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

[Amished]

So there's nothing in 11 pages that you'd want to talk about at all? I've said my scumteam possibility, and if you actually bothered to read any more of my responses; you'll see that OJ isn't a strong candidate for that. However, other people are pressuring PCE for content, so I figure I can pressure you.

1) I've lost too many games because of lurkers (either lynching them if they're pro-town or not if they're scum)

2) I like the smell of OMGUS in the morning.

3) You're a player too, and you know what you pick up on that's scummy moreso than I know your outlook. Is my questioning you really the only (or most important) scummy thing you've seen all game?

[Amished]

So there's nothing in 11 pages that you'd want to talk about at all? I've said my scumteam possibility, and if you actually bothered to read any more of my responses; you'll see that OJ isn't a strong candidate for that. However, other people are pressuring PCE for content, so I figure I can pressure you.

1) I've lost too many games because of lurkers (either lynching them if they're pro-town or not if they're scum)

2) I like the smell of OMGUS in the morning.

3) You're a player too, and you know what you pick up on that's scummy moreso than I know your outlook. Is my questioning you really the only (or most important) scummy thing you've seen all game?

4) I acknowledge that I can be wrong; so if I am, this way I can get more information about the rest of the town and gauge myself on that as well.

[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.

[Zorblag]

@charlatan, since you ask, I'm happy to share more about why I voted for you. Your not answering my question really didn't enter into things much at all. I very rarely vote out of irritation (I can think of one case when I did but that was also doing some distancing from a scum partner and it was back in the first game that I played here.) Saying your vote was overly convenient was a bit of a simplification. You started out the game with a vote for Scien with a built in option to move to Vi at what could easily be played off as a whim. That came at the early, not so serious phase of the game so on it's own it wasn't too noteworthy. Continuing that pattern by setting yourself up to easily fall on either the next pair of wagons that seemed to come along (Albert B. Rampage and VP Baltar) was perhaps more noteworthy and was enough of a reason for me to give to vote given how early in the game it was but wasn't really something that I felt that strongly about.

At the time I was ready to move my vote from Ojanen as it had done what I wanted it to. Like I said back when I voted for you, I was tempted at the time to vote for one of Debonair Danny DiPietro or PorkchopExpress (others have since followed that path which I'm fine with) but they didn't have any other votes on them at the time so it wasn't all that likely to accomplish much. Given that SerialClergyman had just cast a vote for you I was more likely to get more in the way of a useful reaction to a charlatan vote than I would have with the other options.

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. Town should probably have more interest in figuring out why the vote was cast rather than talking about the question answering business and then accusing me of talking about the question answering rather than the reasons for the vote. I seems to me that scum would have much more reason to try to discredit my play as a reaction to having my toes stepped on.

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

... When he gets stuck in a rut, actually starts hurting the ability of others to scum hunt with distractions or stops participating in the game (like he did in Mini 880) is when it's time to start looking at him seriously.

An example of the stuck in a rut idea that you might relate to would be his interaction with LongNameForAShortLife in Newbie Game 749. 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 won't claim that my read on Albert B. Rampage is perfect; it certainly isn't. The things that stand out as warning flags for him simply aren't the same things that would stand out for most people. At this point I'm actually trying to decide what to make of how he's been interacting with me. He knows how I react to direct pressure from him and I'm not sure how good he feels those reads are so it certainly looks like he's trying another approach here. It's probably not buddying (at least as a surface tactic) as it's too blatant for that and I don't think that he would assume I'd be taken in like that but it might be something deeper along those lines. He's certainly isolating and drawing attention to our potential connections for some reason though.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[SerialClergyman]

Charlatan, if you have an argument between player A and player B and you're voting A but say you could be prepared to vote B because they are both scummy then yes - this is still fence sitting and you still look to be opportunistically waiting to commit to one side of the wagon. Your major objection seems to be that you were already voting Albert, 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.

When asked about why weak reasoning is scummy, you suggest that scum are likely to start looking at ways they can attaack players, not looking at things players should be attacked for. This implies that you don't like weak reasoning because it shows scum looking for reasons to attack townies.

