Open 291 Frenenemies (+ other guy) - Game over: Wolves win!

[Krazy]

/confirm

[Krazy]

Vote Crazy

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE

[Krazy]

K > C

[Krazy]

CAN'T STOP THE TRAIN

CHOO CHOO

[Krazy]

Not getting that much out of this RVS so far, so let's do some RQS.

-How screwed is the town?

-Which are cooler, werewolves or mafia?

-How lurkerish are YOU?


-Rate the following on a scale of Very Scummy to very Noobish to Totally Pro:

-Asking questions about role mechanics (Is this always role fishing?)
-Talking about No Lynch
-Talking about theory in the first few pages

And the most important question:
-Why haven't you voted Crazy yet?

[Krazy]

Not getting that much out of this RVS so far, so let's do some RQS.

Hahah, no.

So it's more productive to vote two people in RVS? Did you get what you wanted out of your vote for aah?

[Krazy]

I know what she's saying.

unvote; vote wizrak

I'M JOINING THE WAGON BECAUSE WIZRAK IS A WAGONER
<--HYPOCRITE

NO BREAKS

[Krazy]

Yeah sorry; as in: chk votes me after there is already at least one vote on me, no explanation no questions no commentary, then votes chk after there is already a vote, almost no commentary or questions still. No pressure behind the random votes, no useful information being drawn = putting in the motions of RVS without actually using it productively. Two random votes on players that have already been randomly voted... just isn't that random.

[Krazy]

Mod: Please prod any of the above players that you feel compelled to:
Jerbs
Glass
smashbro_of_the_SSS
TheBigLebowski
aaah400

[Krazy]

(strike the players that stated V/LA)

[Krazy]

Got explanations?

[Krazy]

Thin-skinned much?

Guys I'm really feeling this wizrak wagon.

[Krazy]

I'm curious; why does thin-skinned = scum?

Oh, it doesn't, it just makes me feel better about the wagon. I mean, that was a pretty tame insult compared to what I've seen on pretty much every thread of this site.

So yes, it was "sort of" a joke. More like, "At some point, I just want you to be scum so I can feel better about wanting to lynch you."

[Krazy]

Okay... but why does wizrak having thin skin make you feel better about the wagon?

Like this: "The thin-skinned overreaction of wizrak makes me not want to play with her, so I want to lynch her. Thus I want her to be scum, so I feel better about wanting to lynch her." Does that make sense? It wasn't really a funny joke to begin with, and is just dreadful when I have to break it down. Was it really that hard to follow?

[Krazy]

I just FoS'd wizrak for poor RVS play and they promptly quit the game. Despite my asinine jokes, my FoS is still on wizrak's role.

Honestly there's so few active players right now I'm finding it difficult to bite at anything. Crazy is greenish to me, I have a nulltell on you, parknourie's FoS just quit the game, and damn near the rest of the game is inactive. What should I be commenting on here?

You seem to be a bit interested in Quaroth right now, are you suspicious of him or only poking him?

[Krazy]

This feels overly opportunistic.

I would be more worried about the opportunistic nature of the current votes if there was enough active players for a lynch to actually be possible. Wagoning on a lynch is pointless if there isn't a quorum!

[Krazy]

Honestly I was laughing so hard when I realized Aaah had voted for the same person twice without an explanation either time that I didn't deem it worth responding to. All of the lurkers are night-kill bait, if not lurking scum, until they get into the game and start contributing. In fact, since we have two factions, they might be both!

Unfortunately, of the lurkers, two of them literally have an RVS vote and an anti-prod post. They don't even have enough content for me to come up with something clever to draw them in.

[Krazy]

I know, why don't we discuss which order we're going to lynch the lurkers in?

I say we do Jerbs last, since I like his avatar. So how about this:

First wizrak (unless the replacement does some SERIOUS backpedaling)

then:
aaah400
(for not even realizing he was voting the same person twice)

then:
TheBigLebowski (for vanishing from multiple games simultaneously)

then:
smashbro (because I'm running out of reasons)

then:
Jerbs (because I like his avatar so he goes last).

Objections? Anyone?

[Krazy]

Indeed.

I can not tell how serious you are about this vote. Is this a real FoS or are you just bored and I'm the only one who responds frequently?

Oh I see it's real. I should just OMGUS you so that at least we'll have something to talk about other than me trolling wizrak.

[Krazy]

Absent WithOut Leave

[Krazy]

Krazy is my number two suspect right now. I especially don't like the lynch all lurkers post, especially the reasons for some people. we aren't going to spend 5 days lynching lurkers, so why even bring it up?

I was pretty clear that I was doing it simply to encourage lurkers to post more. Interesting that you seem to want to ignore the context, however.

And why would we assume that we can't spend 5 days lynching lurkers? If all the lurkers do is lurk, and never send in their night actions, then maybe there won't be any nightkills! Easiest town-win ever!

you say to lynch TBL for not being in any games? If anything that just means that he has no time at all, not lurking in general.

