Mini 1117 - Manhattan Special - [GAME OVER]

[Fugitive]

^Okay, what is it about then?

I don't find your interactions with IS favorable for a town read, nor do I like your play in general. I'll dig up some posts later but I'm not on my computer at the moment and don't want to spend the time building a case when I'll likely be interrupted.

Why did you ask a protective role a question, when answering it would out them?

It was clearly rhetorical, nice attempt at mudslinging though.

[Empking]

Crazy: Thoughts on Simo now/

Oh, yeah Tragedy's post clearly wasn't looking for an answer from a protective role.

[CrazyQuestions]

Crazy: Thoughts on Simo now/

Ill post my thoughts on all players as soon as possible. Have you inherited IS alphaness? I do not plan to "obey" you.

[Empking]

Crazy: Thoughts on Simo now/

Ill post my thoughts on all players as soon as possible. Have you inherited IS alphaness? I do not plan to "obey" you.

Why are you purposely playing anti-town by ignoring pro-town requests?
Why is "obey" in quotes?

[CrazyQuestions]

Why are you purposely playing anti-town by ignoring pro-town requests?
Why is "obey" in quotes?

1. I am not playing anti-town. I have not finished the re-reading and I like to make serious summaries, not just shit.
2. Because it is just your tone. I do not know whether your sentence is an imperative or not. But the tone is like that.

[Empking]

1. What's your pre-re-read read on simo?

[CrazyQuestions]

1. What's your pre-re-read read on simo?

I found him scummy because he was not scumhunting at all. He just agreed to enter the wagon when this had big numbers. When shadow started to "solidify" as scum, I thought he was just distancing as he was predicting a lynch. I have to re-read him because shadow is townie. I want to look back especially to my first episode Daddy-Son because this observation fits much better with the flips of the game. If this is the case, then he "helped" IS by alpha-ing against me. Later, he used that to simulate lot of activity while not scumhunting at all. His attacks on me were shit.

This is more or less a summary of quick thoughts.

[CrazyQuestions]

SUBSTRIKE-UPDATE

1. Back to his initial posts. I think he really plays the daddy-son game with IS (go back and read the son-daddy story if you missed this). Notice how in his first post, he observes my attack on IS and tends to correct IS. He uses a noticeable expression for a first post, like IGMOY IS (mafia). He attacks two other players like Empking (?) and Shadow (Town) with less emphasis, but decides to vote Shadow (Town). After realizing of his misunderstanding, unvotes and votes Empking (?). The player to whom he dedicated more time, IS (mafia), remains untouched.

2. His incoherences on the reasons we both had to attack IS (mafia) remain. He has not explained how he can at the same time say that he does not understand my reasons but declare they are very different to his.

3. As I described in my first summary, he turns his views outside the wagonners Empking (?)/ IS (mafia). Suddenly, he analyzes questioners of the wagon or the wagonee himself, sorrow (town), Greyice (town). There is couple of posts in which he expresses at the same time that he is fine with IS (mafia) (ISO 4 and 5, he just "needed" some clarification) while he says to me that he was skeptical about IS' (mafia) play. He votes here and there, lurkers and then Empking (?) again, accusing him of calling lurkers scum. Goes back to a lurker, sorrow (?) stating very precisely that of course, he is not voting for lurkiness. However, his reasons are very weak since Sorrow (?) was lurking most of the time. He remains without expressing a clear position on the full wagon.

4. Despite he is not expressing openly his view, he adds fire to the wagon on shadow (town) in ISO 15, by defending EMP (?) (quite remarkable since his only serious active target was Empking (?) along day 1 and empking (?) is aiming to lynch shadow (town)). In post 17, he fences even more announcing two coupled teams but expressing no serious opinions. Once he is accused of fence-sitting, he announces that Shadow (town) is being scummy, but twice he justifies that "Your play, if you are town, has been far below optimal, at best." and later he added "Shado's been playing like a scum, even if he's town." And decides to vote for shadow (town) after buddying Grey (town) and setting up some sort of day 2 attack to Empking (?) if shadow (town) is not scum.

Summary: I find Strike scummy. If someone needs clarification on which pieces of my summary are more important or anything else, ask.

