Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!

[charlatan]

/confirm.

[charlatan]

For what it's worth, I'd prefer 3-person teams as well. I am not a pro balance expert guy, but it seems more reasonable all around.

[charlatan]

/re-confirmed to the max

[charlatan]

You guys got rolling quickly.

1. I was a VT before the roles were re-sent.
2. I was vaguely aware, but kind of not really. I read up on both this setup and Night Watch when the idea of another game was proposed, but didn't even notice we had 2 and 2 when confirming the first time.

Vote: Scien

I politely decline to explain this vote.

[charlatan]

@VP I say probably because I don't remember if I started a run of something I am testing before or after lunch.

Scien, two questions:

1) What did you have for lunch?
2) If you could have had anything for lunch today, regardless of price, rarity, preparation time, etc., what would it have been?
3) Do you have any food allergies?

(Gotcha, that was three questions.)

Your answers to these questions determine whether I move my vote to Vi or not. Is that copacetic? Thanks ahead of time.

[charlatan]

Me too.

[charlatan]

@Charlatan: Apparently Scien's answers weren't satisfactory to you to move to Vi?

Apparently so, huh?

Would you have switched just because he had beef and cheese enchiladas?

You're aware, I take it, that you didn't actually ask a question in the post I've quoted? Like what I'm doing now?

[charlatan]

.... Fine.

@Charlatan: If you were not going to switch because of the answers, what was the point of the questions that you posed to Scien?

Who said I wasn't going to switch based on the answers? I said I wouldn't switch based on enchiladas, which if anything implies that I

would

switch based on other lunch options. (This is true, actually; I would've changed my vote to Vi if Scien had eaten Chinese food or a sandwich of some sort.)

[charlatan]

@Charlatan, why the irreverence? I don't find it that out of place but it's not particularly the start I expect from you.

Actually, you've answered your own question here, to an extent, but still I'd like to turn this one around on you a bit: what do you hope to gain by asking me that? Do you think I'm just in a more "irreverent" mood, or do you suppose it's intentional? If it's intentional, will you get an honest or useful answer to that question?

My playing experience with ABR is limited, but from my memory I don't recall him being so personally reactive in various games I have read him in.

ABR making a joke about cocaine/your ass does not strike me as particularly out of the norm, for what it's worth.

Hey guys, unrelated but important question: if you were a horde race in world of warcraft, which one would you be? Orc, Tauren, Troll, Undead, Goblin, Elf, Dragon, Ogre? Please answer!

Undead.

This is a MUCH more fun wagon than the Scien<->Vi touchy-fest.

Wagon ho!

Is the previous wagon being 'less fun' the reason you haven't really been here, or are you just busy or something? Also, assuming this wagon is actually more fun (and I think they're about even in terms of funitude) then is it more likely to result in us catching scum than the previous?

Porkchopexpress, it worries me because I do not believe it was random. You may claim that my assumptions are incorrect, but I cannot see how the vote and the reasoning can possibly be arrived at randomly.

So Sando came in the middle of discussions about Vi and Scien and pound signs with votes and some other things and dropped this post about Porkchop, and that made me take pause. Because it seemed like the sort of thing where maybe you're trying to go out of your way to generate content in regards to a mostly untouched player. Because it looks so pro-town! And such a small thing to pick on. But the fact that Porkchop can't seem to make it go away makes the whole line of questioning worthwhile.

[charlatan]

No, I commented on the Vi/Scien thing, I just didn't think it warrented a vote. You didn't notice the whole 'condescending' thing between me and Vi?

I noticed it, but it probably didn't stick out in my mind so much because it was rather insubstantial compared to the Porkchop stuff.

And a 'mostly untouched player' would basically be anyone other than Vi/Scien/ABR/VPB, so that seems like a pretty broad catagory.

The broadness of any category has nothing to do with the point. If you had replaced Porkchop with any other similar player whose RVS vote you did not like, I still would have found it off.

It wasn't that. My ass can be the center point of multi-page discussion for all I care. I was more focusing on why he would transition from an RVS vote on me to legitimately accusing me of being scum after I said he was such. Could be a mountain out of a molehill, but it's early game.

Ah, yes, I do agree with that. Actually, it's even a stretch to call it "legitimately" accusing you of being scum, since there has never been any indication from Ramp as to

why

you're scum aside from the fact that you like drugs, and I think we all know that drugs appeal to those from all walks of life regardless of criminal persuasion. I wouldn't think twice about it if he hadn't called for others to pile on votes. Come to think of it:

Unvote

Vote: Albert B. Rampage

Ramp: Please argue with me about this.

Also, where did Amished go? I thought we were going to talk about food and then he disappeared.

[charlatan]

freakin' votecount

Vi(2): Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(1): PorkchopExpress
Sando(2): Debonair Danny DiPietro, Vi
Scien(1): Amished
PorkchopExpress(1): Sando
Ojanen(1): Zorblag
VP Baltar(2): SerialClergyman, Albert B. Rampage
Albert B. Rampage(2): charlatan, VP Baltar

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

VP Baltar seems like the only sane person here.

I take exception to this.

It's very simple. VPB attacked me based on nothing, so I give him a taste of his own medicine. My personal policy is that any bandwagon is a good one. The first bandwagon can be based on nothing more than a directionless hunch.

You know, I thought about this before I voted you, because I'm pretty much of the same opinion. At the time, we already had the makings of a nice little pressure wagon on Scien, though. What was wrong with that one, if you wanted to help "get the game moving"?

I don't wanna talk about food.

That's interesting, since you're the only person that really asked about it. In fact, since it was the only thing you asked about in those two posts regarding it, I sort of naturally assumed it was more important to you than anything else going on at the time. If you don't want to talk about food, why did you ask?

Sando, don't make me argue to save you all day again.

If you don't argue in Sando's favor, at least argue something, please. I'm noting a substantially less active SC than before, and you didn't address my concerns about this before. This weighs upon me heavily, sir.

---

@DDD: While you're here. I know it's early, but I feel like so far you've played a pretty reactive game. Except asking Porkchop an easy-mode question, you've only responded when you've been addressed, and despite your assertion that you've recently become a better scumhunter (and I do not doubt this, as you come highly recommended) you don't seem to have really sunk your teeth in yet. What's the deal? Just chilling? Observing, like a hawk? Help me understand you, 3D.

[charlatan]

Unforunately, it's going to weigh upon you then. I'm not inclined to argue something just for the sake of it - usually because my writing is so eloquent and my observations so intelligent I usually convince myself that it's true

Seriously though, I'm not sure where your meta is coming from but my activity on D1 varies greatly depending on if there's something that I think needs to be said. At the moment I don't have much to argue and so I don't argue much.

That's fine, then. That's really all I wanted to hear. I don't have any meta on you outside of our last game together, but so far you seem less present here than you were there. "I don't have much to argue right now" and "I'm busy IRL" are two different things, and which one of those is applicable may matter to me in a while.

[charlatan]

Well, char; you had a fucked up comment (something like "I'll unvote you if you have a good answer to what you had for lunch"). Obviously you didn't unvote so whatever it was that Scien? had wasn't good enough for you. I'm wondering either what the fuck the point of the question was or why you'd say something so pointless in the first place.

I was mostly curious to see if someone who wasn't really contributing otherwise would jump on the opportunity to attack erratic play that amounts to a nulltell, and whether they would do so in a thoughtful way or whether they would just be like "WTF lunch? Scum!!"

Also, this is my third game with Scien now and so I feel like we're at a place in our relationship where I can ask these kinds of personal questions. I would ask you if you've seen any good movies lately, but I'm afraid you would call it "fucked up".

[charlatan]

spam incoming!!

If we don't discriminate in our actions, we are acting no better than at random.

Well, that's neat, but it doesn't help much here. Before I was meant to believe that the point of starting a VP wagon was to "get the game moving", and trying to start a brand new wagon when one was already building seemed counter to that goal.

Now, I see that you have "discriminated" between VP and Scien. I'm happy to hear you say that, because it's obvious that you did anyways. But I guess what I'd still like to hear is what made VP a better choice over Scien? If you discriminated, what was the basis for your discrimination?

