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

[PorkchopExpress]

/confirm

[PorkchopExpress]

/confirmation 2: Reconfirmation (coming this summer)

[PorkchopExpress]

Vote: SerialClergyman

I don't think he's part of the confirmed twice club.

[PorkchopExpress]

/confirm again

Vote: PorkchopExpress

(L-6)
I don't follow why you voted SerialClergyman.

I don't follow why you voted SerialClergyman.

I agree, why didn't you vote Vi there?

Because I'd noticed that he had confirmed once, but I hadn't noticed that about Vi. Would voting Vi have been preferable to you, VP?

@Vi: Apparently your first vote was non-random. Can we take this to mean it was serious? If so, your suspicions are based on what exactly?

1. What was your role in the aborted version of this game?
2. Did you know before the game started that Friends and Enemies is intended to be run with 3 mafia and 3 masons?

1. Vanilla Townie.
2. I knew nothing about the setup until it was posted here in the thread.

I'd like to hear from DDD and ABR on the Scien/Vi exchange.

[PorkchopExpress]

@Vi: How was my vote not random?

[PorkchopExpress]

@PorkchopExpress, others have asked in other ways but I'll do so as well. Why the interest in input from Debonair Danny DiPietro and Albert B. Rampage in particular about the Scien/Vi dynamic?

I'd like to hear from DDD and ABR on the Scien/Vi exchange.

Why those two and not the troll?

They were the players who came to mind when I was thinking of who hasn't posted about it yet. Evidently Zorblag isn't as memorable as I'd have expected.

I'm actually interested in Porkchop.
Since he didn't provide it despite obvious prodding from Vi, I'll explicitly request his stance on Scien/Vi.

Sure. I think Vi is making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill and that Scien's L-# point isn't leading anywhere. It looks to me that they are engaging in similar tactics (slightly exaggerating stances on issues to generate content). Not getting any scummy vibes from either of them yet.

Porkchop, Zorblag's RVS vote is an example of a random vote on someone because of confirmations, he just votes the first person alphabetically that hasn't confirmed yet. Your vote had reasoning, you left nothing up to chance, you went through and found a reason to vote someone, and while it may not have been serious, it wasn't random. Making out that it was random when it wasn't, worries me.

Unvote, Vote: Porkchopexpress

Yeah, you're making a few incorrect assumptions here. I am interested to know what makes you worry about this though.

@VP and Zorblag: Do you think ABR is hiding behind the masons to indirectly address VP's(your) accusations?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Ojanen: Because someone could always see something I've missed/overlooked/whatever. Also, getting people to comment on things can be revealing regardless if I'm certain of an issues scumminess or not.

[PorkchopExpress]

My apologies for my absence. I’ve been a little swamped the last few days. For the record, emptying your kitchen while you have a hang-over might just be the worst summer activity ever.

@Sando: It’s pretty simple really. My opening vote is usually based on whatever little quirks the thread offers. I was aware that not everyone confirmed and it tickled my fancy to vote on that. When I looked back at the start of the game SC’s name came up. So that’s where my vote went. That strikes me as fairly random.

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

@Ojanen: You’ve lost me at “reasonable and vaguely alien” and their significance. Please to clarify.

(I’ll put up more tonight, after work. I’m going to have to give the Charlatan mega-discussion another readthrough. My first instinct is that I like VP’s post 288 and SC’s post 291.)

[PorkchopExpress]

I don't understand why you unvoted on someone you think is scummy to reread the thread.

Similarly why isn't Charlatan's vote on the other half of his top two suspects in the mean time?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Zorblag: Vi didn't vote me for lurking. Vi voted me for an "intuitively scummy move" of questioning Charlatan's play as I was rereading. That's about the sum of it isn't it, Vi?

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.

Duly noted. Now, once more with answering the question at hand. 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? Because failing to vote someone you're saying is scummy, just when you're catching flak for your suspects, doesn't look good.

Incidentally, the "factually inaccurate" stuff surrounding your read of VP occurred because of the unvote. Your decision to reread the thread instead of moving onto your other suspect suggests that you've reconsidered your read.


In other news, I think it's dodgy for DDD to cry foul for being an easy target since this is a byproduct of the playstyle that he is wilfully engaged in.

[PorkchopExpress]

@Sando: Because I didn’t know who I’d vote for when I chose the reason. So the reason wasn’t arbitrary, but the votee was in effect. Look, I’m not in any mood to go in circles on this and couldn’t really care if my vote was sufficiently arbitrary enough for you to consider it a random vote. Make it relevant or move onto something with more punch to it. Allow me to get you started: The only way this could be a scummy move is if it was distancing from SC, or Vi I guess. So, which one is likely scum in your eyes?

You seem to be a little preoccupied with side issues at the moment and I’m starting to get scummy vibes from it. Especially since you’ve barely spoken about the ABR/VP discussion amount.

DDD’s contribution is still underwhelming. It consists of suspecting or criticising those that focus on him.

No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.

You couldn't get a read on me; sounds like the problem is on your end, not mine.

No, seriously, am I the only person who wants to scream right here?

No, you are not.

If Amished had initially said that he wasn’t getting a read on me that would’ve been acceptable. Instead he put it together as a lurker pressure vote, without actually attempting to engage me in a fashion that would actually help him get a read on me.

Considering that there was on-going discussions in the game, it would seem to me that he wanted you to contribute to them... or, at least, explain why you found nothing scummy in them. That could have helped the rest of us to get a read wouldn't it? This case is pretty much bunk.

@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.

