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

[Albert B. Rampage]

I don't know whether PCE is scum or not. I know we can't mislynch or we are in a world of shit tomorrow,

[SerialClergyman]

I don't know, Ojanen. I actually like most of the people on the charlatan wagon (pre-ABR and Reck) as town, despite the flip.

I really don't like Albert's play this game but I can't tell if it's scummy. I felt he changed to charlatan using a case based on entirely other people's reasoning. He can claim he was right all he likes today, but he jumped on the wagon when he didn't need to (the absense of a deadline gives you asm uch time as you need to make your case, not rushes you into a lynch).

But what's the motivation? Jump in, get a townie lynched and try to ditch the responsibility? I don't know.

As for lynch suspects, I think Ojanen, Reck or Porkchop are all there for me.

Why did the case on Porkchop die, Albert?

[xRECKONERx]

I don't know whether PCE is scum or not. I know we can't mislynch or we are in a world of shit tomorrow,

So you ARE saying DDD is scum? 'Cause he was a pretty strong scum read for me D1, and I'm debating on whether charlatan's flip even matters in regards to DDD's alignment.

That being said, I'm still liking a PCE lynch, but after reviewing the game, I'm starting to like a Sando lynch even more/equally as much, with DDD coming in right behind the both of them.

[PorkchopExpress]

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

[Ojanen]

Serial, what do you think about VP at this point?

Louder please.
Here's what confuses me about your play: you don't like tunnelling on D1. You claimed to want to avoid confirmation bias at all costs. You switched off of VP because you don't want to have confirmation bias and got an impression you might be wrong.
You proceed to tunnel the shit out of charlatan, while the town collectively amplifies that tunneling.

[Vi]

Here's what confuses me about your play: you don't like tunnelling on D1. You claimed to want to avoid confirmation bias at all costs. You switched off of VP because you don't want to have confirmation bias and got an impression you might be wrong.
You proceed to tunnel the shit out of charlatan,

while the town collectively amplifies that tunneling.

To echo SerialClergyman, this is rubbish.

In particular, the bolded seems to suggest that the Town (read: the others on the charlatan wagon) is at fault for SC's actions.

Question. How "legitimate" was the charlatan wagon?

[xRECKONERx]

Yo ABR

[Ojanen]

To echo SerialClergyman, this is rubbish.
In particular, the bolded seems to suggest that the Town (read: the others on the charlatan wagon) is at fault for SC's actions.
Question. How "legitimate" was the charlatan wagon?

What? That is rubbish. I don't recognize what I said from that, I don't recognize it at all.
I was referring to the fact that Serial initiated/pushed hard on the case while being concentrated very much on it, and the suspicion for charlatan had caught on widely at the same time, resulting in the thread being very concentrated overall on charlatan. Both of which are self-evident facts.

Do you mean by "legitimate" if I thought at the time the case was good (obviously on some fundamental level a wagon on town is not legitimate)?

I liked some parts, I wasn't convinced on others, I disliked some. I thougt a wagon was earned, I thought the ratio of concentrated attention only on him/scumminess of charlatan's actual original comments was possibly inflated. I fluctuated around on whether I thought charlatan was actually likely scum or not and was trying to find out. I did think at some point in time that there was a concentration of at least relatively townish looking people on the wagon.

[Ojanen]

Actually I exaggerate above. I don't think I straight out disliked any points. Just wasn't convinced on parts.

[Vi]

I was referring to the fact that Serial initiated/pushed hard on the case while being concentrated very much on it, and the suspicion for charlatan had caught on widely at the same time, resulting in the thread being very concentrated overall on charlatan. Both of which are self-evident facts.

I'm looking for how or why this is a scummy thing, considering everyone except maybe ABR agrees that there was a substantive case on charlatan.

What put PorkchopExpress over charlatan, if you agreed with both cases?

[xRECKONERx]

Vi, same question at you, just flip it:

What made you put charlatan over PCE? Did you find PCE scummy at all D1? Do you find him scummy in light of charlatan's flip?

[Vi]

Vi, same question at you, just flip it:

What made you put charlatan over PCE? Did you find PCE scummy at all D1? Do you find him scummy in light of charlatan's flip?

My reasoning is (appropriately) the flipped version of what ABR or whoever was saying. charlatan was doing lots of scummy things, as briefly outlined previously. I don't/didn't particularly like what PorkchopExpress was doing, but I believe that the case against him was being exaggerated. I'm not sure how I would find PorkchopExpress scummy as a result of charlatan's flip.

Plus as of right now I'm more interested in finding the scum who were actually voting on the major wagons at the end of D1.

[Ojanen]

I'm looking for how or why this is a scummy thing, considering everyone except maybe ABR agrees that there was a substantive case on charlatan.
What put PorkchopExpress over charlatan, if you agreed with both cases?

Well perhaps you should read the rubbish post of mine then.
I wanted to know what Serial thinks of VP and didn't really get a straight answer. I wanted to know how his concentration on charlatan matches the self-processed avoiding confirmation bias at all costs mentioned earlier D1 in this thread and how switching from VP to charlatan explained partly by this avoiding conf.bias business fits the picture.

There was nothing that said "town" on PCE and he had plentifully bothered my gut from the earliest stages, I loved the pressure on him, the meta defence seemed wrong to me.
While due to simply more content available the charlatan case was bigger,
there was stuff that made me relatively more uncertain about him.
It should be all reasonably transparent in my iso.
Earlier during the day I thought there was quite enough pressure for my liking on charlatan without me voting him although I was asking questions and thus pushing the case somewhat too. You find that scummy about me like the others do?

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm warning you right now Sando is going to end up as another charlatan. Personally, I would take out DDD, but I'm not absolutely committed to that yet.

