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

[xRECKONERx]

Maybe it's because I've never played with Vi before, but IIRC my town read was mostly due to what I consider to be earnest scumhunting.

[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.

[Vi]

[about Sando and PE's 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?

Now what was the purpose behind this?

---

@DDD 382, and later charlatan 389: I'm fairly positive I've mentioned this before, but lurking is -not- the core of my case against DDD; the case on Amished and subsequent badposting (brought out by playing activity police, yes) is.

---

@xRx: Can you specify anyhow (by an example, or anyhow so that I could get anything more tangible out of it) how Vi feels so pro-town? Would be interesting because (s)he's been a completely impenetrable read for me so far.

Likewise.
Why should I believe you're Town, Ojanen?

---

Regarding my predecessor,

all I could think during my re-read

was... holy shit, Scien is pressuring Vi on quite possibly the dumbest thing ever.

[etc.]

What about the rest of Scien's play?

charlatan is my strongest town read.

SC is one of my only scum reads. Vote: SC

SCUMMEH:
charlatan

TOWNEE:
SC

Really? Wow.

---

@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.

Just "worthwhile"?
There are two major reasons I have not laid a case out against you. One, I wanted to stall joining your wagon (and possibly the Day itself) in hopes of getting a read on DDD. It feels terrible to land in D2 and have

no

read on someone. Two, I simply didn't have time or energy to read through all of the walls. I still barely don't.

In brief, these are the things standing out. If you want more detail, I can provide; but considering my new schedule I don't particularly want to.
*You've used tricky semantic arguments to try to argue something opposite what everyone else has been reading.
*Your relationship with ABR seems like a giant catfight - awkwardly provoked by you, awkwardly dropped by you, continued by ABR after your awful SerialClergyman case, dropped by ABR somewhat suddenly recently.
*Your caricature of the wagon as "based on a quote from Page 5" is wishful thinking from a perspective of wishful thinking. A formal case is not necessary behind each vote, and a defense does not make the problem go away. Or more succinctly: Mafia is not a game of logic.
*Your time-sensitive argument in 481 (oh you didn't ask me about this a while ago, so this must be scraping for reasons to find me scummy) do NOT resonate with me in particular, considering I'm rapidly finding out how little Mafia time is in my near future, plus I deliberately kept mum in hopes of pressuring DDD.

Vi - we have to lynch someone. Do you prefer charlatan, DDD, or neither as of yet?

I would lynch charlatan over DDD... in a few posts.

@Everyone *not* voting Char: What is your main reason for voting for somebody else? (directed at
12. Vi (on DDD))

Scummy posting coupled with misrepresentation of case, frustrated by a claim that "he gets better after D1".

In a larger picture, I wanted to draw the Day out before jumping onto the charlatan wagon.

---

I would go so far as to say that porkchop is a better lynch than charlatan because at least with the latter we will have a lot to play with in later days.

"Information" is always vacuously explained to me as a reason to do anything, so--
Please explain what you're talking about here.

[xRECKONERx]

The rest of Scien's play wasn't awful. Just that stretch at the beginning where he kept going on and on about lynch numbers.

[Amished]

I would go so far as to say that porkchop is a better lynch than charlatan because at least with the latter we will have a lot to play with in later days.

Because PCE has gotten by so far without doing much of any real effort, and I've learned you don't let that just slip by, otherwise you wind up with either a) a scum who's slipping by unnoticed or b) a townie who is an easy mislynch later.

With *convincing* arguments like these, how can I really avoid voting for PCE? Oh wait, I know; they're terrible and I don't see how anybody can really be swayed to join a vote on PCE due to crap like this.

We have: "Day1 lynches are random and we can't do any scumhunting now so we'll get rid of somebody today that might or might not be scummy"

and

"I'm not mentioning the obvious hole in my logic that c) this is a townie who is an easy mislynch now that is the goal that I really want as I'm scum"

@Sando: Your initial vote was on PCE for having a random vote that wasn't random. Throughout that you really didn't say much of anything on PCE. Actually, now that I double check, this is your whole reasoning for having your vote on him. It really does seem like you should be voting for Charlatan over PCE given your ISOs 27, 28 and 29; while you "attacking" PCE occurred in 25 (talking about random vote) and 9 (still asking about the random vote).

Can we lynch any of Sando/Char/xRx now?

[xRECKONERx]

So, Amish, you read PCE as certain-town?

[xRECKONERx]

Also, why is ABR's logic re: PCE-lynch any better than mine, since you read me as scum and not him?

[Head_Honcho]

Count Voteula:

charlatan(4): SerialClergyman, Zorblag, VP Baltar, Amished
Debonair Danny DiPietro(1): Vi
xRECKONERx(1): Debonair Danny DiPietro
VPBaltar(1): charlatan
PorkchopExpress(4): Albert B. Rampage, xRECKONERx, Sando, Ojanen
Sando(1): PorkchopExpress

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

[Vi]

@xRx: Aside from the speed of his posts, did you find charlatan's early posts'

content

(through Page 8 or whenever) to be pro-Town? How or how not?

I like Amished's lynch list, although I would like for him to answer xRx's questions toward him.

charlatan(4):

[lots of Town reads]

PorkchopExpress(4):

[lots of neutral/scummy reads]

Well that makes my decision even easier.

Unvote: Debonair Danny DiPietro
Vote: charlatan

(L-2)

[Amished]

@xRx: If I had to put a number on it from my read of the game, I'd say PCE is 85% likely to be town.

As for you over ABR; I see more scummy interactions coming from your slot while with ABR he's just weird. I have no idea what's going through his head, but for some reason I don't think he's putting his full time or effort into this game. I do not know the reason for this; but it's something that I still won't get an answer for after the game I'm thinking.