[CrazyQuestions]

EMPKING-UPDATE

He actively created discussion day 1. However, now we know that his initial hyperbole dichotomy (Grey (town) or Shadow (town)) is based on two townies. He tunneled on Grey (town) very seriously during his vote to shadow (town), but it is hard to find any evidence against him out there. The read is not so good after time, but I see nothing very serious apart from minor guts here and there.

His change of opinion on a very solid read (me) is quite odd, especially because what he calls "distancing" is based in an initial observation I did guessing correctly 3 positions (IS, Shadow, Grey), and that took me analyzing the game very much during day 1. He should perceive my behavior in day 1 precisely as a paused transition from this initial view to the shadow wagon, which fits with his initial views on me...

Summary: Not especially scummy at this point.

[Substrike22]

Crazy, your buddying with EMP is obvious. Your hypocritical arguments in dealing with him versus dealing with me, and in twisting the words of almost everything I've done, is noted. You're mis-repping me, you've been mis-repping me, and I'm done trying to argue with you about it. You and EMP are our remaining scum.

VOTE: CQ

He tried to bus you and you've responded by "taking the high road." You point out his lack of a case towards you, then you attack me based on my "lack of cases" on people, which I think is bullshit, by the way. Admirable but also scum. You're acting like you know more than the rest of us, you've been acting that way since day 1. Your third point about me going after townies gets into nothing but WIFOM. I went after town because I didn't know if they were town. Your calling that into question makes me believe that you have information that we don't.

[Empking]

Crazy, your buddying with EMP is obvious.

You and EMP are our remaining scum.

[Erratus Apathos]

It was clearly rhetorical, nice attempt at mudslinging though.

No shit it was rhetorical. That still doesn't explain

why did you ask it?

[Fugitive]

It was clearly rhetorical, nice attempt at mudslinging though.

No shit it was rhetorical. That still doesn't explain

why did you ask it?

Thinking out loud mostly. I tend to do that. Next you're going to tell me that's a scum-tell?

[InflatablePie]

D3 Votecount #1

[2] CrazyQuestions - Empking, Substrike
[1] Erratus Apathos - Fugitive
[1] TheLonging - Erratus Apathos
[0] Empking
[0] Substrike22
[0] Midnight's Sorrow
[0] saporovirus
[0] Fugitive
[0] el simo
[5] Not Voting - CrazyQuestions, TheLonging, Midnight's Sorrow, saporovirus, el simo

Please point out any possible mistakes. With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch and 5 to No Lynch. The deadline is on Sunday, February 20th at 5PM EST.

[Erratus Apathos]

It was clearly rhetorical,

nice attempt at mudslinging though

.

No shit it was rhetorical. That still doesn't explain

why did you ask it?

Thinking out loud mostly. I tend to do that.

Next you're going to tell me that's a scum-tell?

No, I didn't find it scummy, I just didn't understand why you asked it.

I do find your "oh shit, he's attacking me" reaction (bolded) scummy, as I clearly wasn't attacking you, yet you preemptively assumed I was. Why did you assume I was attacking you?

[TheLonging]

vote: crazyquestions

^ still my vote for the record

[CrazyQuestions]

ERRATUS-UPDATE

My view on Erratus modified slightly due to the flips, as my only confusing observation on him relates to IS and it was not well defended. My question was why Erratus used IS' attack on Shadow to increase his own attack on Shadow. My observation was and is that IS just parroted Erratus, and after that, started to attack heavily. Erratus argues that post 97 of IS was not of the aggressive sort. But this was already my observation. Post 97 is the one where IS parroted Erratus. Erratus argues that other people was attacking shadow coherently. I agree. I joined the wagon because of several coherent observations by several people. But this does not answer my question. The question remains, why he used IS' nonsensical way of attacking to attack more Shadow (the ad hominem episode). Especially, it does not fit with the play I observe by Erratus.

Having said so, this is my only negative observation on Erratus. Besides, I hardly reconcile IS-Erratus as mafia. For instance, I would expect less interaction in attacking shadow and maybe, some interaction in attacking a third player.

Overall, I do not consider Erratus highly scummy.

---

More analysis tomorrow. I can answer any question Substrike and Longing formulate, but the former wrote he was not interested in discussing with me, and the second has not even expressed any idea about my scumminess. Strike did some sort of analysis, I will probably comment on it when i finish my summaries.