So if you don't like Albert's weak reasoning, then presumably that should give you town vibes on VP. Yet you didn't have those vibes, you thought he was scummy too. But, again presumably, you couldn't be using the same arguments as ABR, because they were stretched and why you were voting for ABR in the first place!

I had to shake my head to try to get it back on straight after that. My criticism (which isn't affected by whether you had voted one of them first, incidentally) is that you were fence sitting between two arguing parties with this internally inconsistent view that they were both using weak reasons to attack a townie. Saying you are comfortable voting the person your current top suspect is attacking with weak reasons is indeed scummy to me.

Looking back over your posts, I'm not sure what you ever found scummy about VP, aside from jumping on my point about VP's LAL which was again pretty opportunistic and scummy given that at the time you did so it was obviously a mistake.

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.

How do you balance this viewpoint of the game with this:

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.

It seems to me you were far from attacking him full speed, in fact during this piece of play you were actively agreeing that his target was rising in scumminess and indicating you found his target scummy. You have a lot of rhetoric about getting in Albert's face, and aside from a vote on someone else's reasoning (well, bits of it anyway, because apparantly some of the OMGUS action is OK and some of it not) I just haven't seen that from you.

Now, as for your vote on me, do you think I'm the most scummy person in the game after your re-read? Did I overtake Albert or are you just not keen to place your vote back on him?

I'm not getting your case at all though. You never actually address a single argument I raise, more when I raise it and why. So I voted VP on gut and then afterwards tried to crystalise why I was feeling like that. It was spurred by a particular post VP made that I didn't like and I went back trying to collect a few of those kinds of statements to give people an understanding of why I was voting him.

I thought my reasons for voting you were self-evident given I had previously pointed out two major things you did that were scummy and that you had risen to 2nd on my scumlist. When I decided that I was likely to be wrong on VP I switched over to you - my previously mentioned second suspect.

I then had to explain in detail why I felt your fencesitting was scummy, which you objected to primarily because you were already voting Albert, which I see as largely irrelevent. I've tried to expand on that above, but in the end I don't care whether you think it's a scumtell or not, fencesitting and fanning the flames of an argument by saying both sides are scummy is a scumtell.

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?

[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.

[SerialClergyman]

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.

I have to run but arg sentence of extreme irritation.

I've made very few comments on Sando's alignment this game, and in the two other games I've played with him, I've accused him of being scum and town respectively. 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.

><

[Zorblag]

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 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've seen a fair amount of erratic, unfamiliar behavior. As you say, it's not really a problem for me. When I was complaining about people not answering questions I called it anti-town rather than scummy. What don't make sense given that you realize this are both that you'd assume that would be my reason to vote for you and that you'd think it would make me uncomfortable coming from you but not from others.

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.

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.

Well, we've got plenty of discussion being generated by his actions and he seems to be posting regularly in a way that indicates that he's been reading the game and knows what's going on so I suppose that we'll disagree about whether or not he's engaged. 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.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Albert B. Rampage]

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.

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

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.

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

[Sando]

Heya, I'm back, jetlagged to hell so won't get into content till I've at least had a nap, expect content in the next 12 hours from me.

[Head_Honcho]

Votecount:

SerialClergyman(2): PorkchopExpress, charlatan
PorkchopExpress(3): Sando, Ojanen, Vi
VP Baltar(1): Scien
Charlatan(4): SerialClergyman, Zorblag, Albert B. Rampage, VP Baltar
Debonair Danny DiPietro(1): Amished
Amished(1): Debonair Danny DiPietro

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

[Vi]

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

Troll, are you going to make up your mind on ABR in the next three hundred posts?

---

While I don't mind the charlatan wagon, I think I'm going to follow Amished down a different promising lane.

Unvote: PorkchopExpress
Vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

(L-5)

[Zorblag]

@Vi, are you unclear about my opinion on Albert B. Rampage now? He's doing nothing that I wouldn't expect him to as town, he is impacting the game in a way that I feel is helping us get reads on players and he's pushing at me in a way that he hasn't before. I think he's more likely town than scum at this point. The game is still young but I don't see the patterns that I expect him to follow if he's scum. I also don't think that any of that should be particularly surprising based on what I've been saying up till now.