Well of course that's why he wasn't at the very top of the list.

as for me, thanks for giving no reason, but why throw me on there? I was on v/la.

That is my bad, actually. I will downplay my mistake by saying you didn't bold your v/la announcement

Please tell me that this is just a joke post to get reactions.

I don't understand how you would read my exchange with Glass and take it as anything other than that.

A decent amount of your posts have been either calling out the lurkers or looking for support on your RVS wagon on Crazy.

That's sort of like saying "you've either been calling out 90% of the game or looking for support on your pressure of the other 10%"

Now, you're voting Wizrak, but when did you actually push for the wagon? You made the comment about him being thin skinned and for wagoning, but that's about it. Seems like you're just latching onto a popular wagon without reason. oh wait. you said you were doing that, right hypocrite? simply wagoning someone who was wagoning?

Actually, I explained that I was doing so because she was putting in the motions of RVS without actually putting substance behind her votes when voting either candidate. Wagoning without content. Apparently you decided to skip this post too, however.

vote Krazy

for now, at least until chk or a replacement comes back.

Okay, so you have a top scum candidate, but instead you vote for someone else?

[Krazy]

Hey guys, why don't we all just replace out so that an entire new wave of replacements come in and it's basically a BRAND NEW GAME?

[Krazy]

Nah, I do see where you are coming from crazy, but I think that you are misinterpreting. In his posts krazy essentially said how he liked the wagon even more because of his dislike of wizrak. So there are 3 possibilities. The first is that he gets emotionally involved in the game and that influences his decisions (granted, this happens for everyone, but I mean more so than the average joe). The second is that he is open to policy-lynches, he sees wizrak as being a hindrance to town even if he is town. The third is that he was being an opportunistic scum trying to lynch wizrak for being thin-skinned.

Why can't it be all of the above?

You're welcome to look at Open 289 for a game where I get emotional and advocate a policy lynch in my first post. Unfortunately I haven't flipped yet in that game, but it's hardly new behavior for me

[Krazy]

I personally would characterize this as bored town. I'll stop trolling when the replacements catch up.

[Krazy]

true, but not a good reason for lynching at all

But... I wasn't actually... oh nevermind.

so? You do seem to be spending a lot of time only saying "lurkers shouldn't lurk

Yeah, well, saying "I'm not getting strong scum reads on the two active players" just doesn't get me very far either.

yeah, because voting chk wouldn't get a reaction. voting you would. helps me decide if you're mafia.

basically the top part of this is null anyway, cause the lurking thing was just a joke, but I still don't like how you have spent the last couple posts talking about lurkers rather than convincing people of the wagon you support.[/spoiler]

The thing is, on day one, I try to get at least some sort of interaction with every player, if possible, before I really pursue any wagon in particular. Lurkers kind of make my standard play dreadful, so I almost always end up calling out the less active players on day one. Largely because I see lurking as both anti-game and anti-town, in addition to possibly the ideal scum strategy, based on the meta I'm getting from this site. People on this site WILL find things to argue about and lynch each other over, if you simply let them do it for long enough. Furthermore, I'm interested in having a good game, and that tends to only happen when people, you know, post stuff.

[Krazy]

He does nothing for quite a while, just fuels the banter that made this game take so long to actually get moving. This swarm of nothingness extends past the RQS answers (RQS is scummy on its own, and I like the wagon on Krazy simply for starting it).

So you support policy lynches based on theory.

I LOVE YOU ALREADY

[Krazy]

So park was very obviously scum.

unvote
Vote Krazy

I love it.

[Krazy]

Are you asking me to pursue a case on a player that has been replaced?

I'm waiting until

Hey catching up in everything tonight.

actually happens.

[Krazy]

Krazy, your last post sucks. Explain yourself, please.

Yeah sorry; as in: chk votes me after there is already at least one vote on me, no explanation no questions no commentary, then votes chk after there is already a vote, almost no commentary or questions still. No pressure behind the random votes, no useful information being drawn = putting in the motions of RVS without actually using it productively. Two random votes on players that have already been randomly voted... just isn't that random.

Do you like repeating conversations? Are you under the impression that if you ask people to do something that they did 4 pages ago that you will give the impression of being active?

[Krazy]

Fair enough.

Bear in mind, however, that the problem with the game is that there are too many lurkers + replacements that haven't caught up yet.

You just said that you found a player obviously scummy, but decided to vote a different player simply because that player actually responds sometimes.

At what point in this conversation are lurkers actually supposed to join? You just threw up a big flag saying, "hey guys, don't worry about lurking, we will just get busy trying to lynch any player that actually is alive."

[Krazy]

Right now I like a Zordiark wagon more than a park wagon, but I'm willing for the moment to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually will catch up some time before I die of old age.

