's getting old. SC is townish at the moment.

And:

I assure you the SerialClergyman wagon is SRS BSNS.

Getting the town moving and starting up pressure on someone is indeed SRS BSNS.

It looks to me to like there's some historical revisionism going on.

VP - why make me do a case on Amished and then totally and completely ignore it? *slap*

[SerialClergyman]

No worries - don't need to go through it point by point either, general opinion when you get a chance is fine.

[SerialClergyman]

Link?

[SerialClergyman]

Sif - you're well into content within a week.

But weird game - thanks for digging it up for me.

[SerialClergyman]

Sando's method to extract my alignment makes sense regardless of how much he knows me.

But for the record, I've known him since the start of high school, about 12 years, living with him for about 3 years of that time in a couple of shared houses when we were in uni.

As for mafia, we've both only ever played on MS, starting about march this year and although I've discussed some of his games and actively watched them, this is only our second game together, the first being Mafia 102 in which I died N1.

[SerialClergyman]

I'm picking up what Ojanen is putting down.

I think I'm still voting ODDin, so I'm switching.

unvote, vote Amished

[SerialClergyman]

@SC: Your vote wasn't on me yet? What took you so long to finally place it, and why after OJ posted?

I was happy with my ODDin vote, although I mentioned to VP earlier I'd be happy switching to you. Since my read of PZ and by extension ODDin got muddled and yours got clearer, I went with you.

Speaking of which, all you crazy kids who are looking for a wagon with actual reasons behind it, come on in, the water's fine...

[SerialClergyman]

"What's the motivation of saying that you push for massclaims early?" I don't see how the answer can be anything *but* "I didn't want myself to look scummy when I'll likely push for it by talking about it now".

Because ekim came along with ground rules on how to claim that I disagreed with? What was your motivation for saying that you don't believe in meta? Not for some elaborate dismissal of all meta arguments against you, presumably, but because there was a theory discussion which you had an opinion on.

[SerialClergyman]

Which really doesn't need to be asked via weird hypothetical vig powers.

Not quite true - the advantage of a vig shot is you don't need to convince anyone. So it's really more a question of who would you knock out of the game without needing any evidence or convincing.

[SerialClergyman]

Naturally, I shall kill the one I find scummiest.

Well, that's a poor option.

I'd kill the scummiest player who would be hard to lynch.

Imagine the player you thought was scummiest was l-1 with a lot of others asking him to claim. Would you use your vig on the scummiest player then?

[SerialClergyman]

As for me and sando - I believe sando to be town, I've told you why.

Awesome of you for asking me to give my town reads and then saying you think that my town read was heavily defending him and scummy.

I think a sando lynch is a bad lynch, I think people should move off of sando and preferably onto Amished.

[SerialClergyman]

Rrggh. This is why I was complaining about activity earlier, it's a pretty low info lynch. We all knew the activity rules before we started.

Lynch amished. He has much better chance of flipping scum, and his wagoners can't hide as easily. If Sando flips town like I think he will, everyone will all pat each other on the back and shrug saying it was inevitable but it's not, he actually hasn't done much that would benefit scum at all. All you people, pz included, who feel it's legitimate to start a wagon on nothing to see who jumps on - amished jumped on, not Sando. Plus when he did jump on, he said he saw the reason yet when pz lost interest he barely gave that reason a second thought.

He is a better lynch than Sando, get it done.

Oddin, I sound this way about my town reads because there is no point having a town read on someone who is lynched and flips town. Some wagons are just worse than others. There are better lynches than Sando.

[SerialClergyman]

[SerialClergyman]

That might be a bit ambiguous - I should explain that VP and I seem to be in a lot of games together, and I have a lot of respect for his ability, but we do seem to disagree quite a bit

I suppose it doesn't help that we haven't been the same alignment in a completed game yet.

Either way, to actually have him on my side is strangely disconcerting...

[SerialClergyman]

Troll will take Troll's share of responsibility for being early on your bandwagon and staying on it if your lynch happens.

Does this sound like a backhanded apology to anyone else? Kind of like 'I'm sorry that you feel upset over nothing' - a statement that actually conveys the opposite of what it's supposed to?

It looks to me like it's made more to highlight the fact that he was on the wagon early and stayed for a long time rather than show he's prepared to take responsibility.

How do you think your play has been so far, Zorblag?

Zorblag wrote:
It will make Troll sad though.

Ditto.

Double ditto.

More Amished votes please. Snappy irritable responses are not pro-scum behaviour.

PZ - given you're the one who actually USED the gambit, why aren't you voting any one (specifically Amished this close to deadline) who actually went for your gambit and joined your wagon on nothing?

[SerialClergyman]

** VERY UNOFFICIAL VOTE COUNT **

Sando (5) - Scien, Amished, Zorblag, Charlatan, raskol.

Amished (5) - Sando, Ojanen, SerialCleargyman, VP Baltar, ODDin

7 to lynch.

[SerialClergyman]

I stole it from BigBear's last votecount and added/subtracted, so I stole his bad spelling as well

Besides, when people look at me they say clearly that guy goes to the gym, so it's an apt name

[SerialClergyman]

PZ to do list:

1) Vote Amished
2) Continue watching game.

[SerialClergyman]

Go on, all the cool kids are doing it!

But more seriously - why set up a gambit then ignore the results?

[SerialClergyman]

I'd appreciate it if noone hammered until PZ answered my question.

I'll be around right up to deadline, so don't worry about a no lynch.

[SerialClergyman]

Also, you won't get a claim, I think, he should be at work for another 4 hours.