Also, you {xRx} have done my scumtell which pretty much makes you certain scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vi 502 case against charlatan is WEAK. None of the reasons he lists make charlatan all that likely to be scum. Bad townie, maybe.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm 85% sure pce IS scum.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Also, you {xRx} have done my scumtell which pretty much makes you certain scum.

Come on, Amished. If you're that confident let's get banging at stringing this guy up instead of just chasing some potential connection with him.

[VP Baltar]

VPB

ABR is defending

PCE

charlatan because

it was VPB's idea to invite PCE

they were scum together last game. Hees pwotectinw hees baybee.

[Albert B. Rampage]

VPB

ABR is defending

PCE

charlatan because

it was VPB's idea to invite PCE

they were scum together last game. Hees pwotectinw hees baybee.

Your defense of PCE was bullshit meta. My common sense opinion on Vi's case on charlatan is that it doesn't prove that charlatan is scum in any way. And I know charlatan, if and whether he is scum with PCE or not, he's going to make a lot more mistakes.

So far, what has PCE done but ask questions and echo other players' opinions? Nothing. It's almost as if he is not even there.

Trust me, PCE is scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Let me surmise the case on charlatan: he makes bad arguments. He doesn't read the game like everyone else. He changes his mind often. That's IT.

If you can give better reasons than that, go ahead and post them. I'm just not seeing it right now.

[VP Baltar]

Well, first, I was just teasing. Relax there killer.

Second, did you read the game I linked? Because the things you are charging PCE with (ask questions and echo other players' opinions) are exactly what he did in that game. Not sure why you are saying it's bullshit. What other meta do you have of him?

Don't expect me to trust you about PCE when I just completed a town game with him when he acted similarly. You may be right, but I don't find the arguments particularly persuasive given my recent experience.

[VP Baltar]

Let me surmise the case on charlatan: he makes bad arguments. He doesn't read the game like everyone else. He changes his mind often. That's IT.

If you can give better reasons than that, go ahead and post them. I'm just not seeing it right now.

If that's your interpretation, cool.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I try and use the word bullshit sparingly, but it certainly had its place there. I hate meta. Don't you think that PCE would try and act like in the other game knowing you were in it? You can't laud his play and then turn around and underestimate him like that.

[VP Baltar]

Don't you think that PCE would try and act like in the other game knowing you were in it? You can't laud his play and then turn around and underestimate him like that.

It has nothing to due with underestimating him. He's a good player or I wouldn't have asked him to play here. What I'm saying is that everyone has shitty moments from time to time, especially if they are busy with other stuff.

You're assumption that he's sandbagging it to trick people (me specifically?) seems like quite the leap. At best you could say it's null. Sure if he continued to do it all game, it would definitely become suspicious, but I don't think the way he is doing it is coming across at all fake.

You may hate meta, but I personally do not and find it a useful tool if used correctly.

Additionally, the way people have shifted toward him as the charlatan wagon started to come back around is pretty laughable. xRx's vote in particular is non-sensical when you look at the amount of time he has spent talking about charlatan vs. PCE.

[Albert B. Rampage]

He reads town to me in that game, and scum in this one.

In that game, he does agree with other players, but he expands and elaborates on what they say. Eg: post 10 in iso.

He starts off strong and is voting for his own reasons (post 3 in iso), and only follows a player for a short time (post 2 in iso).

In this game, he's keeping a low profile, barely reading the game, active lurking.

Case in point:

How many "discussion-advancement" questions did he ask in the game you linked? NONE. He asks rhetorical questions, questions that damn the player, but for the most part he makes claims and is actively scumhunting. He's following his own nose there, clearly.

Look at the difference in this game: in iso, post 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc.

He's glaringly shifting the responsability of scumhunting to other players and doing none of his own! He is strategically taking a back seat role in which he can take whichever side is more beneficial to him depending on the evolution of the game. It's a classic scumtell.

Don't tell me you can't see the difference. Maybe it's because I'm not emotionally invested in that other game that I can see this.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Meta-check confirms scumminess. Lynch please.

Zorblag, help me out. DDD, he was voting for you a minute ago, don't tell me you're against lynching pce now. Let's go people, chop chop.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Or look at his voting pattern. Thinks DDD is scum. Thinks charlatan is scum. OMGUS to Sando.

Basically his strategy is to vote whoever town thinks is scummy and then OMGUS when said town turns against him.

[Amished]

@ABR: If you're gonna barn the charlatan case like that, I can do it too: PCE is just lazy. That may make him a bad townie, but it doesn't prove that he's scum in any way.

Also, and DDD can attest to this (lover's, ugh): one way meta's are dangerous. I do just see PCE as lazy this game and not scummy. If you're going to talk about somebody not really contributing, I suggest you look at Sando. His self-assigned major selling point was that he had a case against PCE which I already talked about (2 posts, maybe 2 sentences per post); and then hunted Charlatan but didn't vote for him.

@DDD: You know, you're right; but I do see enough of a situation to have Char-scum lynched as well. I'm not going to abandon a wagon on a top 3 suspect that has *scum* connections to my top suspect when said wagon is at L-2; and my top is at L-5 or L-6. Especially as I tried to convince everybody of the validity of my point and I was dismissed by 3-4 people right then and there; and ignored by a couple more. That doesn't allow me to get a lynching majority on xRx; but there are more days for that as well.

@VP: I want you to admit this: my top suspect (xRx) has scum connections to your top suspect in your eyes, right? For xRx to have scum connections, he has to be scum. My tell has come through again and should be a valid place to put your vote on as well. Damn stubborn so-and-so.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Bullshit Amished. PCE isn't lazy. And even if I would buy that he is purposely acting scummy as part of some grand trap, he would STILL be more lynchable than charlatan. Far more.