[Krazy]

Well, based on a detailed review of park's iso, I can quite certainly say that I have a complete null read on that slot. It seemed like park was moving in a townish direction, but really what would have made me feel one way or another would have been park's interaction with wizrak after the wagon had gained some steam. Which never happened, and never will, so at this point I pretty much just want to see what the replacement does.

[Krazy]

Right now I like a Zordiark wagon more than a park wagon, but I'm willing for the moment to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually will catch up some time before I die of old age.

Same person lol.

You both failed to get the joke completely... My point being that Park was actively doing stuff, and Zordiark made a "yeah I will catch up sometime" post and then didn't. It's now been two days I think since he said he was going to catch up.

Are you asking me to pursue a case on a player that has been replaced?

I think it is foolish to simply ignore what a replaced person has done.

Did I say I was going to ignore it? No. That slot will still be slightly more suspicious to me than other slots for a while. And you'll notice my vote is still on that slot. Wizrak was either a terrible player or total scum, and either way I am happy with my vote there. Until the replacement shows me that they are neither of those things, my vote will stay there.

You know, keeping the pressure on the slot that seemed suspicious, rather than jumping ship to a player that actually bothers to participate in the game.

As for you, Glass, why would that be a scumslip? You seemed to be thinking that if I was trolling then I couldn't also be guilty. I didn't want to see you wrongfully give me a clear just because I was trolling. Setting up explanations for why they give town reads to town is a very skilled scum play, and your jump on to my wagon after it was a nice deflection of what was strictly speaking a false dilemma (god I hate calling things fallacies, but that is what it was).

[Krazy]

Glass, why would that be a scumslip?

Because you insinuated that it was all three.

So there are 3 possibilities. The first is that he gets emotionally involved in the game and that influences his decisions (granted, this happens for everyone, but I mean more so than the average joe). The second is that he is open to policy-lynches, he sees wizrak as being a hindrance to town even if he is town. The third is that he was being an opportunistic scum trying to lynch wizrak for being thin-skinned.

^These seem mutually exclusive.

Why can't it be all of the above?

^Does not imply that all three are actually true, instead wondering why you seem to suggest it is only one of the above.

Or, actually, even, none of the above. Why can't I simply be applying pressure on an under-performing player to see how that player reacts when in the crosshairs and how the wagon-forming members pursue the case?

Setting up explanations for why they give town reads to town is a very skilled scum play, and your jump on to my wagon after it was a nice deflection of what was strictly speaking a false dilemma

English please?

The first is that he gets emotionally involved in the game and that influences his decisions (granted, this happens for everyone, but I mean more so than the average joe). The second is that he is open to policy-lynches, he sees wizrak as being a hindrance to town even if he is town. The third is that he was being an opportunistic scum trying to lynch wizrak for being thin-skinned.

It seemed like no matter which option you chose above, you were going to be positioning yourself somehow:

If you opted for possibility one, then I am, if not trolling, then 'emotionally involved.' This is your null-read that leaves open the most possibilities, but can in any situation be used to attack my ethos or credibility should I turn my crosshairs toward you.

If you opted for the second possibility, then you could use that as a "mostly town" read, which you could use to explain a town-read of me to help you "buddy" me.

If you opted for the third possibility, you could begin making a case against me.
It seemed like the most profitable for you at this point in the game probably would have been possibility two, which is why I raised the possibility that it might be more than one: why can't I be both two and three; opportunistically lynching the player that I can say that, even though they might be town, were still being a hindrance? I mostly just didn't like how you were setting up possibility three as a stand-alone possibility. Perhaps you could claim possibility two today, but then after wizrak flips or later down the line, begin a "but maybe I was mistaken... maybe it was possibility three all along!"

@Crazy, I'm glad you're amused, but try to avoid too many posts where you say "I have thoughts but I'm going to save them until I see how the current conversation plays out" as that is literally the definition of active lurking.

[Krazy]

I did not consider that possibility since when you jumped on the wagon you did not see her as an under-performer.

I'M JOINING THE WAGON BECAUSE WIZRAK IS A WAGONER

Well I opted for the more ironic tone in my initial vote to see reaction, but I explained the main reasons in response to Crazy a few posts below.

Odd that you forgot the smiley face, as this changes the context entirely. A serious question is not attached to a smiley face. This makes the question rhetorical as if saying that it is all of the above.

But if it's not serious, why would you take my "scumslip" seriously?

you had no problem with this post of mine until I attacked you.

I wasn't sure if your vote was being serious or not, I actually thought at the time you were just continuing on the joke.

Having a town read does not equate to buddying. Glass is trying to develop reads on people, what an inane concept!

True, and another reason that my vote isn't on you at the moment. Again, all of the above could easily have town motivations as well.

If I was really trying to keep all these options open why would I attack you after your post? If I was scum I easily could have brushed it off being like: "Well, ya. That's a possibility too. Thought that that went without saying."

Well it wasn't a very serious attack, as I said earlier, it seemed like you were just kidding at first.