He was doing things that were easy to paint as scummy, but anyone with an ounce of good reason could see that any player could make bad arguments, try to defend his previous actions, not admit he's wrong, not scumhunt with a head on his shoulders, appear odd to the others, etc.

I voted him out because I wouldn't want to be left in a situation with him with me and the scum in LYLO, his opinions were largely bull-headed and his reasoning was extremely clouded. If it could be any other way, say 1 of the 5 first players on his wagon joined a PCE push, I would have kept him because he provided a good amount of content. I feel as though I am a better player than him and if he were scum I could outplay him in subsequent days and find his partners while I'm at it.

What is done is done. I just hope you realize that the 5 of you made rookie mistakes in stubbornly refusing to see any other possibility than charlie being scum. Elongating the day would just be a waste of all our time since the 5 of you made it clear you didn't want to switch to anyone else. Please don't waste my time or I will ask for a replacement.

More from Zorblag, Sando and VP Baltar would be nice.

[Albert B. Rampage]

(charlatan)

was doing things that were easy to paint as scummy, but anyone with an ounce of good reason could see that any player could make bad arguments, try to defend his previous actions, not admit he's wrong, not scumhunt with a head on his shoulders, appear odd to the others, etc.

Like I said, the case on charlatan would be the type of case I would write if I was scum.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I need more tangible evidence from PCE; he hasn't really brought anything to the table.

[xRECKONERx]

ABR.

Was there scum on the charlatan wagon?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Yep. And it wasn't me.

[xRECKONERx]

Let's play a game, ABR. It's called rank the scum.

SerialClergyman, Zorblag, VP Baltar, Amished, Vi, xRECKONERx

GO GO RANK TIME

[Head_Honcho]

The Vote County Fair:

Sando(1): Vi
PorkchopExpress(2): Ojanen, xRECKONERx,
xRECKONERx(1): Debonair Danny DiPietro
Debonair Danny DiPietro(1): Albert B. Rampage

Not Voting(5): Zorblag, SerialClergyman, Sando, VP Baltar, PorkchopExpress
With 10 alive it's 6 to lynch.

[Vi]

Earlier during the day I thought there was quite enough pressure for my liking on charlatan without me voting him although I was asking questions and thus pushing the case somewhat too. You find that scummy about me like the others do?

Not particularly until here--

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

I saw nothing of the sort in charlatan's post.

Your next post feels like a waffle--

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.

It seems like you were interested in finding reasons to gravitate toward the charlatan hammer.

---

He was doing things that were easy to paint as scummy, but anyone with an ounce of good reason could see that any player could make bad arguments, try to defend his previous actions, not admit he's wrong, not scumhunt with a head on his shoulders, appear odd to the others, etc.

I voted him out because I wouldn't want to be left in a situation with him with me and the scum in LYLO, his opinions were largely bull-headed and his reasoning was extremely clouded. If it could be any other way, say 1 of the 5 first players on his wagon joined a PCE push, I would have kept him because he provided a good amount of content. I feel as though I am a better player than him and if he were scum I could outplay him in subsequent days and find his partners while I'm at it.

I think I understand.

There's a factor missing, but I think that will be answered today.

[SerialClergyman]

Ojanen, I still feel pretty happy about VP being town, as I do for everyone on the charlatan wagon barring ABR and Reck. Was my answer unclear?

Albert, what was the purpose of your long post before voting charlatan?

[Ojanen]

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

I saw nothing of the sort in charlatan's post.

I think I'm sometimes tricked by people being more extroverted than I assume or something of that sort.
What I thought felt fake was the fact that there was only a couple of pages of new posts and charlatan came in and said something like "well I am totally not going to jump on this rival wagon right away because it could be scum looking for 2 mislynches and I will now read the new content and decide what I think". Because it seemed a pointless thing to say instead of just reading the couple of pages and posting his opinion then, unless the point was "looook! I am not instinctively self-preserving!".

Your next post feels like a waffle--

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.

It seems like you were interested in finding reasons to gravitate toward the charlatan hammer.

There was no chance in hell for another wagon succeeding after ABR switched directions. I wanted a claim unlike ABR. I thought the previous post had been scummier again and I was fine with his lynch. I don't know what you see as a waffle in that post. The first line is a reference to Albert being incredibly obnoxious to him, which I thought was unwarranted especially after how the previous game with a scumteam of me, charlatan, Albert worked out through charlie's effort.

Was my answer unclear?

Yup.

[Ojanen]

Also, it's funny, Vi, how we seem to have had for a while similar concerns about each other. I didn't relate to the reasons of you joining the charlatan wagon. I agreed with ABR on that. There were 3 points relating to charlatan using a bad argument in his defence and one point which I think means you thought charlatan was scum with ABR (referring to a catfight between them).

*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.

This one was especially hard to decipher for me; why did this wishful thinking make charlatan scummy?

[Vi]

@"holier": I'm not sure I follow, but there's no sense in arguing it out.

Re: waffle - Perhaps "waffle" was not the best of terms to use. It seemed like you were generating rationalizations for jumping over.
I'll grant that once ABR jumped over there was no chance of a noncharlatan lynch though.

There were 3 points relating to charlatan using a bad argument in his defence and one point which I think means you thought charlatan was scum with ABR (referring to a catfight between them).

You are thinking correctly in that last part. (Obviously, it's not true in hindsight.)
Why are these bad/unsatisfactory?

This one was especially hard to decipher for me; why did this wishful thinking make charlatan scummy?

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

...which was patently untrue, and an attempt to whitewash the other concerns (i.e. pushing ABR to pointlessly and transparently stir up drama, awful SerialClergyman vote, etc.).