It would be helpful for me (and probably everyone else) if you gave a specific answer instead of a vague platitude.

I NEVER SAID HE LIED ABOUT ANYTHING, NOR DID I SAY LYNCH ALL LIARS.

Oh ho, but you definitely did. This is the funniest thing in the game so far, because it's far closer to an outright lie than ABR's fuzzy logic was. I'm going to go ahead and be the fourth person to mention it since you still haven't addressed it in your last few posts.

There's so much shadiness on both sides of the ABR-VP back and forth that it's starting to feel more like scum distancing than a legit argument.

Any conclusions from the lulz reactions since you (intentionally?) seem to be somewhat referencing Amished?

Certainly Amished's reactions do not help him in my eyes, but as the responses to me dicking around were not especially strong they are of limited usefulness to me, which is also why I've dropped the act.

BTW how long do you intend to keep this stuff up? You don't have anything to really comment on yet?

I have not been keeping this stuff up for some time now.

Hmm. Before I find the time to go back and look, have you played more as scum with Zorblag, or more as town? Why the desire to appear to start the game differently this time?

This was meant for everyone, not just Zorblag, but mostly I was interested in seeing if there were any particularly interesting responses to the change in play. I have played with almost everyone here, and most of you more than once, and most of you as both scum and town, I think. I always play a pretty straight game regardless of alignment, so I was curious as to what switching it up would do. I have played with Zorblag twice as town, once as scum, I think.

We've had what, four days for this game? I'm just waiting to see something I view as scummy to start running with.

Four days and nine pages of content. It's really not too shabby for a Day 1 so far, in my humble opinion. Either way, I guess I'll have to assume that when you do run with something, it will be the scummiest thing yet in the game in your mind, which will be pretty neat! I bet it'll be a really really scummy thing!

[charlatan]

FOS

Charlie for implying that we should all just bandwagon the first person that gets some votes. If we did that, the mafia would have total control of the game.

That's not what I implied at all. If anything,

you

suggested that with the assertion that all bandwagons are good ones. If you actually just wanted to run up a bandwagon on someone and it didn't matter who it was, you would have contributed to the already existing bandwagon. Obviously, we do not play in a vacuum. Obviously, you had a reason for wanting a new bandwagon on VP. Obviously, you should be able to provide that reasoning. For whatever reason, you still do not, which is a problem.

[charlatan]

Zorblag can definitely attest to how reluctant I am to provide reasoning when asked. I say what I mean and mean what I say when I think it's the time for me to say it. What do you think of VPB's rising scumminess?

Just that, that it is indeed rising. I think arguments on both sides of the fence are contrived, and am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time.

[charlatan]

charlatan, however, did not. I also am NOT loving the 'arguments are contrived on both sides, I'm prepared to vote on either' from him either. Charlatan jumps striaght into the number two scummy position.

Well, that's convenient for you. So, two players I find particularly scummy early in the game are arguing, and I also think the points they are raising against each other are largely weak (which I believe to be a more or less reliable scumtell early in the game). What, specifically, about that is troublesome to you? Is it just that they're arguing that somehow makes it illegitimate? Do you feel that I have no basis to say that I find one or both of them scummy?

The same question goes for Ramp, of course, since he dropped another solid "QFT" in regards to that.

As for the "lynch all liars" stuff, that was indeed a miscommunication, and actually also a misreading on my part. I had LAL quote tagged at the end of his ISO 28 in my head, which was about Ramp.

Obviously, I agree with him in regards to the disconnect between Ramp's stated intentions for his votes and what they actually accomplish (and, as such, what his real intentions might be, as surmised surmised using -- get this -- my mind.) I do not agree that Ramp is playing apart from him meta style-wise, in terms of being OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc. In fact, those are my fave parts about him. I also do not like that VP tried to call a scumpair so early, then later stuck by it as a legitimate supposition. (I fully expected him to just be baiting Scien, really.)

@charlatan - Why aren't you voting VP Baltar?

Because I'd rather be voting Rampage at the moment.

It's reasonable and I assume that you'd already gotten the reaction from me when you gave your "let me turn your question around on you" answer that you gave. Clearly I could make guesses about what you were up to but saying that I had already answered for you when I hadn't and being coy doesn't help us evaluate your play nearly as much as a straightforward answer.

Troll, I knew this would annoy you greatly, and for that I'm sorry. But your assumptions are incorrect. When I did not answer you succinctly, it was because I still had hope that it would serve a purpose with Amished, for reasons I already stated. I have no particular reason to muddy your read of me, but I also have no particular reason to cater to what makes things easiest for you. I will not abandon something that might help me catch scum to make the game easier for someone of unconfirmed alignment, and saying "ha, just kidding guys, back to serious" would be cutting my own legs out from under me. When I said you "answered your own question" I was, of course, referring to being purposely hard to read for approximately five pages, and had a faint glimmer of hope that I'd be given license to do that.

Additionally, I made you wait all of four pages for a real response. I maybe would've given it even sooner, but you weren't even here.

But so far, I have 3 votes. One for a preposterous, untraceable meta claim, and two for double standards. So the sooner people refine their standards for voting, the sooner we can get to lynching non-ABR targets.

What double standard are you referring to?

By the way, in regards to your comments about who has solid meta on you: I've played two games with you as scum and read one or two as town, and the defenses based on your claimed meta are both common and at least some of the time untrue, so I consider the whole line of argument to be a solid waste of town time. (I'm hoping you'll link me to a wiki article or something in response; that would be cute.)

[charlatan]

What double standard are you referring to?

To clarify -- I don't see how you are referring to my vote as a double standard when I've labeled both you and VP as scummy (and you are supposedly voting me for this very reason). I also don't think what you did and what he did are actually the same anyways, but clarification would still be very kind of you.

[charlatan]

In fairness, the points I've raised about ABR haven't really changed since you first agreed with me and voted him. There's merely been some elaboration. So, if you think the points are weak (which is apparently scummy), I don't understand why you voted in the first place

Do you think I agreed with every point you've raised the entire game? I agreed with you on one point early in. (The point that I mentioned at the time and also again in my last post.) There are others I do not like. Again, these are available for you to read in my last post.

Because I'd rather be voting Rampage at the moment

This seems intentionally obtuse. Troll, eat this man's first child.

Please. I push on one guy and mention that I think another's scummy, and suddenly have to answer for not voting for the secondary guy, when I never stopped questioning the first?

@Charlatan, by the time I asked about your irreverence you'd already had reactions from Amished. He wasn't just attacking you for asking about lunch but rather was trying to figure out what you were up to. I won't deny that you should be given a chance to scum hunt as you see fit but to continue not to give a straight answer at that point looks more like an attempt to bait Amished into doing something you can attack than trying to judge how he'll react.

You don't really get to decide when the usefulness of another's experimentation has expired. It's a matter of interpretation, and seeing as I really haven't attacked Amished I don't even know what you're trying to get at here.

This is a very simple thing -- you were denied an easy answer for once and it upsets you, and though I very, very, sincerely doubt it affected your game in any way it still irritates you, so we're talking about this instead of the actual one-line reason you gave that is supposed to justify your vote. It's not the kind of silliness I've come to expect from you.

In the end here you're welcome to do what you want regarding him but I've seen nothing in his play that makes me want to move him out of the neutral category so far. As I said earlier, with Albert B. Rampage you want to watch how his game flows rather than the individual things that he's doing in order to get a better read. The sort of switching of opinions on you for example is something that I've seen him do as town; he's not settling on something yet so as of yet he doesn't worry me overly.

I know that you know as well as anyone else that Rampage also gets a free pass based entirely on this argument frequently.

[charlatan]

And the point you are mentioning was good enough to vote over? Everything else is weak right? That's the claim you are making? Just wanna hear you say so or not.

At the time, sure. Albert stated intentions for his bandwagon. They were clearly not his intentions for the bandwagon. He also changed the reasoning he gave. I wished to push him about this.