[Krazy]

Uhhhh.... quotes fail. My responses are inside the quoted text.

[Krazy]

@Krazy - if you weren't sure whether Glass' original vote on you was a joke or not, why didn't you just ask him about that earlier?

You also seem to have a pretty well thought-out case on Glass, which makes it significantly worse that you didn't bring it up earlier. As a townie, why the heck would you keep your suspicions hidden like that?

LOL what are you talking about, that's not a good case against Glass. I didn't ask because it was meaningless to ask if it's a joke or not; whether he pursued it later on once the lurkers became more active would make clear whether it was a joke or not and also the intentions behind it.

I'm increasingly surprised that you're even willing to entertain the possibility that my "all of the above " was a scumslip. Either you're getting really dense this game or you are reaching really, really hard.

The quality of your assessments right now is really bugging me, so I'm going to go ahead and:

unvote; vote Crazy.

[Krazy]

I actually didn't say it was good; I said it was "well thought-out." Honestly, this feels like just another lame excuse, since there really was no reason NOT to call Glass on it immediately. Just like your other lame excuses that I called you out on earlier:

Call him out on it? I'm all for my cases being "well thought-out" but that wasn't a case, that was a discussion. You'll notice my vote was not on Glass. That's because I wasn't calling Glass out. I was engaging him to clarify a point of murkiness. It seems that you want to not cast blame on people yourself, but instead characterize other people as casting blame to do your dirty work for you.

Like this: "The thin-skinned overreaction of wizrak makes me not want to play with her, so I want to lynch her. Thus I want her to be scum, so I feel better about wanting to lynch her." Does that make sense? It wasn't really a funny joke to begin with, and is just dreadful when I have to break it down. Was it really that hard to follow?

Yeah and I still don't get why you didn't understand that when I first made the point, that I had to even break it down for you is just disgusting. Again, this is you wanting to take something to say as though I'm pursuing a "case" on Wizrak. I pursue a case on someone when I am convinced of their guilt and thus try to get them lynched. Apparently anytime anyone says anything to anyone, however, is in your mind someone pursuing a case on that player.

Honestly I was laughing so hard when I realized Aaah had voted for the same person twice without an explanation either time that I didn't deem it worth responding to.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That Aaah is scummy because he can't remember who his vote is on? Perhaps you're taking a page from DRK here and going to say it's obvscum? Because it's not.

[Krazy]

It might just be me, but I'm reading this as "your view of me is wrong, so I'm going to vote you." How should I be taking this then? Or is this about right? Because this doesn't look like much of a reason to vote Crazy.

OMGUS would be a vote on a player because they voted them. I don't care about Crazy voting me, what is bothering me about his posts is how he takes to want anything I say and characterize it as me placing blame on someone. This is the same player who, during an active discussion, will hold back his own thoughts because he wants to see how it plays out, and who doesn't want to do his own dirty work.

[Krazy]

Through page 2, the most suspicious thing I see is Krazy's awkward tunnel on Crazy. Bad gut on aaah, but not sure if that's because he's scum or just because he's aaah. Also of note that Krazy's RQS questions seem to have killed discussion a bit. That doesn't actually make Krazy scummy, but I always like taking an opportunity to point out that random questions don't work.

I'm pretty sure that the mass exodus from the game killed discussion, actually, DRK.

All of the lurkers are night-kill bait

Wut

What is unclear about this? If a player has no opinions on anything or any player then he is basically a free kill for the scum. If a player is killed at night and their death provides absolutely no information whatsoever other than the flip, then that is a free kill.

Getting the feeling around the start of page 6 aaah might be town.

I would ask for a reason for this but I know from experience that you never explain any view of any player ever.

*watches the same 4 people post over and over*

That's what happens when for half a week there's only 4 people in the game.

Vote: Krazy

Quite fitting that I get around to voting him right as he votes the most obv-town player.

I love how you spend the entire post talking about other people and then vote me.

Also, obv-town is such a ridiculous assessment of a player for literally your first post of content that I am literally gagging right now from how banal you're being.

[Krazy]

He’s also jumping on an opportunistic wagon that doesn’t have any backing.

And how exactly would you characterize the content of your predecessor and their contribution to this game?

[Krazy]

Do you often see scum killing lurkers?

Yes.

I'm not arguing this point with you again.

You never argued a point with me on any subject in any way at any time. As for hard feelings, I don't blame anyone but myself for the way the last game turned out, but no matter what side of the fence I was on or pretending to be on, at no point did I actually enjoy conversing with you. Town or not, you strike me as a very rude player. Honestly as soon as you joined the game I seriously considered just /outing then and there, and still haven't actually made up my mind on that matter.

Except my first content post was on the first 9 pages of the game. If you accept that players can be scum after 9 pages, you should be willing to accept that players can also be town after 9 pages.

I suppose. But in what situation is simply saying a player is "obvtown" actually productive?