[SerialClergyman]

So it only works if you push the wagon?

Doesn't it show that Amished is even MORE likely to jump on a weak case if you didn't even push it and he jumped on?

[SerialClergyman]

Ugh..

Essentially, you just said you opened the game with an accusation based on nothing and then flaked on that plan so any redeeming information that we would have recieved in exchange for you muddying the waters with rubbish is now forfeit.

That is epically frustrating, to be honest.

Anyway, I think we're at the end of the conversatio, so hammer away.

[SerialClergyman]

I'm not saying you

intended

to be this useless, but useless you have been.

All you've done is deliberately create a situation where information and motivation has been muddied and faked and you're rejecting any information that came out of that scenario. That's out and out anti-town.

I don't even like the plan when it DOES bring results because I think townies have a fundamental responsibility to be honest and upfront that pushing a wagon you don't believe in violates.

But when you not only violate that responsibility but ALSO dismiss any worthwhile results from the gambit, you've been literally worse than useless.

[SerialClergyman]

PZ - I rarely misuse scummy and anti-town.

Your play this day, whether town or scum has been BAD FOR TOWN.

You have created a situation where you have, if not out and out lied, deliberately created misinformation with the stated intention of examining the reactions of those who joined the wagon.

I already don't like this playstyle - not in terms of you being more or less likely to be scum, but because I think anything that throws false information or opinions around is going to confuse rather than help.

But I could live with that if you then were able to use the confusion to come up with a good suspect, or some other form of information which would benefit the town. You are now saying that you have nothing in this regard at all.

So I don't care what your motivations were, I don't know if it makes you more or less likely to be scum, I don't even care that you were V/LA, frankly.

I care about the fact that you deliberately created a situation which confuses the town and the town's ability to read each other and then dismissed any information that could have come out of the situation. That is out and out anti-town. Whether it was deliberate because you're scum or accidental because you are town, it's out and out anti-town.

Now - what about this opinion makes you think that I'm likely to be reacting to a wagon you started on me weeks ago? What about this opinion makes you think I'm more likely to be scum?

[SerialClergyman]

And there you go again.

I'm done here.

You deliberately created that wagon. It wasn't an accident. You set out to create a wagon and did it. I don't understand your objection to the word deliberately.

@ Amished

It's a language thing. It sounded to me like he wasn't taking as much responsibility as he should. If I accuse him tomorrow of being scum because he voted Sando, I'm sure he'd use every argument in that post against me (aka I was on the wagon early and stayed on it all day, believed it, I wasn't opportunistic etc)

As for PZ, I am saying his actions today have been anti-town. I don't think it's particularly more likely to make him scum, I see him doing this as scum or town. I agree with him about Zorblag and am a little conflicted about a few other aspects of his game, but overall I'm not really leaning one way or the other.

But his entire contribution to the game so far has been poor, in my opinion.

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP *sigh* I need to learn to edit.

Some of that was unclear.

Amished - re: Zorblag, I'm saying I think taking responsibility for your vote is protown. If Sando is scum, I will take full responsibility for pushign this hard against his lynch. What I'm saying, though, is Zorblag's post did NOT look like he was taking responsibility, it looked like he was actually shirking it in a backhanded way.

About PZ - I think his reaction to my criticism was an overreaction, and his attempt to turn it around as some kind of OMGUS or scummy point from me were possibly scummy, (the reasoning of this has never been stated and the question was ignored when I posed it to him) but on the other hand it's pretty abrasive to be called useless so he could just be not taking the criticism well. I need to do more thinking about him and his positions before I'm more clear on my stance on him.

[SerialClergyman]

Why is that weird? It's how I consider most VIs for example.

(Not that PZ is a VI - just making the point it's possible to have a bad/neutral view)

[SerialClergyman]

Congratulations scum.

I actually should apologise to the town, I hadn't realised my second role PM gave me a 1-shot kill, so if I'd actually taken it and hit Amished it could have been a vastly different game.

The lack of pressure on Amished after D1 where I was pushing the wagon pretty hard and noone seemed to be pushing sando particularly strongly was weird, but the replacement halo probably came into affect.

All in all, I thought the scum were fantastic and deserved their win, congrats!

[SerialClergyman]

Bigbear - it was my fault for not reading the role PM more closely, but in future I'd definitely not make the first two lines of the role PM identical to the vanilla PM. When you hear you are town and have two abilities, your voice and your vote, you tend to switch off. It's still my fault, but you know, for the sake of clarity I think saying 'You are a 1-shot vig' might grab the attention a little more

[SerialClergyman]

Ojanen - next time I get even a whiff of a night kill, you're in my sights!

VP - thanks for finally siding with one of my bizarre theories on D1.. I was very touched to hear you'd voted Amished

[SerialClergyman]

Would definitely be /in.

I'm /in!

Same teams?

I lol'd.

[SerialClergyman]

crypto - you've seen me push for a scum lynch on D1 twince in a row but don't think it's often like that You might be a little overly impressed by a small sample size!

Amished, you can read when I'm a PR better than I can!

[SerialClergyman]

I´ll happily /in to either, having played neither. I´ll have to try and notice that the game has started and not rely on Serial calling me up to ask where the hell I am, I always miss the game starting

I seem to have heaps of free time here on holidays

And serial, I know that they thrashed us this game, but I´m pretty sure we can pull it back next game... (sorry, bit of an in joke for us, probably not as funny for you guys)

I lol'd, but you must a bit of free time over there if you explained not only that it was an in joke but also what the definition of in joke is!