I do wonder a bit about your most recent vote change though. It doesn't seem as though either Debonair Danny DiPietro or PorkchopExpress have posted since your previous vote. Was Amished's defense of his vote really enough to convince you that it was worth moving from one lurker vote to another or did you see something that you've failed to mention?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Albert B. Rampage]

@ABR - what is your read on Scien? (Of course there's a reason I'm asking.

I will love him more if he votes for charlatan.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Or anyone, really; if he backs it up. I just find the charlatan vote a good one, and one that wouldn't require as much original explanation as voting other players would.

[Vi]

@Vi, are you unclear about my opinion on Albert B. Rampage now? He's doing nothing that I wouldn't expect him to as town, he is impacting the game in a way that I feel is helping us get reads on players and he's pushing at me in a way that he hasn't before. I think he's more likely town than scum at this point. The game is still young but I don't see the patterns that I expect him to follow if he's scum. I also don't think that any of that should be particularly surprising based on what I've been saying up till now.

Unless I've been misreading, you've been calling "undecided" at every opportunity.

I do wonder a bit about your most recent vote change though. It doesn't seem as though either Debonair Danny DiPietro or PorkchopExpress have posted since your previous vote. Was Amished's defense of his vote really enough to convince you that it was worth moving from one lurker vote to another or did you see something that you've failed to mention?

After falling hopelessly behind in Appenine Mafia, DDD-scum adopted a strategy of "most helpful lurker" - resulting in him getting lynched in spite of basically every Townie wondering why on earth he was still alive at the beginning of each Day. After getting rightfully burned in that game, I'm not interested in letting DDD lurk another game away again, and I've been interested in what he would post ITT considering his promise to find something enlightening to base his vote on whenever that enlightening thing happens.

Now consider that apparently the most (if only) enlightening thing to occur thus far has been Amished voting for him. Excuse me if I have a hard time believing it.

[Zorblag]

@Vi, my intent regarding Albert B. Rampage has been to say that those things people are calling scummy in his behavior (OMGUS, switching opinion, etc) aren't particularly scummy in his case. Further, I've said that I see him engaging in the sort of behavior that I expect him to if he's town (stirring things up, polarizing opinions). I'm not here to defend Albert B. Rampage's behavior but thus far I've seen plenty of scum reads on him for reasons that don't strike true and nothing to indicate that he isn't town. If a tentative read of town based on that isn't what you've gotten out of that from me then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Regarding your Debonair Danny DiPietro vote I don't see anything in your explanation there that indicates why you would have been voting for PorkchopExpress previously or what would make you decide to change. Amished's vote for reasons which you apparently agree with came before your vote for Debonair Danny DiPietro. If his lack of participation was a concern for you why start with PorkchopExpress rather than going right to Debonair Danny DiPietro who you had reason to be concerned about on the lurking front?

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[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.

[Zorblag]

@PorkchopExpress, that still doesn't explain what would motivate Vi's change of vote as Debonair Danny DiPietro's lurking would still have been an issue when Vi decided to previously vote for you.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I do wonder a bit about your most recent vote change though. It doesn't seem as though either Debonair Danny DiPietro or PorkchopExpress have posted since your previous vote. Was Amished's defense of his vote really enough to convince you that it was worth moving from one lurker vote to another or did you see something that you've failed to mention?

After falling hopelessly behind in Appenine Mafia, DDD-scum adopted a strategy of "most helpful lurker" - resulting in him getting lynched in spite of basically every Townie wondering why on earth he was still alive at the beginning of each Day. After getting rightfully burned in that game, I'm not interested in letting DDD lurk another game away again, and I've been interested in what he would post ITT considering his promise to find something enlightening to base his vote on whenever that enlightening thing happens.

Now consider that apparently the most (if only) enlightening thing to occur thus far has been Amished voting for him. Excuse me if I have a hard time believing it.

I on the other hand have a hard time believing that my vote on Amished is the most interesting or scummiest thing so far in this game. And bear in mind, that it was you people who decided that when I finally said something it would be some super terrific point; I never claimed to have any phenomenal insight only that when something did interest me I would pursue it. And you're one of the two people who should know best that after the apparently defining game that was Appenine Mafia I changed my playstyle to account for that, three words - Mafia of Order.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

1) I've lost too many games because of lurkers (either lynching them if they're pro-town or not if they're scum)

So you've lost too many games by lynching pro-town lurkers, so you begin to pressure and vote a pro-town lurker, okay that argument doesn't make any sense.