[Krazy]

Game aside for a second, I'm generally fairly abrupt with my scum reads (I've had too much experience arguing with scum reads to have the patience for long, drawn-out arguments), but I wasn't meaning to be rude about it. I do think your view of it from last game might be a bit biased due to our positions, but I'll try to be a bit nicer about things.

Well fair enough then. Wasn't expecting that cordial of a response! Thank you.

I suppose. But in what situation is simply saying a player is "obvtown" actually productive?

It was meant as a nice little cherry on top of my vote for you. It was too much of a coincidence that you were voting for the player I had by far the strongest town read on for me to pass up pointing out.

I was leaning town on Crazy for a while, and I do give him credit for actively engaging a lot of players, but his side-lining my discussion with Glass and then his weird projecting about who I suspect has begun to dissuade me from that reading. It's mostly the last three pages that have begun to shift my views, so perhaps I can understand why if you're reading all nine pages in one go that you'd be leaning town on him based on how he was acting in the first six.

Krazy thinking that scum kill lurkers is truly lame.

Seems like I'm in the minority on this particular point. Obviously scum do not always and only kill lurkers, but since when do they patently not? I swear about 50% of night-kills I've seen both here and on other sites have been on the least-active players, if not outright lurkers.

[Krazy]

Crazy:

he was being an opportunistic scum

Why can't it be all of the above?

Lol. VOTE: krazy

I just didn't take it seriously at first. I only responded when it became clear it wasn't as jokey as I originally took it. I mean other than the vote the only thing there is an "Lol"! I figured Glass was just bored and waiting for the replacements to come, more or less like I was.

[Krazy]

My Krazy kase:

Post 84 - mishap (first chk mention should say wizrak) and odd thought process aside, the post feels like he's trying to justify another one of his unfunny "jokes" with some actual logic when he actually just runs a circle around the situation. It was really quite obvious that wizrak was trying to rouse a reaction out of me; instead of seeing that, he further tries to push his "logic" by ending with "voting people who are already randomly voted isn't random" which, to me, make absolutely no sense. At all.

If wizrak's vote on you is innocent for clearly trying to get a reaction, why is my vote scummy for more or less doing the same thing to wizrak?

Post 88/89 - reads like scum trying to look as town as possible, especially so after all the attention he's constantly been bringing to himself.

First of all, I do that in every game when I feel it is slowing down. Second of all, are you really trying to say it's scummy to ask the mod to prod HALF THE GAME?

[/quote]Post 98 - though it's an honest question that was justifiable to ask, does he try to follow up after aaah ignores his question? No, not at all, he just skips along, giving me the feeling that this was just more fluffy fluff to look town; furthermore, why not ask any other questions? Yes, it was only page 4, but a lot had happened. Opportunistic scum is opportunistic. [/quote]

aaah isn't even in this game anymore and the replacement has barely said anything. This is absurd. +1 for you.

Post 119 - which would be completely contradicted by the previously linked post. Why ask a question about it if you're "laughing so hard" at aaah's lack of explanations? Because he's trying to look town. Then follows this post with more fluff to look productive.

Yes, I see. Your meta on me is that I've spent the whole game trying to look town. This certainly explains my obviously trollish posts: really someone trying to slip under the radar. As opposed to the guy who makes no comment or case on anyone until he has the opportunity to push them to L-1. Not that there's anything opportunistic or scummy in your vote.

Post 194 - feels to me like somebody is getting

irritated

with the fact that they're becoming more and more obvscum. He gives Glass' paths (who says those are the only possibilities out of what Glass was implying?) ending with a really weak explination of a future Glass cop out. Ending with a suggestion to Crazy that is just lol-worthy.

I'm assuming you wanted people to skip over this point since it is in the middle, but I want to highlight it. Here you are going out of your way to mischaracterize me as "irritated" with the game. There is no evidence of irritation in that post and moreso, no reason to imply that there is if you are town. This is +2 for you.

Post 207 - is pure OMGUS with fluffery slamming himself, while his "NUH UH" response post 212 to Smash is nonsense, followed by baseless accusations directed at Crazy to further his vote.

The nice thing about having a wagon on you chk, when several players are still lurking and haven't voted or commented on anything, is that any active player you vote has a high likelihood of being characterized as an "OMGUS." It's interesting that you choose to center on this yet again. As for my "baseless" accusation against Crazy, how exactly would you characterize 193? Oh, I'm sorry, you wouldn't, because I'm not even convinced you read a post outside my iso when you decided it was convenient to make a case against me. +3.

Post 222 - total buddying after being a complete doucebag to the same person previously in their conversation. He then gives his case, which isn't much of one (though the language is nice and colorful), and ends with his experiences with scum using NKs on lurkers. Baseless percentage, invalid argument.