This is important: The easiest way to defend Ramp is to say that he does pro-town things as town and he does anti-town things as town and he's both mean and nice as town, and he likes OMGUS as town, etc. In other words, every conceivable behavior on the spectrum of human behaviors can be bent into an argument for his alignment regardless of what that alignment is.

The only way I know to get a proper read on him is to try and get into his face about something, and make him defend his behavior. He's capable of tripping up, too. We lynched him in the very first game I played on this site, and we did it by approaching him this same way. Watch out for players that try to get people to stop questioning him by saying "oh, this is nothing new, you're seeing something where there's nothing." Ramp's a big boy and should be able to defend himself without help.

I think its pretty natural to be suspicious of someone just throwing out what was basically a, "Hey I am currently voting player A, but I would totally vote player B if it is more convenient."

That's not basically what I said. If you actually believe that's what I meant, then there's a communication breakdown here. I would not haved switched to VP "if it's convenient". I don't even know what convenient would be in this context. But I find the two of them vote-worthy and certainly did not have anyone I thought was more suspicious at that point. (That is changing as more people are getting in the mix; I need to re-read.)

Mind you, we're talking single-digit pages when this started. We were not (and probably are not) near the end of the day. It should probably not be so shocking that I did not have a lot of places I felt interested in laying a vote.

I do get your point that it might be a view that is given by a player with a pro-town role I guess, but I think its pretty understandable for everyone to look at that comment and feel that you are just giving yourself an out for future use. It's not so clear for people not in your shoes to see your motive here.

What? When did I say anything about pro-town power roles or anything like that?

I understand looking at that and thinking "well, he's hedging bets to be on a leading wagon". I think it's wrong, of course, because where the suspicions of those accused lie should not affect interpretations of their scumminess on an individual level. I'd love to see some argument for why it's inherently scummy, but so far nobody has given one.

Instead, this is what we've gotten:

SC dropped the first vote on me, because he "didn't like" that I said VP and Ramp were the top two on my list. Still waiting to hear what about that he doesn't like, or why that is an actual scumtell.

Ramp's reason was because "QFT", and he's going to skate on that again probably, and whatever.

Zorblag's provided reasoning was because he thought that when I said I found VP and Ramp to be the most suspicious at this point, it was "too convenient." Solid! The real reason is, presumably, that I stepped on his toes by interfering with his early-game meta read, which should not even be a big deal since his early game meta reads on me apparently do not lead to correct conclusions, in this game or last game.

[charlatan]

We're talking about this issue rather than the reasons that I gave for voting you because that's what you chose to respond to in your first post after I cast my vote. You talked about the votes the others had cast for you but everything that you directed towards me had to do with your failure to answer my question. Why is it that you're trying to strawman me like this rather than asking me more about why I cast my vote?

The simplest answer is that I didn't (and probably still don't) actually believe that your "too convenient" comment was more important to you than issues of confusing playstyle, since you devoted a few words to the former and many more to the latter. Either way, I brought up the specific issue of "that's too convenient" being a flimsy non-reason in my last post, so you're welcome to respond to it now.

What I know is that Albert B. Rampage often gets attacked for his playstyle when he's town, especially by players that aren't used to watching him in action. I know that I expect people to suspect Albert B. Rampage and make moves like VP Baltar is making when they don't have a good feel ahead of time for what to expect. I don't think that I'm inclined to call that a free pass as it's garnering suspicion that has a real possibility of leading to a lynch for play that in the context of coming from Albert B. Rampage is a null tell at worst (and in my experience probably a slight town tell.)

What, to you, signals a scumtell for Rampage if it's not conflicting logic and changing of stances?

I'm happy with my charlatan vote. He always writes big paragraphs as town or scum, so don't let that deter you.

Your contribution is noted.

[charlatan]

Your contribution is noted.

I have this idea that you contribute more as scum than as town.

Well, that's more like what I'd like to see (you saying anything concrete), though a simple check on my past games will indicate that this is false. I do post more when I'm defending myself, but I suspect most people do this.

I've also noted the use of "contribute" instead of "post a lot", which are two very different things.

[charlatan]

Obviously, I agree with him in regards to the disconnect between Ramp's stated intentions for his votes and what they actually accomplish (and, as such, what his real intentions might be, as surmised surmised using -- get this -- my mind.)

I do not agree that Ramp is playing apart from him meta style-wise, in terms of being OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc. In fact, those are my fave parts about him.

I don't really understanding you saying the bolded portion when the quote you cited before your vote (the first bolded line) is me directly talking about him OMGUSing me.... so, yeah, you can see people's confusion over your stance that you think one of ABR or I is scum.

One is a question of style meta, one is a question of the vote-morphing justification. Ironically, this is what I misunderstood in your quote way back when, only now reversed. When I said "OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc." I was referring to what you called him being "personally reactive" and "touchy". I do not think these are legitimate reasons to attack him over, but I do think revisionist history is.

Some other points to clarify: I do not necessarily think "one of ABR or [you]" is scum. It's totally possible that neither or both of you are. Most of the players in this game had not even posted enough to leave much of an impression on me either way. Early on Day 1 I said you two were my top suspects and it was like, oh damn, shocking revelation.

Please. I push on one guy and mention that I think another's scummy, and suddenly have to answer for not voting for the secondary guy, when I never stopped questioning the first?

When the clearly implied question is 'what differentiates these two enough that you want to vote one over the other', yes you need to answer the question in a non-obtuse manner.

No, I really do not. I have already explained that the only way I know to get anything close to sincere responses out of Rampage is to attack him, and to do so at full speed. So, if I had actually answered this question it would have looked like this: "Well, Vi, I am voting him because he did a scummy thing and I want to put some pressure on him and see if it gleans more information."

Since pressure votes are pointless when you say that's what they're for, I decided I would not answer that question at that moment. That was instance #2 in this game of me putting too much faith in this playerbase.

Unvote.

That vote is not doing anything anymore. I will place a vote again shortly, after I've re-read, and hopefully after some of the others have gotten their posts in for the day.

[charlatan]

Charlatan - you looked at two arguing parties and said you didn't like either person's argument and are now preparing to vote one of them.

I assume you are talking about this quote? I said a similar (though less strongly worded) thing similar to this in 221, too:

I think arguments on both sides of the fence are contrived, and am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time.

I didn't say I was "preparing to vote one of them" in this quote. I had already been voting one of them for the last 100 posts or so. Do I misunderstand, or are you just plain wrong?

Essentially, you didn't comment on the argument, explain which arguments you thought were good or not and you left yourself room to vote for whichever one started losing the argument.

144, 156, 175, and 221 all deal with VP and ABR and my thoughts on them. There are probably others that do, too. I actually feel pretty confident that I had contributed to the conversation more than you yourself even at that point.

It wasn't just opportunistic, it was setting yourself up to be opportunistic later when you really could tell what was the best wagon to hop on.

I don't think this even makes sense given that I was already voting one of them. (You do know that I was, right?)

It seems really odd to me to have two opposite players you find scummy for attackign someone with bad reasons, yet being ready to join one of them to attack the other.

Join one of them to attack the other? I had spats with both of them prior to the quote in question, was voting for one already, and helped neither.
Either there's a major communication breakdown here, your memory is terrible, or your reading comprehension is off. Or maybe you're just plain reaching.

Hey charlie, what where you referencing here as a later legitimate supposition? Couldn't find at glance.

This:

Pretty sure of yourself eh? Sure of one scum pairing on page 5... And sure that it is chainsaw defense instead of him buddying me... Dang you are good. Got information that I don't to help you be so good?

It's called experience and a good intuition.

This suggests to me that he was serious about a Scien/ABR pairing, not just trying to get a rise.

Why do you believe raising weak points is more or less a reliable scumtell?

Because scum are more apt to work from the conclusion backwards than townies are. Rather than thinking "these things are scummy, therefore I'll
attack PlayerX", plenty of scum will think in terms of "what can I look for to say is scummy from PlayerY?"

That vote is not doing anything anymore.

Do you still find ABR scummy?
Was the vote originally based on anything that you found microscopically scummy or was it pure desire to pressure?

