Mini 1117 - Manhattan Special - [GAME OVER]

[el simo]

Yup CQ I didn't take it into account, I've made it very clear that I can't give this game the attention I used to, so when you made it clear I backed off. SOUND FAMILIAR BECAUSE THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED DAY 1. Also don't associate me with Empking, I didn't unvote because he did unvoted because you refuted my case.

[Erratus Apathos]

This is why Fugitive is scum:

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.

Townies getting fed up with conversations happens all the time... but only after it's clear the conversation is going nowhere! This was not the case when Fugitive said this, not even close. There's no reason for town Fugitive to be fed up with answering my questions, when it was only the third question I asked him.

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

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?

As I said before, his reaction to my questioning is scummy, because I wasn't attacking him at this point, yet he was acting like it. Scum are more likely to be nervous that they'll get attacked, because they know they deserve it.

[Empking]

That's all of it?

[InflatablePie]

D3 Votecount #4

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

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.

Prodding TheLonging.

Not counting Empking's vote here due to lack of unvote.

Fugitive's V/LA until the 15th is noted. saporo's V/LA for the 13th (or so) is noted.

[Erratus Apathos]

That's all of it?

Yes.

[CrazyQuestions]

Yup CQ I didn't take it into account, I've made it very clear that I can't give this game the attention I used to, so when you made it clear I backed off. SOUND FAMILIAR BECAUSE THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED DAY 1.

I have described how you posted 18 different posts about me trying to mud-create a wagon on IS. 18 posts !!
And suddenly, you forgot it when decided that I was IS' mate. You did not even consider it, you did not reflect on it...you maybe are not paying much attention, but you will not convince me easily that you simply forgot all that...

[el simo]

What does slinging mud at IS have to do with Shado flipping town?

[saporovirus]

VOTE: Erratus Apathos

You are seriously reaching with this fugitive thing, dude.

I'm really getting the sense that Crazy/ strike are town v. town, mainly because they are not unreasonable in their reads of other players. However they are harping on each other for small points- crazy on substrike for "not understanding" the 3 words thing and then finding flaws in internet stranger's vote for grey (which lead to the daddy-son thing). Crazy said that internet stranger overjustified his vote for grey. Substrike pointed out that internet stranger's vote for grey was based on a really stupid post (grey's joking about being scum)- that wagon was too easy and really not necessary at that point in the game. Crazy CLARIFIED HER 4 WORDS thing BEFORE substrike said they were voting for different reason- that makes his claim NOT CONTRADICTORY. She then went ahead and used that to come up with her daddy-son thing, which she hasn't let go of. Substrike suspects her largely because she keeps on bringing it up. They have blind spots for each other- that doesn't mean either one is scum and I suspect neither one is.

[Erratus Apathos]

No I'm not.

[CrazyQuestions]

What does slinging mud at IS have to do with Shado flipping town?

These are two different points.

POINT 1.

You make 18 posts during day 1 on slinging mud at IS. This was your ONLY observation on me day 1 and you dedicated 18 posts and an amazing amount of time to it. IS flips scum and you dont change radically your view of me? Amazing...

POINT 2.

You sustain your vote day 3 on me with a completely ridiculous argument that IS' observations make me scummy, especially one in which IS was obviously WRONG and BEHAVING SCUMMY.

----

However they are harping on each other for small points- crazy on substrike for "not understanding" the 3 words thing and then finding flaws in internet stranger's vote for grey (which lead to the daddy-son thing).

This is a bad summary of my observations on Substrike. I will make a more detailed summary soon.

Crazy CLARIFIED HER 4 WORDS thing BEFORE substrike said they were voting for different reason- that makes his claim NOT CONTRADICTORY

You forget that in the SAME first post, Strike already called my reasons non-understandable and however said I had recognized flaws in IS...

[Fugitive]

Back a bit early from my V/LA

---------

Started making a partial summary of day 1, but showed no interest in his own observations. I clarified about me, and he didnt even consider my answer. Day 2 and 3, he is changing his own views on players, since I was scummy and now I am obvtown, Empking seemed town and then he voted for him, Erratus was not even analyzed in his first summary.

I meant Erratus when I called you out for useless questions day 1, I had you two confused. Forgot to correct that later since day 1 ended so soon after and Day 2 was also quick. That should clear up the rest of your concerns in that paragraph, actually.

---------

Erratus' "case" on me is pretty laughable, but if there's anything anyone would like me to respond to or answer go ahead an ask.

[InflatablePie]

Searching for a replacement for TheLonging.

[CrazyQuestions]

I meant Erratus when I called you out for useless questions day 1, I had you two confused. Forgot to correct that later since day 1 ended so soon after and Day 2 was also quick.