And the lurker thing makes me scummy then? "Buddying" = commenting on a player being respectful when it isn't expected? +4

And finally, on top of other points brought to the table about Krazy, post 226 - the last post, out of 43 (I don't count /confirm), that wasn't either a "joke" or bonafide fluff. And, would you believe it? It's "Well I was joking so I think everyone was joking"... LOLWUT. That's the worst cop out of them all; it's quite obvious that he only reacted the way he did, when he did, was because Glass lit a fire under his ass.

This little bit pretty much is "hey look I'm basing this purely off Krazy's iso without actually reading the thread." Seriously, chk, could it be any more obvious that you decided to make your entire case on me based purely off my iso and ignoring the context entirely? +5 And Glass "lit a fire under my ass"? Please.

unvote; vote chkflip

Try reading the thread instead of just my iso.

If I do get conveniently hammered, I implore the town to re-read chk's post here tomorrow.

[Krazy]

Part of me wants to be all *blam* and hammer because I never get the chance to do something like this, but I want to read more before I do something like that, since Krazy goes in and out of looking like a good lynch.

That would be in keeping with your "let's do everything we can to encourage the remaining lurkers to lurk more" attitude. Please, hammer before replacements have a chance to catchup/post. I beg you.

Also, inb4OMGUS in relation to my vote above.

[Krazy]

Stop...hammertime!

Unvote, vote: Krazy

Replacements can catch up tomorrow. This day has gone on long enough.

Interesting that you would go for the hammer so fast.

Also interesting that you didn't notice you were already voting me.

And finally, really? Stealing my phrase that I stole from other people online? That's just low.

This day might have "gone on" a while, but relatively little has really been said except among a few players, with so many replacements and so many lurkers being replaced by other lurkers.

[Krazy]

I mean for real DRK chk's L-1 vote on me was the first time he's directly confronted anyone or given a read the whole game and you're acting like everything there is to be said has already been said.

[Krazy]

Jumping to it being a gambit before DRK even has a chance to explain, Llama?

[Krazy]

Please, hammer before replacements have a chance to catchup/post. I beg you.

Interesting that you would go for the hammer so fast.

- One of these things is not like the other?

If you cannot see the sarcasm in the first remark then something is seriously, seriously wrong with you.

- For someone who moans about ISO's, you sure don't pay attention to the thread either. I had to attend a funeral, sir, and it's not like that was held on the same day the unfortunate event happened. But you know what? You're absolutely right, you

are

the first person I've made a full case on. At least you're paying a

little

attention. Go ahead, though, make sure to make that a main point in your case against me.

If you were pressed for time, then why would you rush to push a player to L-1?

Thanks for trying to use a funeral to defend yourself, though. That's super classy.

- It also makes me giggle that you throw your vote at people who vote against you. "Oh, you found something against me? TWO CAN PLAY AT THAT GAME!" Seems like you want to make people back off of you; well, unfortunately for you, it didn't work. Twice.

chk, if I was going to find something against you, obviously it had to be in your first real post to the game or nothing at all. After all, wasn't everything else dismissible?

But please keep clinging to the reasoning that everything I do is OMGUS.

[Krazy]

I would like to believe I have a good enough memory not to forget I was voting you, considering arguing with you has accounted for half of my posting in this game.

Why did you assume immediately that I was actually trying to hammer you?

I don't assume anything, including assuming you were automatically going for a gambit. I prefer to comment on unusual behavior and let them explain it. I am not a fan of players defending other players or explaining their actions for them, as in my experience that has accounted for townies defending scum on more than one occasion, so no I was not exactly thrilled with Llama's "obvgambit" post. If you were going to gambit, I would have preferred for you to explain why you did it and what you expected to get out of it instead of making the issue whether or not Llama was right for defending you on it before you had a chance to explain.

Speaking of which, why did you do it and what did you expect to get out of it?

[Krazy]

I don't have time to read chk's and Krazy's cases on each other right now. I'll look later, but I don't think I'd be terribly disappointed with either of them getting lynched.

Crazy, I literally just started leaning town on you again. Please stop destroying this view with every post you make. Again.

[Krazy]

Some quickreads:

Crazy - I am leaning town again but more or less have a null-tell. He's been more active and more willing to change positions in the game, he's made some questionable assessments but has also made a lot of good points. I definitely would not say "obvtown" but RIGHT NOW I have a very faint town lean on him.

Jerbs - Made one post of content the whole game, targetting Aaah which is honestly one of the easiest targets to shoot at (short of myself, of course ). Not liking this slot a whole lot, but that Jerbs did have rl stuff come up seems undeniable from his replacements. I will go ahead and say: Lurker #1.

Krazy - Terrible sense of humor and totally ruining the game. Lynch as quickly as possible.

Quaroath - Has made a few pretty decent posts, both casting blame but also willing to step back. Right now I have a very faint townlean but would be interested in his reaction to chk's last few posts to really solidify on this slot.

singersigner - Steps in, and out of everything in this thread, lists me as a top 2 candidate for of all things posting the random questions. However, was also the only one that bothered to notice I didn't answer them myself. Mixed feelings about this slot.