I do still find him scummy. The desire to create pressure stemmed from something I find substantially scummy, so both, I suppose.

@Charlatan: What in particular changed your mind about VP?

My mind did not "change" about VP. I don't think I've indicated anywhere in the thread that I found him particularly townish. I went from unconcerned with him to finding some of his stances re: ABR questionable.

[charlatan]

Could you summarize briefly your position on VP Baltar + ABR?

Ramp is scummier than VP, and scummy in a way that extends beyond the normal level of scuminess he always operates at. VP is less scummy than some others now, though at the time they were the only two that I had any sort of scumdar pings from.

"Substantially scummy", the thing I've seen you reference ABR on was the revisionism, is that what prompted you to pressure vote then?

It's more what prompted me to stick to the vote. It's one thing to be personally prickly to VP and vote for him, and another to later suggest it's a sincere bandwagon that has sincere reasons. This was backed up with a vague half-statement that was more of an appeal to authority than anything helpful. He also unvoted, you'll recall, then re-voted when SC jumped in a few posts later, at which point it apparently suddenly became srs business.

The portion of my quote that you cited is very clearly talking about OMGUS ("accusing me of being scum after I said he was such"), so I don't see how you are now saying you don't agree with that when that appears to be exactly what you were agreeing with in that passage.

I think you're sticking on the one word quite a bit. There's a difference, especially with Rampage, with him simply calling you scum and insulting you (you're a scummy cocaine addict, bla bla har har) which is mundane and unimportant, and actually trying to build an active wagon on the basis that it has a clear pro-town goal, which he only decided to claim later, after he'd unvoted and seemingly moved on by dismissing you with "do I suffer fools like you? Nah." These are two different OMGUS-y kind of actions, one of which I couldn't care less about, and one of which was vote worthy.

Do you feel like people are trying to lock you into a position where you have to commit to either ABR or me?

Porkchop just did, but judging from his other comments about this I don't think he even really understands what's going on. I don't think anyone is trying to lock me into any sort of position intentionally, but I do feel like people are reading way too much into some very early game statements.

I don't recall having a spat with you.

I'm referring to our brief disagreement in the early pages over whether or not your ass is important. Not really a "spat", I guess, but the point is that I wasn't being any kind of buddy to you that I can see.

----

My least favorite feeling in Mafia is suspecting people who suspected you first, largely based on their attack, but I pretty much have to

Vote: SerialClergyman

.

First seeds of this are really in 176, in which he claims he has no "real reason" suspect VP, but in 187 suddenly does. (SC, did the points raised in 187 just occur to you between those two posts, or what?) The initial vote smacked of wanting to see a bandwagon form for the sake of a bandwagon, but again it became a serious thing later, only when he was pressed on it and when he was already touchy for being called out in regards to Sando. He starts diffusing his own argument around then, giving himself an out with a bit of talk of percentages and how he might be wrong.

He's nowhere for 50 pages, then raises a point against me in 234. No vote, though. In 236, Ramp offers a stunning "QFT", and in 241 SC decides to go ahead and vote me, apparently at least in part to "avoid confirmation bias" against VP. When he finally tries to fully justify this vote in 291 (why did you wait that long, by the way, SC?) it's full of outright incorrect assertions. I am interested in the way that he and Ramp seem to give each other permission to proceed as well.

---

Porkchop, I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm not impressed by your ability to not play, then jump in on a convenient bandwagon with factually inaccurate statements. Doesn't look great.

[charlatan]

I was expecting a complaint about my vote not being well founded or a defense involving why you had legitimate reasons for suspecting both VP Baltar and Albert B. Rampage. Instead, apparently what I got from that is that you chose to portray me as casting a petty vote for you because I didn't like how you reacted to a question I asked earlier in the game. I really don't think that you'd have a reason to think that I'd play that way (which goes along with you saying you didn't expect that sort of sillyness from me) so I have trouble understanding why you'd jump to that conclusion.

Your vote was not well founded and was justified with a brief line about things being "too convenient", which is vague and feels more like an excuse than anything else. So, it seems pretty logical to me to suspect that the real reason was that you were voting at erratic, unfamiliar behavior that makes you uncomfortable. That sort of behavior is not in and of itself a problem for you; you defend it when it can be passed off as meta from other players who employ it frequently.

The vote didn't stay on LongNameForAShortLife for the entire time but there was no change over a very long stretch about where his suspicions were. That game is also a fine example of the same sort of lack of engagement that he had last game.

I would suggest that he is neither engaged nor actively scumhunting in this game, either.

[charlatan]

Oh, nifty, simulpost.

... but my main criticism has always been that you found two people arguing with each other each scummy, which is at least a conflicting view of the game.

That's only true if you subscribe to the reasoning of the arguing parties completely, which I did not. Do you always agree completely or disagree completely with every party you interact with? Do scum ever argue with each other?

I'm not going to respond to every point, because I basically just think you're wrong in general. Finding two players who are arguing scummy independently of one another is perfectly natural. Just because I think one is scummy doesn't mean they are 100% scum; I'm wrong as commonly as anyone else and don't magically stop looking for scummy behavior when I've set my vote on one side of the argument. (Which is not fence sitting, by the way, but if you want to drop more buzzwords that's cool.)

As for me pointing out the timing of things, I think your votes suggest the opportunism that you are ironically accusing me of. You've spent half of your energy voting where the action is with flawed justification and the other half defending your right to irrationally defend Sando.

And your drawing a connection of me to Rampage is odd in that you feel his agreeing with my argument against you gave me 'permission' to vote you. Do you think if we were scum together I'd need his permission to switch votes?

Then what changed? One moment you're voting for VP and mention a thing about me, next moment Rampage agrees, next moment you're voting. Is that when you decided you were "probably wrong" about VP and became sure I'm scum, during that exchange?

He apparently needs your encouragement to place his own vote, as judging from the exchange. I am not highly concerned with it, but I'd imagine most people re-reading the posts in question would find something a bit off about them.

[charlatan]

And then as for opportunism, I think both times I voted someone I was placing the first vote on that person. So if the action is centered around me, it's because I made it via, you know, content and arguments.

Really? So when VP and Ramp were arguing, and you voted one and said "this is fun" and did not remark on it, that created that situation through content and argument?

The foundation of the vote aside (I didn't have a particularly strong reason to cast it but this early in the game it was strong enough and it's cute that you make that attack now that I've said it was what I was initially expecting) I play a fair amount of newbie games.

I'm not making that attack now, I'm explaining why I didn't take your stated reason seriously. Honestly, go back and re-read your own post in question and see which reason seems more likely. As for this:

I also don't know why you think I wouldn't simply give that as my reason for voting for you if that was it. It's just not an assumption I see any reason for you to be making unless you think that I'm trying to pull one over you you.

That's because I think you're capable of making mistakes, having knee-jerk reactions to things, and generally being human in a town capacity, and perfectly capable of manufacturing a reason as scum. Not complicated.

I don't recall saying anything about him actively scum hunting but I am a bit curious as to what you expect active scum hunting from Albert B. Rampage looks like.

You didn't. I did. For him to scum hunt I expect him to do things that get reactions and then identify/pursue scum based on those reactions, which he is not doing. If he is trying to get reactions, that is a different thing from demonstrating how those reactions indicate scum. I'm sure I'm not the first person to bring up the fact that Ramp's reputation is largely of his own creation, but I guess I'll be the first this game. For instance:

So he basically pulled us out of the RVS LOL. Your case is so bad it looks like distancing my friend.

"Your case is bad", basically. Zorblag, what part of that shows that he's actively engaged and following along? Is it the "LOL"? And would this be an example of him "impacting the game in a way that helps players get reads?" (313).

This is the same sort of thing with SC. When anyone says "I don't like X" I think it's pretty reasonable to expect them to explain why they don't, and what about X is beneficial from a scum standpoint.

Point out the "incorrect assertions" so we know what we're talking about.

I invite you to re-read 294. You can replace "incorrect assertions" with "factual inaccuracies", if you'd like.

