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

[Ojanen]

EBWOP: Second quote is supposed to be from Porkchop as well.

[SerialClergyman]

My point is not to make a meta argument for charlatan being scum, my point is that dismissing his bad arguments as a lack of skill doesn't ring true, we all know him to be a skillful player. When a player I know to be skillful makes bad arguments, I view it as scummy.

So far Albert's arguments seem to me to be the opposite of what I expect.

I don't see charlatan's lynch as an easier solution than PCE, or charlatan as a player who one can dismiss bad arguments as bad play.

[Vi]

In fact, the case on charlatan is the type of case I would use as scum. It's an easy answer the town is looking for and delighted by. The hard reality is that there are no easy answers in this game.

The charlie case is a myth. And I, am a legend.

contradictory rhetoric

[VP Baltar]

Hey people on the PCE wagon, if charlatan is town who is scum on his wagon? Given that he seems to be on the edge of being lynched for forever, I'm going to assume you think there is a large concentration of scum on his wagon that just can't get it over the edge, so enlighten me.

[xRECKONERx]

You?

[Head_Honcho]

Votecount:

charlatan(5): SerialClergyman, Zorblag, VP Baltar, Amished, 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.

ABR: Denied for now.

[VP Baltar]

You?

How trite. Do you think I'm more likely to be scum than charlatan? Who else on the wagon is scum in your eyes?

[Amished]

VP, let him be, he's scum and knows that none of us are scum so he doesn't want to make a false case that he can't back up.

[Rampage]

Yo Reck.

[xRECKONERx]

yo Rampage.

And, I think out of anyone on the charlatan wagon, you're most likely to be scum. But I actually think the charlatan wagon is town-driven. Which is why scum won't get on the wagon.

[Rampage]

What say you of Ojanen and Sando?

[xRECKONERx]

Sando is about VPB levels of scummy right now: not blatantly scummeh, but I've got my eye on him.

Ojanen was at first a hard read, but her tendency to lean towards the PCE wagon makes me think she's town... scum would've just gone with the easy wagon imo

[Rampage]

Ojanen seems more bubbly than usual. She's usually more stressed as scum, but I don't have a clear read on her yet.

I haven't seen Sando do anything scummy yet except for looking detached from the game. What does clergyman think about his friend?

Anyway. I am preparing charlatan's last stand as we speak.

[xRECKONERx]

charlatanscum + PCEscum.

Why isn't charlatan going for PCE?

Why isn't PCE going for charlatan?

Cause they're scumbuddies?

[Rampage]

Actually Reck, what I meant to ask you in 560 was "What say you we lynch charlatan right here and now?".

[Sando]

VPB, why does me voting PCE mean I have to think Char is town?

[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.)

[Ojanen]

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

[Ojanen]

But expecting eagerly conclusion.

[Rampage]

lol Ojanen, you want to see a holier-than-thou post? Brace yourself. I went ahead and took a closer look at the charlie bandwagon from SC's perspective:

Clergyman's first suspicion

He voted VPB initially to join in on the fun. Vote became serious. Switched to charlatan on page 10 whilst claiming that he feels like he's on the wrong track with VPB despite the good reasons he has against VPB.

His only mention of charlatan before the aforementioned vote is in post 234, claiming that he doesn't like charlie suspecting both VPB and myself in an argument of VPB against myself.

In post 304, he elaborates on this.

Break to Charlatan's early attacks

So now we have to look at charlatan's attacks on myself and VPB. Let there be no mistake, Charlatan attacks me because he agrees with VPB:

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.

Charlatan launches a surprise attack on VPB for the LAL argument (that he later retracted):

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.

Now in post 271, he makes a glaring mistake:

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?

He forgot that he followed VPB to attack me when he says that VPB's points against me are weak.

His whole stance against me is to his own admission, weak. But he keeps his vote on me for another dozen posts, which is ridiculous.

He later claims it to be a pressure vote to get a better read on me. Which makes sense, because he never had a real reason to attack me. But later on, he says I'm his top suspect. Facepalm.

Back to clergyman's main case

1) His early positions were vague and weak. Fence sat on VP vs ABR, when called to had very little challenging VP at all, including some things that were arguably flat out contradictions. Tried to use the LAL point after it was obviously null and others had seen it come and go.
2) His attacks have been terrible. The case against me was always bad and a bizarre choice no doubt inspired by the position he was in and the pressure he was under. He then moved to VP for no paritcular reason (I mean come on - if we're voting based on urgency I don't have to move my vote at all!)
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..

1) True, as I have just proved.
2) True again, but is linked to 1) that his positions are vague, weak and contradictory.
3) Agreed with his poor choice of targets. He tried to pour suspicion on me and got burned.

Still, after all this, charlatan is more of a bad player than scummy to me. Maybe he wanted to prove to himself that he's a good player, so he tried to compete with me. Try to attack me for no reason like I usually do. Imitating me. Maybe I'm just flattering myself, I don't know; but there's something off with his behavior.

He could also be scum. Anyway, as of this post, I consider him too much luggage to keep around. Whatever hope I had of drawing out his scumbuddies is now compromised.

Charlie, I hope you realize how poor your play was here. You have so much to work on...stay the course, my friend.

And like Ramsey always says, if you can't handle the heat, don't enter the kitchen pretending to be a cook. There's a world of difference between you and me, you simply can't copy my techniques with the level you are at. I'm sorry if I gave you any false hopes.

Unvote, vote charlatan

[Rampage]

You can't be me, dog. I'ma fuckin legend.

Now everyone on the PCE wagon voiced distrust towards charlie here, so I doubt he's gonna pull a mason claim, and even if he did, who's he gonna claim to be with, DDD?

Hammer away, guys.

[Ojanen]

Sigh/slight lol at the usual ABR rhetorics.
charlatan, you're a good player. Won the game to your team last time etc.
Well I was just thinking after the fake feeling holy post and the diametrically opposite hard-to-understand reads to mine that charlatan keeps generating again that I'm enthusiastic enough about seeing him lynched.
I'd still like a claim though.

[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

[xRECKONERx]

Eh, what the hell.

Unvote, Vote: charlatan

.

Hammah.

[charlatan]

As expected. Later, kiddos.