Glass - Leaning town, actually.

smashbro_of_the_SSS - I don't like the vote on me when he lists chk as the top suspect, and I also don't like accusing me of OMGUS on Crazy. But, I still have mixed feelings on this slot. He objected to my "lynch all lurkers" thing but has only pushed on wagons that are off and running. Despite all that I somehow have a faint townside on him. As much as I dislike his voting me when he lists chk as top suspect, that does somehow seem like a more town thing to do as scum. Would like to see him get into some slightly more meaty conversation with the replacements though in case I'm wrong on that.

DeathRowKitty - Park was a nulltell, Zord never posted, and that leaves DRK suspecting me and the fake-hammer gambit. Very faint townlean, but I still think the gambit was pointless.

LlamaFluff - Looking back at Llama, he gets obvscum from Park but then ignores DRK when she replaces him. I find that problematic, on a re-read. Until I noticed that I was leaning town, however, so I will say I have mixed feelings on this slot.

chkflip - Subject of ongoing discussion for me at this particular moment, so skipping this slot for now.

Furculow - Non-poster replacing aaah's problematic slot. Not liking this slot much at all at the moment.

I would be SO not surprised by a Jerbs + Furculow scumflip, BUT then again I also wouldn't mind actually giving the time to either get replaced and having a chance to talk to them or whatever. But I guess I'm in the minority on that one!

[Krazy]

Wait, what about that do you find scummy?

Not the post itself, what it represents. My town-read on him was based on him once again getting off the sidelines and making cases and finally making some sort of case on Glass. This was him going back to side-lining again.

Also, @Llama, mixed feelings != neutral.

[Krazy]

Mixed feelings is "leaning town, except" as in I would otherwise have a faint townlean on this player except for x, y, or z.

[Krazy]

If you cannot properly joke (which you can't, obviously, since I'm what? The fourth person that's "dumb" because I didn't get your anti-joke?) than you shouldn't joke.

You're hilarious.

As far as my time goes, I put you at L-1 because I think you're scum.

That's good, because I was under the impression that everyone else was voting me because they think I'm innocent.

You're the one that called my lack of posting into play. So I thought I'd re-address why it was I was lacking posts. It's your bad call, not mine. Sorry I reminded you?

You seem to think the reasons you haven't posted are of great significance to why I brought it up. My point was that you haven't posted, that you have had no significant interaction with anyone since the RVS, and that you came out of the blue after saying nothing to anyone and pushed a wagon to L-1. You hadn't attempted to scumhunt at all this game until you decided to push a wagon close to a lynch.

You can call this OMGUS now, but what will it read after a flip? Ask yourself that, chk, no matter which side of the aisle you're on. You will look even worse tomorrow than you do today, so if you're town. That you happened to have a real life explanation for your lack of activity doesn't make your L-1 vote on me look any less scummy or any less opportunistic, and your immediate defensiveness on my bringing it up isn't reading terribly town either.

And no, I've made "real" posts prior to my voting you.

Show me.

[Krazy]

@Llama, seriously, what's the deal with dropping the park thing? I was seriously starting to lean town on you until I read your iso. You start the park thing then you drop it so you can prod the active player, then you tunnel on me and forget about the park thing altogether? Are you just washing the slate clean for DRK or what? Not even a comment on you in regard to that player slot since the replacement.

That and this waffling about hammering me has me seriously wondering about your investment into the other players in this game. Are you actively trying to protect some of the remaining lurkers or does it just come naturally?

[Krazy]

DRK reads town and a little bit else makes me second guess that read hard. By what you are saying, isnt it bad for me to push DRK too since he is active?

...

Did I say vote her? Did I say hammer her? No. You dropped your case on park 100% as soon as DRK got in here based purely on your town read. So basically, you ARE literally giving her a clean slate?

My position has been that you shouldn't throw your votes at players that are less scummy simply because they are active, since that gives lurkers incentive to lurk. I never said to not engage people at all.

Stalling the game flat out is horrible, apathy is one of the leading cause of town deaths. If it means pushing action while people get replaced and catchup, I will. Dead games are cake for scum to win.

Does the game seem stalled to you?

[Krazy]

Quote for truth.

My problem with Krazy at this point is he's leaning heavily on he "I'm joking around guys" play, and is attempting to deflect attacks more than attempting to nullify them (in my eyes).

@Krazy Your last post directed at crazy and chk was entirely designed to insinuate and develop fear. I don't really get that from a town player. So what about how they will look tomorrow, no matter your flip (assuming you are the lynch) is just riddled with, "Just you wait you'll get yours" feelings. This doesn't make me comfy with you being town. How exactly does how they look tomorrow affect the mortal danger you are in currently? Not sure it really does beyond making you seem flailtastic.