@charlatan: Is ABR #1 on your scumlist, #2, or something else?

I do not have people conveniently numbered at this time. He's certainly in the top two or three.

Even pending a reread and moving your vote, why leave said vote up in the air rather than moving it to VP, your other suspect at the time?

Two parts. Firstly, I intended to vote within a few hours, but got sidetracked, so didn't think much it, really. As it is, my vote was "up in the air" for about half a page.

More importantly, you incorrectly assume that VP was still the only other person I was more interested in. As I said before, as more people started to become more involved in the game, my interests were shifting.

[charlatan]

Anyway, I have a fundamental advantage over you charlatan: I don't need as many words as you to communicate an idea.

I believe that's because you rarely make the effort to explain your ideas.

This part of my understanding of the "I Am the Greatest Scumhunter in History" shtick. You get to post one-liners and half-heartedly argue and later point to it like, "please, I'm the best, everyone knows this works."

You can see that I found your accusations of clergyman quite ridiculous for a reason. He voted for VPB, and later provided reasons for his vote. You paint this as him "bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning".

I have no problem with bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning. My first vote on Scien was for that very reason. But if you have actual reasons for a vote, I think it makes perfect sense to be able to state them with the initial vote rather than later down the road. In what context is "this vote is for fun" more pro-town than posting a case, if you have one in you?

[charlatan]

Weak. You might have been voting for me already, but saying that you could swing in either direction does in fact set the stage for you to switch to VPB, which is SC's real point.

Stating that you're both scummy and saying that I'm preparing to switch votes are two entirely different things.

If contrived flip-flopping between VPB and me are your contribution, and for so many posts at that, I'm surprised at how easily you switched votes to SC. Scummy.

So you're conceding the fact that I did comment on the argument, I guess? Can you show me where I "flip-flopped" between the two of you and how it was contrived? And why that makes it easier for me to vote SC?

It's reasonable to make a semi-random vote, then explain why your vote is staying there a few posts later. Yet this makes up the other half of your case against SC, the first one being "factual inaccuracies".

I'm glad you're here to speak for Serial and all, but what makes you label his vote as "semi-random"? I'm still of the mind that if you're voting for an actual reason, there's no reason to say it's for giggles and then later decide it was more than that once you're taking heat for it.

[charlatan]

Sorry, I meant "how it makes it

harder

" for me to vote for SC.

[charlatan]

Gut is a reason, and there's plenty content from VP between those posts.

I'm sure you re-read the posts in question before defending him, so how do you figure that the conclusions reached in 187 had anything to do with VP's posts immediately before it? They're not related at all.

"Gut" is a reason that is completely negligible. It's the most convenient reason to give in the world, as it allows you to back off at any time, since nobody can defend against it, and since you can't be attacked for it. When a handful of posts later your reason has extended beyond gut but no significant changes in play have occurred, that's something to look at.

The whole incorrect assertions thing reads to me mostly as the difference betweeen "prepared to vote for either of them" (as in "I am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time." which is a real quote from charlatan) and "preparing to vote either of them". Hard to see how charlatan sees it as such a significant misrep.

No, I'm far more interested in that he said (more than once) that I never addressed specifics about the argument, which I simply did. What's a pro-town reason for pretending I didn't? Even the statement you're quoting is not quite right in my eyes; SC said that I

said

I was about to vote VP, basically, which I did not. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but when people say I said things that I didn't, or I didn't say something that I did, I find that pretty problematic.

[charlatan]

I echo ABR and Ojanen about semantics. Your point about factual inaccuracies, which you rely upon a lot, is nothing more than a semantic issue that is so close to what you actually said as to be almost indistinguishable. I'd also like to hear what parts of VP's postings you didn't agree with.

Firstly, props to those who answered questions for SC before he fully responded (ABR, Ojanen). That is helpful.

SC, I did not agree with VP's assertion that Ramp was personally touchy.

Charlatan, I don't like it when people question gut. Players rolling off gut reads is the way to play. In fact, you're attacking me not for having a gut read on VP but then expanding upon it later.

I'm going to assume you worded that wrong. Correct me if I am mistaken. I am not attacking you for a gut thing. Gut things are good. I'm attacking you because your vote was silliness and guts until VP started criticizing you, and then it became serious.

Can you show me again where you address the fence-sitting/convenience accusation?

My 19 and 26 in isolation might be the most helpful. I'll try and summarize: I fail completely (still, and I doubt it will change) to see how finding two people scummy is negated by them arguing. If your top two suspects all game began arguing, say, Day 3, would you then decide that you were wrong about one of them? I understand how it could appear convenient (another thing I've already said), but there's hardly any way to defend against that accusation. Two people pinged my scumdar while most people were still with one foot in the RVS or not even playing yet. They happened to be arguing.

294 which you refer to regards to the "factual inaccuracies" is about semantics to me, then pointing out earlier posts where you suspected VP/ABR.

If an integral part of someone's case on you is that you never talked about an argument, and there are multiple posts right there in the thread with you talking about the argument, that matters. If you think it doesn't matter, I cordially invite you to consider this point: you're wrong.

What you're trying to tell me now is that you thought that I voted you there because of irritation at you and that further I didn't just give that as my reason either because as town I was making a mistake in my fit of pique or as scum I was manufacturing a reason. Have I got your take on my play there correct? Because that doesn't seem particularly simple to me and I don't think that it should be what you'd actually expect from my play.

I feel like we're going around in circles here, and clearly you're not ever going to think that my suppositions in the matter are reasonable. I'll be as succinct as possible (very difficult for me!): you called me out for an issue of playstyle. I responded to it. You responded to that with another paragraph or so. Then you devoted a scant 25 words or so to your reason to vote me, and the reason was underwhelming in comparison to the reasoning I've seen from you before. As such, I figured you got a generally scummy vibe and voted with one reason that stood out to you. I think you make assumptions about my meta on you, which is interesting. This line of conversation is probably not helping anyone out, and frankly stopped being fun to me (like the rest of this game) pages and pages ago. I'm not going to revisit it. Take that for what you will.

As for Albert B. Rampage, he's done more than simply say that your case is so bad.

Where? He posted something of substance in regards to it in 329, but only after I pointed all that out. And as I suspected, it took poking at his ego to make him do it.

I was dead by page 14 in that game because of short deadlines, but go ahead and look. In that game I had three posts in the first five game days; so in the first five days I was actually more active in this game then that one. So yeah, if I'm getting slagged for no content then the parallel seems very similar to draw since that's exactly what you slagged me with in that game.

DDD, if it's not much trouble, can you give me your top three suspects?

[charlatan]

Ok, what about that is random? You came up with a reason for voting someone, voted them and just chucked on the ‘random’ tag. This is exactly what I found scummy, and all you can say is here’s some reasons why it wasn’t random, but I think it was random anyway.

Sando, you've been going after him for this point for quite some time now, which is interesting. At this point, a bit later in the day, do you still feel it's as important as it was when we were fresh out of the RVS?

Anyone:
Is it just me or did the VPB/ABR thing go; VPB and ABR go at each others throats, then decide to jump on to the person who attacks them for it. This seems a little staged to me…

I think "staged" is a little far, but as I said early in something seems inherently off about it to me.

---

@Amished: What are your thoughts on Scien these days? He was one of the three in your early-game scumteam call, but I haven't seen you say anything about him since then, really, unless I have missed it.

[charlatan]

Charlatan, my main problem with you is how the serial case feels.
I'd love it if you could tell more exactly what you thought when you unvoted Albert, did you have a conscious "attack is the best defence" type of thought process and went looking for another case or what were you thinking?

I am not sure what you mean about "attack is the best defense", but maybe you can reword it for me? Are you asking me if I attacked elsewhere to defend myself? I unvoted Ramp because attacking him was not really getting any response out of him, and since several people were explicitly condemning it it would be obvious to Rampage regardless of alignment that he's free to ignore me, as the wagon would not grow at that time. He is still a top suspect, but there are more people in the game and I think my vote is better served elsewhere at the moment.

SC, I did not agree with VP's assertion that Ramp was personally touchy.