2) I like the smell of OMGUS in the morning.

Maybe if you change the S in OMGUS from suck to scum then that'd be an accurate characterization.

3) You're a player too, and you know what you pick up on that's scummy moreso than I know your outlook. Is my questioning you really the only (or most important) scummy thing you've seen all game?

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.

4) I acknowledge that I can be wrong; so if I am, this way I can get more information about the rest of the town and gauge myself on that as well.

Blah, blah, blah, generic "more content is always good content" platitude conveniently trying to provide yourself a backdoor.

[SerialClergyman]

Ddd I think you're wrong about amished. Second option?

[Vi]

If his lack of participation was a concern for you why start with PorkchopExpress rather than going right to Debonair Danny DiPietro who you had reason to be concerned about on the lurking front?

I recall saying quite a bit about DDD burning me once about being lurkerscum, and how the impetus for my DDD vote was his reactive response to Amished.

Lurking

in and of itself wasn't my primary interest - especially since when people give RL reasons for being out of the game like PorkchopExpress did, they usually aren't lying.

Nonetheless, my QuickHam vote had a couple of elements to it.

*Virtually everything PExpress had said up until then was on defense - no leaving the random vote argument. Even during the post where he said "sorry I was out", all but one of his comments were on defense.
*In the post I voted him for, it seemed like he was trying to latch on to a popular argument in order to be counted without saying much of anything.
*I wanted to see how he - and others - would react to it. I didn't give the first reason when I voted, and I expected someone to see my jump as scummy. Like most of my plans, it only barely worked - it's only now happening with Troll.

I still don't have warm fuzzies about PorkE - partly because his vote is still on SerialClergyman - but I prefer my DDD angst more because there's less room for error.

---

I on the other hand have a hard time believing that my vote on Amished is the most interesting or scummiest thing so far in this game. And bear in mind, that it was you people who decided that when I finally said something it would be some super terrific point; I never claimed to have any phenomenal insight only that when something did interest me I would pursue it. And you're one of the two people who should know best that after the apparently defining game that was Appenine Mafia I changed my playstyle to account for that, three words - Mafia of Order.

You also said in Appenine Mafia that you change your playstyle in each game to avoid this kind of meta.

As far as "something spectacular" goes...

I'm just waiting to see something I view as scummy to start running with.

This wasn't you speaking?

1) I've lost too many games because of lurkers (either lynching them if they're pro-town or not if they're scum)

So you've lost too many games by lynching pro-town lurkers, so you begin to pressure and vote a pro-town lurker, okay that argument doesn't make any sense.

...words fail me. I love my vote right now. *hugs vote*

I'm interested in what kind of case you have on Amished pre-DDDvote, because like SerialClergyman I think Amished is more likely Town.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unvote; Vote: Amished

Tosses a "content plz" vote on me without asking for any specific content which is weak; asking for generic content doesn't actually help the town at all. Additionally I'm a relatively easy target and his vote can immediatly be spun off as nothing more than a pressure/content vote. This is of course strange because he claims to already have a scum team in mind, but instead of pushing a wagon on one of them, he goes for the lurker? Scum.

This isn't a phenomenal insight or anything, but it's good posting.

FOS Amished

for calling the team. However, the lurker vote is understandable. His vote for me obviously wasn't solid enough to last any more than a couple pages.

1) I've lost too many games because of lurkers (either lynching them if they're pro-town or not if they're scum)

So you've lost too many games by lynching pro-town lurkers, so you begin to pressure and vote a pro-town lurker, okay that argument doesn't make any sense.

I'm going to go ahead and say that you've misread what Amished wrote so he doesn't waste time defending the moot points. What he said is that the town in his games failed to lynch the scum lurkers and went ahead and lynched the town lurkers. The thing with a lurker is that you have no idea what his alignment is because he doesn't post. I find the way you imply that everyone should just assume that you are pro-town suspicious.

FOS DDD

Top three suspects:

Charlatan
DDD
Amished