Allow me to dig more, because your answer is QUITE surprising. Lets suppose you read all the messages by Erratus and me as written by "the same person". Well, if this is the case, by page 5, which is when you made your summary, Erratus had posted 5 times and I had posted 26 times. Hence, I am sorry for Erratus but probably I was the protagonist of our double-personality game with you. I had to be much more visible than him in your dreams. And consistent with it, you called us CQ and SHE, in femenine. One can easily read it in your summary. Hence, your summary there applies mostly to me (26/31 is really big, isnt it?) and your contradiction remains.

Now, if you mean that your analysis refers EXCLUSIVELY to the 5 posts written by Erratus and you mixed up name and gender, where is your analysis on my 26 posts? This is a 20 per cent of the information you read and you forgot to write on me? This is highly unbelievable...

That should clear up the rest of your concerns in that paragraph, actually.

Not at all. First, your answer does not explain your switch on Empking. Second, you have not addressed how you promised a case on Erratus prior to your last discussions and right now, you are mostly calling him scum for the NEW observations after this promise.

[el simo]

I don't understand why CQ continues to argue with me even after I've admitted he was right and unvoted - maybe tomorrow he will criticize me for dedicating 18 posts to his relationship with IS because even after I gave up on the case he kept bringing it up making me respond - just like he did yesterday.

Will try make a more detailed post later if I can make time for it.

[CrazyQuestions]

I don't understand why CQ continues to argue with me even after I've admitted he was right and unvoted

YOU FORMULATED A QUESTION IN POST 506

and you pretend me not to answer??? Quite funny that you pretend to assign me the responsibility of a "useless argue"

[Fugitive]

I meant Erratus when I called you out for useless questions day 1, I had you two confused. Forgot to correct that later since day 1 ended so soon after and Day 2 was also quick.

Allow me to dig more, because your answer is QUITE surprising. Lets suppose you read all the messages by Erratus and me as written by "the same person". Well, if this is the case, by page 5, which is when you made your summary, Erratus had posted 5 times and I had posted 26 times. Hence, I am sorry for Erratus but probably I was the protagonist of our double-personality game with you. I had to be much more visible than him in your dreams. And consistent with it, you called us CQ and SHE, in femenine. One can easily read it in your summary. Hence, your summary there applies mostly to me (26/31 is really big, isnt it?) and your contradiction remains.

Went back and read the post and I think I understand what happened now.

I mixed you two up, name AND pronoun, in one part of the analysis. I think I mixed you two up because the analysis was fairly similar: Bunches of questions; but I recall you being generally more helpful. When I went back and read the post I realized I was definitly analyzing you to an extent, because I talked about over-analysis, but when I was talking about unhelpful questions I was definitely confusing you with Erratus. I'd likely attribute the mix up to reasons you mentioned, you posting a ton and Erratus just sprinkled through my reading. He was probably just incorporated into my analysis of you without my realizing it because he was very behind the scenes.

Not at all. First, your answer does not explain your switch on Empking. Second, you have not addressed how you promised a case on Erratus prior to your last discussions and right now, you are mostly calling him scum for the NEW observations after this promise.

Just following GreyICE. Seemed like a scum v. town argument and with Grey flipping town it was a logical vote. He's still second on my scum list after Erratus.

[CrazyQuestions]

Since some people wanted this, here you have an extra episode of the MLB. Nine strikes. All players out. Your time to defend, Strike. You can obviously say again that you are tired of arguing with me. You can point out to your previous defences if you think you answered appropiately already.

Also, I am happy with describing the validity of these points with other players. At the end, 3 strikes are enough to eliminate a player.

Strike 1.

Description: IS receives attention after his initial contribution. Strike dedicates the first and

largest

part of his initial post to criticize IS. This attack uses tough expressions like

awfully opportunistic

and

IGMOY stranger

. However, in the same post he discusses two other players (Shadow and Empking) with two very odd reasons. The former is attacked and voted after a misinterpretation. The second is accused (and voted after the correction of his mistake on shadow) of an opportunistic vote and indirectly, of creating a wagon exploding in numbers. This is clearly a bit ridiculous as Empking just voted first and the wagon created later with the action of two other players.

Interpretation: IS is scum and IMO, strike-mate may be executing a distancing exercise. Expressed the criticism after I pointed out to the excesses of IS, but after the attack, Strike found reasons to attack and especially vote, other people.

Strike 2.

Description: Strike indirectly criticizes Empking for a wagon exploding in numbers. However, he does not criticize IS for the wagon numbers, even when IS placed a posterior vote and with a tone that is leading and firing the wagon much more. Also, strike does not even ask me about the reasons of my vote, which is the third in the wagon. If he is interested about the numbers of the wagon, why wouldnt he ask me about my vote?