And this is the grounds that you are calling me scum over? I'm unimpressed.

I am not currently calling you scum over that. When we were barely out of the RVS, that was worth prodding at to me, though. I haven't been hung up on that in quite some time now, though I am still being asked about it quite a bit.

@Charlatan: Considering that VP was who you focussed on up until the unvote, it seemed a fair judgement to make. Still getting scummy vibes from this since the SC vote is attached to a very unconvincing case.

It's not an unfair assumption to make, but just happens to be incorrect in this case.

[charlatan]

The person that I've wanted to vote over him has been receiving enough pressure without me, so I don't think anything was lost by my vote on porkchopexpress.

Judging by your end of post vote, that's me, yeah? If so, you say you've wanted to vote me -- at which point in the day did that desire come about?

I think Charlatan's case on Serial is quite weak, I think he's latched on to some things (notably VPB's 'slip' about LAL) that really aren't notable.

I think saying that I latched onto the LAL thing is a little bit of a mischaracterization, especially as I readily admitted to having misread that when corrected, but I am hardly surprised at people piling on at this point.

Charlatan is obviously intelligent and well reasoned, his cases/attacks don't strike me as intelligent and well reasoned, only his defences.

It's interesting that you find my defense "intelligent and well reasoned" but still want to lynch me. Do I misunderstand you?

[charlatan]

Sorry to hear that Scien.

Even though I don't think his scumhunting thus far is that great, I certainly could see it just as a bad case combined with his strategy of "close my eyes and wait for day two", whereas charlatan I am definitely not seeing that much worth redeeming.

I think DDD is going to make himself more clear as the game goes on, but charlatan is just going to remain one big question mark for me until he's dealt with...so unless something drastic happens, my vote is p. much set.

This is a particularly odd post. On one hand, you refer to me as irredeemable, but on the other want to park your vote because I am "one big question mark". I don't really see how it can be both at once, to be honest. Also, can you elaborate on how being a question mark = necessary to lynch?

I particularly liked the assumption that no reads on me would ever become clearer in upcoming days. How do you figure?

---

I will say that, self-preservation aside, I am not sure where the heart of the DDD case lies. His play is unhelpful and anti-town, and it's suspicious that his first contribution was to vote his attacker, but more than anything it feels like activity policing. That's a pretty great way to run up a lynch on a townie, especially as it provides its own excuse for the "mistaken" attack after the fact.

[charlatan]

Welcome, RECKONER! I read a game or two before with you in them, so I'm glad to see you here.

I don't understnad the distinction you are trying to make here, at all. You have acted significantly scummy and until you are dead, those doubts about your alignment would be there.

That makes a little more sense to me. The reason I asked is because that post (and your most recent) makes it sound like you have very little doubt about my alignment at all, where "big question mark" suggests less certainty. It may just be the choice of words throwing me off.

You haven't answered well in terms of your thoughts on ABR or myself, and your "case" on SC leaves more than a little to be desired.

So essentially we're still harping on page 5 + you don't like my SC vote. Is that fair to say? If you feel you've been clear then I apologize (I hate having to repeat myself) but in all likelihood it will be very important tomorrow that everyone is clear.

You've had your chance to explain your thought process and that explanation has been convoluted at best. Future days will not change what you've explained thus far, only make people forget about it.

Yeah? Is it just my play in Day 1 of this game that has convinced you that in future days, situations, and votes I will be equally problematic for you, or in general do you think I'm always "convoluted at best"? Did you feel the same way when I was scum last game? Or, if you remember that far back, our first game together (Cowboy Bebop), when you were scum and I was town?

Whoooa, looking at that vote count after posting this post is odd... my strongest town read has the most votes, and my strongest scum read is only being voted for by my strongest town read. Uh-oh. Seems like some real shit's gonna happen in the next 8 pages.

Yes, it's going to be very interesting.

[charlatan]

Gentlemen, we have scum <3

I'd be interested in hearing what in that post led you to this conclusion.

[charlatan]

My take on it is that you are scum who was hit with a barrage of pressure over your stance toward ABR and me, and when asked to explain those stances in detail you were forced to make up what you could to make it sound good. Personally, I don't find your replies sufficient with what your claimed stance on the matter is (that both ABR and I are both high on your suspect list).

Ah, so you thinking the SC case is weak doesn't have as much to do with it? There's a reason I'm asking.

I'd say so, sure. But it doesn't really matter how many pages have passed, now does it?

No, not really, unless the scuminess of me today were overshadowed by actual scumslips from actual scum later. Certainly time has an interesting effect on things; my page 5 comment was a relatively unimportant one that I didn't even think much of and it is arguably the biggest sticking point of the day, at least thus far. On the other hand, scum are probably very happy with the way things are going right now and will not want to let this bandwagon move while I'm closest to a lynch. That is useless to everyone but me now, but will likely be worthwhile to look at tomorrow.

For those of you that don't know what's going on; I've basically come up with a scumtell that if you *criticize* who you replaced in; you're scum.

I'd have to check to be positive, but I'm with Zorblag. I'm pretty positive that this would have gotten my lynched in most of the games I've replaced into as town. Out of curiousity, do you think it works the other way too? As in, no criticism = towntell?

----

@DDD: Your vote hasn't moved all day, which is intriguing. Can you summarize your position on Amished? I get that you don't like his vote on you. You also devoted some time to talking about his calling of the scumteam earlier and why that was a bad idea. Revisiting this quote:

No, I reread the entire game, while your vote on me was the tipping point you were high through my rest of the read. I'm pretty sure despite ABR's comments that calling the scumteam was a bad idea you went ahead and did it anyways amongst other things.

I didn't think much of this at the time, but what would his motivation as scum be to draw attention to potential mason connections? I can think of more than one answer, so I'd like to hear what you had in mind. Also, what were the "other things" you alluded to?

---

@Vi: I'm at L-2 at the moment, and before that goes further or doesn't I think it would be worthwhile to hear your opinions on me in any sort of explicit manner. So far you've said you "severely DON'T disagree" with the wagon and offered an insult in a roundabout way in 363, but you haven't been specific at any point that I can recall.

[charlatan]

It's not my main focus. It was something that was brought up that has some merit, but I think your explanations about your stance on ABR/VP are far more scummy. However, even those stances end up relating to your SC vote eventually because of how that vote came about after you unvoted ABR.

Really? Because I would think that if it were the most important thing to you, you would have done more digging in that direction. The only thing you've asked about or commented on in regards to "my explanations about [my] stance on ABR/VP" is the OMGUS question, which I have answered in full (and which you did not reply to or signal you had a problem with at all, actually, unless I'm mistaken.)

What problem did you have about the way I unvoted ABR?

The crux of most of the votes against me is a blown-out-of-proportion quote from the very early game. Some people add the SC vote for flavor (though nobody has bothered to argue why it's scummy, just unconvincing.) I'm thoroughly unimpressed. Usually when I screw up enough to attract a lot of votes I at least relate to the attacks being made; in this case I feel like it's players talking as if my overwhelming scuminess were so self-evident when they're not really making cases, just going with a flow that has picked up steam little by little.

Like, for instance, you recently remarked that you understand the clarifications I've made and you did not try to refute the points, you simply "don't believe them". That's different from calling them scummy, and the former I can't really defend against. I'm not sure what, as town, you get from assuming I'm lying without basing it in the arguments, nor do I know how you'd come to that conclusion since it apparently isn't based on the content in the thread. Overall it seems a way to dismiss outright any defense I make and continue to push for the lynch of a guy you've never actually built a case against.

Since it's been a bit, let's try and clear this up: who are your top three scum suspects? If ABR and myself have now gone from that list, what is your current read?

ABR is not gone from that list. In fact, just two pages ago (post 374) I said he was a top suspect. That hasn't changed, especially since he hasn't been present the last few pages. SercialClergyman is obviously a top suspect as well, and I will post more about him soon to make him respond to me instead of brushing me off. My top picks have been swirling about and changing with each page, and you had become less important to me, but that has changed in the last few pages. I think you think you've got today in the bag, but I don't really like going quietly.