@PorkchopExpress, Sando and Scien, you've all been busy for your various reasons, fine. When should we see more of an impact (again, perhaps for some) in the game? Are your current votes relevant do you think? If so I'd love to hear why. If not I'd love to see one that you thought was.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

Well, school holidays are a busy period for me, but they are only going for another week or two. As to votes, I'm getting pretty good vibes from SC.

My top suspects are currently DDD, Charlatan and Sando.

Unvote. Vote:DDD

@Ojanen: What's your read of Sando?

@SC: It's been made clear that you haven't stated that Sando is town this game, but what is your read on him?

[PorkchopExpress]

@Ojanen: DDD’s repeated claims of being a pro-town lurker without actually doing anything to earn the pro-town part of that label strike me as more palpably scummy than Charlatan’s shenanigans at the moment. You haven’t really mentioned DDD as of yet, I’m interested to know what your take on him is.

Re: Amished’s tell.
I saw Amished use this to catch Jazzmyn as scum in Last Man Standing, so the tell can be deadly accurate. Also not criticising your predecessor fits how I replace as town, for what little that might be worth. Still, without more from Reckoner, I’m not sure that the bandwagon is deserving of more support. It would be worth looking at games where Reckoner has replaced in as town and scum to see if the tell applies here. Care to help us out Reckoner?

I guess what is old is new again with Charlatan’s return to voting for VPB.
@Charlatan: Is it just the sense of urgency that pushes VPB ahead of SC on your suspect list?

[PorkchopExpress]

I think Charlatan is misrepresenting VPB in his last post. A scan of VP in iso has not left me with the impression that he is rushing a Charlatan lynch, or that he considers such a bandwagon to be now or never. It feels like Charlatan is pulling this right out of his arse.

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.

I’m not won over by the way that Charlatan tries to play himself up as the victim, and he is as guilty of rushing the conclusion of his lynch as he claims VPB is.

@Reck: I’m interested to know why you had SC down as scum initially. I would also like to know exactly what is giving you scummy vibes about VPB

[PorkchopExpress]

Bah, sorry reck. It's hard to concentrate with all the drilling. (That's on the SC issue). I was expecting more on VPB though.

[PorkchopExpress]

Would have posted this earlier but I needed to run and shower before the water was turned off. I hate builders.

@Amished: Sure. There are basically two reasons: It didn’t seem prudent to bring Charlatan to the brink of lynching when a new player was replacing in. Also, DDD’s attitude rings scummily to me (as I mentioned to Ojanen) so it seemed worth my time to direct a vote there.

Yeah, a lot gets lost in the big walls just cause I CBA'd to read all that crap going back and forth.

Sort of this. I read them but my goldfishesque short-term memory ends up putting my head in a spin and then I have some trouble seeing the arguments for the words.

@Ojanen: DDD’s repeated claims of being a pro-town lurker without actually doing anything to earn the pro-town part of that label strike me as more palpably scummy than Charlatan’s shenanigans at the moment. You haven’t really mentioned DDD as of yet, I’m interested to know what your take on him is.

Someone arrogantly claiming to be pro-town isn't a scumtell to me, and I'm not sure why it seems to be a large part of his scumminess to you, unless the whole argument is lurking. I don't necessarily like his attitude or the level of contribution, but I haven't felt anything that opportunistic yet, and he's felt fairly transparent and not that departed from the town-DDD I saw in Amished village.
He's neutral, or even a bit in the fair side of neutral.

I am weak. More in a bit.

It's less about arrogance and more about how he tries to frame the discussion with some dodgy presumptions and an oxymoronical claim. He tries to twist the logic of Amished's vote by erroneously attributing an obvious-town read to himself when he's done squat to earn it. Hell, if someone could explain what a pro-town lurker is to me, I'd be grateful.

What's more he's made some self-contradictory points while defending himself. In this post he notes that lurkers are a problem if people can't read them, and then suggests that it's Amished's fault for not having a clear read on him. I'm less inclined to believe that this is him just not being self-aware and think it is blinkered scumminess. He understands what the problem is but refuses to admit that it applies to him (and it does).

Of course, I don't have a meta on DDD (I don't have a meta on anyone in this game really). So, I just call what I see in this game.

Amished, here is how you know you are on the right track with charlatan: Your top suspect, xRx, has charlatan as number 1 on his scum list but never votes him. Instead he hops onto ABR's Porkchop vote with speed. Now, Porkchop was his number 2 suspect, but let's look at what he says about him:

I'm not so sure that xRx is the obviously opportunistic one here. I'm getting that feeling more from Sando.

Seriously, he harps on about a totally crap side-issue that he makes no attempt to actually explain how it's scummy beyond not liking my answers. In fact, when challenged to attribute scumminess all he does is suggest that my attitude is now scummy and then shift his vote. Now that some votes are coming my way, Sando rears his mug and hops back on the wagon. Opportunistic scum right here.

unvote. vote: Sando

VPB is defending PCE because it was VPB's idea to invite PCE. Hees pwotectinw hees baybee.

[PorkchopExpress]

It's Australia Day today and I'm quite drunk. I'll post on the morrow when I am sobersih.

[PorkchopExpress]

Hi, I've been floored (quite literally) with some exceptional abdominal pains for the last two days. It's just been joined by a few other medical-type issues that are pretty concerning (and in some cases a little gross), so I'll be off to see a doctory-type person in the morning. I'm hoping this is a stomach ulcer, but either way I'm not sure that I'll be able to focus in until this goes away. Sitting up is a struggle at the moment. As much as I hate to do this, I'm going to have to ask for replacement. Sorry about this people.