Interpretation: Same than in 1.

Strike 3.

Description: Strike declares not to understand my criticism to IS. In the same post, however, he tells to shadow that IS has clear flaws that

I was actually pointing out

. His explanations about this point are, IMO, defficient.

Interpretation: Strike reacts to the attack on IS by attacking a bit IS' actions, but controlling/checking the accusations of other people. However, when he moved to attack other players (Shadow and Empking) he uses me to attack Shadow. I think he partially/fully understood my initial attack and was just trying to check/explore/buddy the attack.

Strike 4.

Description: Strike is under some pressure by both Empking and me. Empking pushes him because of the (weak) reasons expressed by Strike to vote Empking. I am pushing him because of the Strikes 1 and 3 described above. His reaction is to change his vote without expressing any change of mind regarding Empking. The target is Sorrow, and the reason is very surprising. It is basically for expressing/voting Empking aligned with him, in a lurker style.
In his next post after the vote, he feels comfortable about his vote because he declares that sorrow is avoiding the game. That obviously is merely a natural consequence of the lurker play of sorrow, that was/is pretty evident.

Interpretation: Strike is nervous and decides to move towards a safe participant, a lurker.

Strike 5.

Description: Strike comes back to attack Empking. He uses as a reason that Empking is calling someone lurker early in the game and using that to attack. Surprisingly, Strike attacked sorrow for avoiding the game and at the same time agreed Empking that Grey's retreat was not a good sign. Now he finds Empking's observation scummy even if Empking was totally right in saying that Grey was voluntarily skipping the game and Strike pointed out to a clear lurker as sorrow. The incoherence is very serious. He says

While I agree that lurking is, eventually, a scum tell, I believe that early in the game it is a null tell

. But before he had said to be comfortable about his vote because Sorrow was avoiding the game.

Interpretation: This is a very personal interpretation. I find ElSimio scummy. ElSimio and Empking were fighting here and Strike came back to Empking in a very obvious way.

Strike 6.

Description: Sorrow appears from the shadows and points out to Strike because of the lurking inconsistency. The response in posts 252 and 253 is an OMGUSING one.

Interpretation: He was caught in the inconsistency and reacted by voting back to Sorrow very defensively.

Strike 7.

Description: Strike gives opinion on Shadow in the last minute. Jumps in posts 326, 327 and 328, and launches the possible teams. He writes some stuff on shadow in the lynch vote since he never did. Notice also how in the subsequent posts, he even agrees with Grey on a post about the connection between Empking and me. That is very important since he considered Shadow and Grey were the most likely team and Empking was a secondary team.

Interpretation: IMO, setting up lynches for day 2 knowing the future flip of Shadow.

Strike 8.

Description: When voting for Shadow, he uses expressions like

Shado's been playing like a scum, even if he's town

and

Your play, if you are town, has been far below optimal, at best

.

Interpretation: They suggest he knows Shadow is town and it sounds like overjustifying his vote for a townie.

Strike 9.

Description: Voted for IS after the investigation and was the only player putting the attention in the investigation. Twice. I assume this is what sorrow describes as obvious bus.

Interpretation: I love surfing.

[Midnight's Sorrow]

Forgive me, Strike, but of course only a fool wouldn't have voted after that revelation.

But it's not your vote that I'm concerned about here. It's the things you said afterwords.

[Substrike22]

Honestly, fuck it, lynch me, but when I flip town, MS and CQ are scum. I'm not answering CQ's lists, I did it all day day 1 and I'm not going to do it now. I don't have the time. CQ's playstyle has been random and an attempt at appearing town. Meanwhile MS continues to actively lurk and post worthless comments like the one above this post.

[Fugitive]

I'm getting town AtE from substrike's direction. Just thought I'd throw my read out in public since I hadn't mentioned him much yet.

[Midnight's Sorrow]

Hmm, interesting. I was getting quite the opposite feel from his direction, Fugitive.

@Strike

You mad?

Either way, idle threats don't change the game plan. Whatever you flip, and I doubt it will be Town, that won't change my roll a lick

Nice AoE though, btw. You'd do even me in my old mafia days proud

[Substrike22]

role*

[Substrike22]

UNVOTE: CrazyQuestions
VOTE: MS

It's staying there til the day is over. I'll go back to CQ a consensus of my town reads would prefer that. Not gonna share who those are.

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Sub

[CrazyQuestions]

Update:

a) Strike did not describe his case on me. I want to hear it, I want you to attack scum. Arent you a townie? Then make a case on me. If you do it well, u can lynch me. Even if you dont succeed, you will help town for the future. Do your case, please.

b) When is it the time in which lurkers are scummy? day 3? why is sorrow's lurking particularly scummy at this point?