I'm still hesitant about it because it seems like a big gamble since we have actual scummy behavior from charlatan to lynch on, but it's also day 1 where we have a little more leeway for error.

How is it a gamble? We're not up against a deadline. We have plenty of time to talk to Reckoner and make an informed decision.

Your recent posts have a vague urgency to them, like it's really important that everyone hurry and lynch me before something scummier comes along to steal the spotlight.

Unvote.

Vote: VP Baltar

[charlatan]

I guess what is old is new again with Charlatan’s return to voting for VPB.

I have not cast a vote for VP Baltar in this game until now.

@Charlatan: Is it just the sense of urgency that pushes VPB ahead of SC on your suspect list?

No. That is only a small thing, though I do think it worth noting. Baltar has now expressed himself to be at the point where my lynch is the foregone correct conclusion; I am "iredeemable" and regardless of anything I may or may have said, he will not be swayed.

He has in some cases not expressed dismay at or contested points I've raised along the way, but now later in the day reserves the right to say he's thought they were scummy all along. Scummy enough, in fact, that they cannot be explained. And, even if I do explain them, and even if those explanations are understandable and clear, they do not matter to him, because he simply does not believe them. (Hopefully he will clear that point up.) It all feels pretty convenient, very much like riding the tide without doing a whole lot to contribute to it (except to occasional remind others to Vote Charlatan 2010).

He himself only investigated one point in particular, the wording of one line where I used "OMGUS" in a confusing manner, which he dropped after I explained it. So when I hear him say that it's really important that I be lynched now, because I'm so dangerously scummy and everyone might accidentally forget about it tomorrow, I'm not only surprised -- I'm extra suspicious.

---

DDD - In case you missed it, please see 406.

---

In regards to Reckoner, Porkchop might be on the right track. I'm not inclined to outright dismiss Amished's theory because it does make logical sense, but in my case it's not true either, so I'd suspect it depends entirely on the player being investigated.

[charlatan]

Hmm, perhaps its the fact that he was apparently your top suspect, but once you started catching flak over it you felt the need to unvote and change to SC seemingly out of left field.

It's telling that you are only bringing this up now, because at the time nobody expressed any particular suspicion over the timing of the vote. Ojanen asked about it and I answered in my ISO 34, and nobody ever mentioned it again that I recall. If anyone thought unvoting Ramp was scummy, I would hope they would have brought it up, unless there is some pro-town reason to not allow me the chance to respond to it that I don't know about.

---

The quotes you provided all related to the one point about OMGUS, which was never terribly interesting in the first place. The signal to noise ratio there is low anyways: you ask me a question, I answer it, and then we basically do it again a few times. I think it's pretty clear that there was a difference between talking about Ramp insulting you and Ramp trying to bandwagon you, and the last thing I want is to get mired down in it again.

I don't really need to argue it; anyone who reads you in isolation should be able to tell that you've only ever actually pushed me in regards to one point, which you dropped.

---

ABR is not gone from that list. In fact, just two pages ago (post 374) I said he was a top suspect. That hasn't changed, especially since he hasn't been present the last few pages.

I wasn't saying for sure that he was gone from your list. I was asking for a clarification. This seems like an overly defensive response to the question I posed.

If you think clarification + a reference to make it more clear is overly defensive, you're looking for something where there's nothing.

Major bullshit alert! Where is the sense of urgency? I'm not rushing anybody to vote you. I have simply stated my opinion on the matter, which is that I feel you are the best lynch for the day. Nowhere in any of my posts am I saying "hurry up everyone, you have to vote immediately!".

No, you haven't said that, and it's mostly a gut and vibe sort of thing that stems from things like arguing that if I'm not lynched today, everyone is likely to forget about Day 1 and I'll just be off the hook. Or, the comment that I need to be "dealt with" because, I guess, your read will never be any better. These things all say to me, "done deal, let's lynch him now while we can." It's not a very important thing, but I do get that feeling and so I'm curious to see if anyone else does too.

I would also like to know why you think me wanting your lynch is scummy, but ABR essentially doing the same thing (and with far less explanation) apparently does not register on your radar.

Of course I notice it. When Ramp chimes in with a post that just says something like "More votes for PlayerX, please", it's pretty run of the mill and I don't expect anything at all to come from asking him about it.

My general impression is that you saw Oj's vote as an opportunity to bail from the SC vote, which was also garnering suspicion on you when you realized you had nothing of substance to push.

Well, this line of questioning and the reasoning that has stemmed from it was in play before Ojanen's vote. I started going back and forth with you in 372, then in 389 set in with sincerity. Ojanen's vote is a bit later in 402. It's certainly encouraging though, and I'm sure it made me more likely to feel confident about my own vote. Two votes are better than one and I have every reason to want you lynched over me. Going quietly into the night with my vote on a guy who is unlikely to be lynched at this junction will not help the town.

It's a gamble because we'd be lynching on Amished's "scumtell" pretty much alone.

Why is that? It seems to me that with more discussion with Reckoner (even only a little bit) we'd have worlds more information to base reads on. For instance, he stated without explanation that I'm his top town read and SC was one of his only scum reads, which is a pretty big deal. You're characterizing an alternate route of investigation as a "gamble" when it's not, which is important.

Here's your clarification: misrepresentation full-tilt! Just because your words are understandable, which is what I was saying, does not mean your explanations are good or believable by me. That point is not difficult to understand in the least.

Maybe it's just an error in interpretation on my part, but I don't think so. Generally, if I do not believe someone in regards to a range of points, it is because their reasoning is inconsistent or their behavior in the thread clearly conflicts with what they say, and I'm inclined to argue the points when they arise. The only thing you brought up was the OMGUS wording, so when you stopped asking about that, I moved on. To hear you make so strong a proclamation that your mind will never be swayed and I need to be strung up while the stringing's good sounds odd, since your convictions really only seem to have become super strong in the last few pages.

DDD - In case you missed it, please see 406.

Is 406 really relevant any more given 413?

Yes. Is there a particular reason not to answer it? Even though you're not voting Amished, understanding some things about why you voted in the first place helps my read on you, especially when you alluded to having additional reasons for your vote on him that you never expounded on.

[charlatan]

Sorry, megapost = megaresponse, I know it's annoying.

Also, Sando: When you voted me, you were talking about attack vs. defense and how the quality of each reflects on a person's scuminess to you. I think that's completely wrong, and would likely be different for each individual player, but I'm curious as to how you view Baltar through that same lens.

[charlatan]

No, you haven't said that, and it's mostly a gut and vibe sort of thing that stems from things like arguing that if I'm not lynched today, everyone is likely to forget about Day 1 and I'll just be off the hook.

Where did he argue this? I didn't see it in an isoscan.

This is what I'm referring to:

Future days will not change what you've explained thus far, only make people forget about it.

Now, we could let you live and other stuff would happen and you'd post and people would probably forget all about your scumminess here, but none of that resolves the actual issue.

I don't really think that anyone is likely to forget about problematic things on Day 1 at all. But from the standpoint of scum pushing a lynch on town, this is a useful position to hold. (I don't see how it is the other way around, myself.

[charlatan]

Which is me basically explaining why I think his lynch is the best choice today instead of his argument of "something better is bound to come along".

Where are you getting this "something better is bound to come along" argument? I'm not even sure what you're referring to.

[charlatan]

Even accusations that I find mildly idiotic (and there have been more than one) I've answered in full and not exactly been dismissive of, so I'm not sure what you think 449 accomplishes (aside from discrediting me.)

Anyways, when the quote in question (saying I found you and ABR more suspicious than anyone else at the time) was made is actually pretty relevant, since most people were not even engaged in the game and the pool of scummy behavior was much smaller.

[charlatan]

(I mean come on - if we're voting based on urgency I don't have to move my vote at all!)

Did you just read the last line of the post where I voted VP, or did you read the whole thing? You really, truly don't think that's a bit of a straw man?

[quote="SerialClergyman]
Unvoting for a re-read[/quote]

gasp. scum always do that!!