[saporovirus]

Sapo, I still want to hear your response to this:

Erratus: Appears to be asking questions but I don't necessarily see him scumhunting, as much as finding easy reasons to vote for certain people (shado for not having much content, internet stranger for ignoring him.)

Sapo, you say my votes on shado and IS are easy reasons to vote, but then you turn around and say these:

IS: got super defensive and emotional in his early posts. Also I think Erratus has a point in that he ignored his questions whilst gunning for shado.

I was pointing out a difference between voting IS for ignoring your questions (a fault that I think is somewhat excusable in a game with so many heated discussions), and me suspecting him /not liking him for general assiness/ emotionality/ tunneling. I'm not very smart and I often vote for/ suspect people based upon how annoyed they make me. I AM WORST SCUMHUNTERZ.

TheLonging:

what up with your CQ vote?


MOAR LATER.

[Fugitive]

It was clearly rhetorical,

nice attempt at mudslinging though

.

No shit it was rhetorical. That still doesn't explain

why did you ask it?

Thinking out loud mostly. I tend to do that.

Next you're going to tell me that's a scum-tell?

No, I didn't find it scummy, I just didn't understand why you asked it.

I do find your "oh shit, he's attacking me" reaction (bolded) scummy, as I clearly wasn't attacking you, yet you preemptively assumed I was. Why did you assume I was attacking you?

Why are you asking so many questions about something you don't find scummy?

[TheLonging]

Sapor: are you asking why I voted CQ, despite the fact that I voted him yesterday? Or are you asking why I voted CQ at all? I don't get it

[Erratus Apathos]

I am most suspicious of TL now. He never analyzed Shado, or even sheeped someone else's analysis of Shado. He just voted Shado and then ignored him all day, like scum trying to be the quietest on the wagon.

VOTE: TheLonging

I analyzed shao.

vote: crazyquestions

Where?

TheLonging, I still want an answer.

Sapo, I still want to hear your response to this:

Erratus: Appears to be asking questions but I don't necessarily see him scumhunting, as much as finding easy reasons to vote for certain people (shado for not having much content, internet stranger for ignoring him.)

Sapo, you say my votes on shado and IS are easy reasons to vote, but then you turn around and say these:

IS: got super defensive and emotional in his early posts.

Also I think Erratus has a point in that he ignored his questions whilst gunning for shado.

I was pointing out a difference between voting IS for ignoring your questions (

a fault that I think is somewhat excusable in a game with so many heated discussions

), and me suspecting him /not liking him for general assiness/ emotionality/ tunneling. I'm not very smart and I often vote for/ suspect people based upon how annoyed they make me. I AM WORST SCUMHUNTERZ.

How are the bolded statements not contradictory? How would you respond to someone ignoring your questions?

It was clearly rhetorical,

nice attempt at mudslinging though

.

No shit it was rhetorical. That still doesn't explain

why did you ask it?

Thinking out loud mostly. I tend to do that.

Next you're going to tell me that's a scum-tell?

No, I didn't find it scummy, I just didn't understand why you asked it.

I do find your "oh shit, he's attacking me" reaction (bolded) scummy, as I clearly wasn't attacking you, yet you preemptively assumed I was. Why did you assume I was attacking you?

Why are you asking so many questions about something you don't find scummy?

So many questions? I asked

one

question about 440, which was why you asked it, and like I said, I asked that because I didn't understand why you asked it.

Nice sidestep of my question by the way.

[Fugitive]

Why are you asking so many questions about something you don't find scummy?

So many questions? I asked

one

question about 440, which was why you asked it, and like I said, I asked that because I didn't understand why you asked it.

Nice sidestep of my question by the way.

So many questions = one in every post. You seriously thought I was asking why you asked so many question in reference to a single post? You speak in questions bro, and quite frankly, it makes me think you're feigning scum-hunting.

I don't need to sidestep a question that dumb, I blatantly chose not to answer it because I'm fed up talking to you.

This exchange has solidified my vote though.

[Erratus Apathos]

You seriously thought I wouldn't interpret "something you didn't find scummy" as a reference to 440 when you posted it directly after a quote of me saying I didn't find 440 scummy?

Not buying your excuse to sidestep.

UNVOTE: TheLonging
VOTE: Fugitive

[Fugitive]

Nice OMGUS.

[Erratus Apathos]