The tone of his posts

hmm.

ABR, PCE is up there as scummy for me too but I'm not done with charlatan yet and I'm frustrated you'd pull yet another wagon to distract. Do you have a town read on charlatan now or are you just more confident about PCE?

Not done with Charlatan yet? This quote makes it sound like you're still scumhunting me, but you haven't even really been addressing points I've raised for a while now. Everything in your "reasons I'm voting Charlatan" post I've answered, most of which you have never commented on. I'm disappointed for the town that I'm the only one who thinks posts like 451 are an embarrassment.

[charlatan]

You know, it's still weird when we agree SC, but I'm almost certain that you're town.

Oh, before I forget: when was the last time you were almost certain someone was town, and how did that turn out?

[charlatan]

Ugh. See! Yuk. Terribad argument. Does that apply to me as well, charlatan, given last game I went to my death on D1 advocating lynching Amished-the-scum?

I was mostly poking fun, don't take things so seriously. He knows what I'm referring to, and anyways I'm of the general opinion that any time you're certain someone's town in the first day or two of the game, that's when it's best to rethink.

[charlatan]

So, Amished, your entire view changed based on a regurgitation of previous points in a condensed format? Particularly this paragraph:

3) Shenanigans! Little things I don't like. Unvoting for a re-read and then voting a third party with nothing really instigating the change. The tone of his posts, his choice of targets, how difficult it is to get people who suspect him to vote him, the hyperbole.

What about changing gears when I was spinning my wheels with ABR was scummy again? What about "the tone" of my posts is a problem? Etc. etc. This is full of half-arguments and it's weird that it was enough for you to do a total 180, especially since it contains no new content at all.

[charlatan]

Oh, sorry, I thought you meant 451, not 458. 458 is pretty thin too, though, as it assumes that today is going particularly slowly or that a lynch should already have occurred, etc. Really the same position as VP anyways.

[charlatan]

Also, I didn't get this - if it wasn't a very important thing to charlatan then wouldn't the whole VP vote kind of crumble? Reading the case attached to his vote it would seem to relate to this point. Which would make this the second vote seemingly switched out of something more akin to convenience than actually overturning scumreads.

Um, no? What is with people thinking only the last line in the vote post is relevant? I devoted one sentence to that and two dozen or so to the rest.

I'm voting VP because he speaks on one hand like he's built up this big case with loads of evidence when he hasn't actually been as involved as he'd like us to think. I do not think the sense of finality is in any way pro-town and is extremely helpful as scum, and I think it's extremely helpful for him to come back towards the end of the day and talk about things he thinks I've done that are scummy that he never brought up at the time (i.e. unvoting Rampage). Now it's far too late to defend myself, apparently, but why did nobody mention these things before? What is the pro-town reason? It's obviously beneficial from a scum standpoint, so it's either scummy or just bad play. There's also characterizing a vote on someone other than me as a "gamble", discouraging considering other routes indirectly through mischaracterizing them as dangerous for the town (they're not).

Your 478 ignores what actually happened in the game as well; you know very well there's a difference between now and then, and what's more the whole point was that Ramp claimed or implied multiple, conflicting reasons for the original bandwagon.

[charlatan]

charlatanscum + PCEscum.

Why isn't charlatan going for PCE?

Why isn't PCE going for charlatan?

Cause they're scumbuddies?

It could also be because I haven't been here since the PCE wagon came about. Nice catch, detective. I'm catching up now.

I'm not going to switch my vote right this second. I'd obviously prefer a PCE lynch over me, but this might be an attempted two-for-one deal. Scum could assume they'll have my vote in the bag for a competing wagon, maybe siphon off some votes from people who have expressed doubts on my wagon, and safely assume I'll still be in the running for a lynch in future days. PCE feels vaguely easy, but I need to re-evaluate a lot of things based on the rapid progress of this new wagon and the jumps of some players in the last few pages (Reckoner's erratic play, Amished reversing his read totally based on shaky logic, etc.)

[charlatan]

Wow that is a real "I am holier" post.

It's not really like that. More like, the game changed rapidly in the two or three pages I needed to catch up on and I didn't want to jump wagons just to save my skin without some careful consideration on how the end of today should go. I never had any illusion that Rampage believed anything he's said in the last few pages (except for the last two posts).

You can't be me, dog.

Thankfully.

Sigh/slight lol at the usual ABR rhetorics.
charlatan, you're a good player. Won the game to your team last time etc.

Ha, no worries. I quit mafia after Space Station Mafia, or meant to (maybe just mod occasionally, I think). I joined these two games because I was appreciative of being asked to. So belittling does not bother me much.

---

I'm a Vanilla Townie. I always find myself with more heat as a VT, and wanted to stir some shit up anyways (see: abrasive opening), but I definitely did not mean to get in quite so over my head as I did. Better I be today's mislynch than a mason, regardless.

For what it's worth, I believe it's worlds more beneficial for scum than town to make a concerted effort to paint a mislynched townie's play as self-evidently awful (and to equate this to obvious scuminess) than to engage them in debate. It might help to look at this tomorrow should I be hammered today (which is what I would expect), but you have to account for playstyle/personality as well (for instance, it is a nulltell with Vi and largely with ABR in my experience).

I'll give some thoughts on people I haven't mentioned a whole lot:

Amished has not been a topic of much discussion but is worth taking a closer look at. Ramp unvotes and Amished votes quickly, reversing his read because my wagon has not gone to lynch yet. I can see several reasons for a wagon not going to lynch despite a lot of suspicion on one player, but he selectively chose the "reluctant to bus" aspect. He essentially asked to be convinced by SC and VPB with their summary arguments, but claimed before to have read through all the textwalls, so it feels off. It's entirely possible that he meant to stay off the wagon if he could to avoid being on a mislynching wagon, then tried to keep it viable when it suddenly had a competing one. This would lower the likelihood of ABR and Amished being partners in my mind.

This recent quote from Zorblag is worth noting as well:

I'm leaving my vote on charlatan at this point as I don't care for how he reacted in our exchange but if I thought that an xRECKONERx lynch were feasible today I would be completely willing to be a part of it as of now.

Our exchange was focused on Zorblag's stated intention for his original vote on me and my belief that his stated intention was largely actually a response to seeing erratic play from me in the early game. He clearly did not like this, but ultimately never transitioned from "that's wrong and not what you should expect of me" to "that makes you scum". Rather, the last interesting note on the topic was this:

I also don't know why you think I wouldn't simply give that as my reason for voting for you if that was it. It's just not an assumption I see any reason for you to be making unless you think that I'm trying to pull one over you you.

If this is the only reason he can see me making that assumption, that would point to misguided townie rather than scum. The other assumption would be that I was lying about that in order to discredit him, but I think that angle really only works if I'm attacking him (and I never was.) If anything, as scum I have every reason to play to the meta I know Troll has on me and not engage him in such a manner, which is pretty much what I did last game.

Reckoner's play has been strange to say the least, and my impulse is that he wanted to stay off of my wagon as well. This would explain his early town read of me (before he even read the game, apparently, though he still felt comfortable casting a vote?) which he would have quickly figured out he could not easily stick to. His first post goes beyond the point in the game at which I first started getting heat, so pretending he hadn't read the relevant bits is no good. His ISO 6 is a weird little self-narrative of him coming to all the safe conclusions. He goes out of his way to toss half-hearted questions at ABR and Zorblag in bold, but does not bother to follow up on either of them.

I may have been completely wrong about VP and SC, and there just may be a lot of confirmation bias going on on both sides of the fence, but Ramp still feels like a good scum candidate to me (this particular bout of premature gloating is especially strong, which may say something.) I don't like the way SC seems to have gotten into a comfortable spot with his vote and coasted through the last few pages, though.

Sorry for walling up again, but I'm going to sleep soon so I want to get some thoughts out there while I can. I am not the correct lynch choice for today, but I'm sort of beyond caring at this point. Reckoner is the smartest choice now, so for what it's worth I'm going to do that.

Unvote

Vote: xRECKONERx

[charlatan]

As expected. Later, kiddos.