I understand this concern and I understand why it's generally anti-town. But I'm not saying it to the town. I actually feel like a lot of the wagon on me is town, and I don't think some of the players have expressed terribly poor reasoning for voting me. I was trolling hard for a few days and if I get lynched, eh whatever I was bored and dug my own hole.

However, if certain players are town, then I feel that after a flip their particular reasons for voting me were bad, then I am going to call that out to that player. I feel like out of everyone on my wagon, chk's vote was the most opporptunistic and his reasons the worst, so yes I will call that player out. And if I have to use "fear mongering" to get my point across to that player, then I will use whatever tactic suits me.

In other news, I give SSS +1 for active lurking / sustaining a wagon without scumhunting with that last post. But maybe he'll have more tomorrow!

There's 4 scum in this game. Even if you think I'm scum, there's no reason at all to sit on your ass.

@Glass, why only Furculow? Singersinger is at prod-point as well, even if they do have a whopping one post.

[Krazy]

Rules explicitly state that talking may continue until the thread is locked. But glad to see that you not only want to hammer just when people are starting to show signs of life, but also want to stifle conversation for absolutely no reason at all.

When DRK did the fakehammer, if it had been real, I could have seen that as town. But Llama, from you, I see this as the culmination in a long series in anti-town actions, attitudes, and behaviors.

Going to call my teams now:

CHK + Smashbro

LlamaFluff + singersinger

Good luck town!

[Krazy]

Ive spent about a day calculating this. Recent post say its now best and back up the scum flip

I don't know if you actually thought I was going to flip scum or if you thought you could just wifom your way out that "of course a scum would never hammer someone they KNEW was going to flip town!" but there is some serious slipping going on right here.

Also, on my scumteams, I'm almost certainly wrong on at least one. I feel like some of the people who went into lurk-mode when I was pushed to L-1 and stayed there almost certainly have to be scum, but I can't as of right now sort them out.

[Krazy]

P.S. prepare for the most fucking obvious VT flip in the history of VT flips. DRK, if you think I was playing like scum this game, then your understanding of my meta is pants-on-head wrong. I can't tell if that's scummy or if you just didn't really pay attention to the last game, but if you're town you should be ashamed.

It would not be hard at all for me to substitute DRK with singersinger for Llama's partner.

Because for real, what scum in a game of lurkers and afkers and replacements goes out of their way to troll their way to a self-lynch? There's wifom, and then there's playing against your win-objectives. I would be extremely skeptical of anyone who seemed "certain" of my guilt.

[Krazy]

I love it still.

Llama: "The easiest game for scum to win is one where there's not a lot of good discussion..."

Lurkers: Hey guys, we're still kinda here, just give us a minute.

Llama: "OH GOD I HAVE TO HAMMER BEFORE THEY CAN CLEAR THEIR NAMES!"

[Krazy]

I wouldn't hold on too tight to that small margin of hope.

Just to screw with the scum (and see if they go out of their way to prove me wrong), I'm even going to call their nightkills:

Team 2 - Crazy (lolyou!)

Team 1 - Furculow

[Krazy]

Also, Llama hammering is a null-tell. There's no deadline set, and the game's been dragging with Krazy working his butt-off to prevent his lynch. At this point, if anyone else got lynched, it was only gunna bode well for the scum team. Regardless of your flip, you needed to be the one lynched today, for sake of wagon analysis, etc.

This is the sort of logic I have only seen from people on this particular site. Hammering on town is never good for the town. Never. You can throw this conventional wisdom that "wagon analysis" really helps, but you know what actually helps the town more? Hammering on scum. I am not convinced that Llama actually thought I was scum. This whole game he's been riding the wagon on me wifoming that as soon as DRK entered the game she was obvtown. If your idea of analysis is hammering on town instead of engaging people during the day on actions you have found suspicious, then I'm sorry you're not even scum, you're just not even playing the game.

Llama's call for people to catch-up overnight is pro-town, though. If people catch-up now, it only gives scum more to work with. With no information from those catching up, they have to weigh their chances/options of who to night-kill/go after tomorrow.
Just sayin...

"only gives scum more to work with" = such blatantly anti-town attitude it's laughable.

What happens when tomorrow two townies die and there's 4 scum left standing? It's not exactly going to be lylo, but it's going to be indirectly quite close to becoming scum v. scum instead of town vs. scum vs. scum. These lurkers that caught up during the night are going to be the ones hammering on lylo. And who are they going to trust since they have never interacted with anyone? You have people catch up during the day so that they can interact with people and have a stake in the game.

If there's no deadline set, that is hugely in town favor. The less time the town has to process what is going on in the game, the harder it is to find scum. If people are being delayed and can't keep up, then they should be prodded or replaced. You do not kick the game to the next day hoping they will catch up over the comparatively short night.

[Krazy]

Krazy...if you're town, that's the biggest dump you could've taken on the rest of the game. You're gunna learn really quickly that as town, you don't ever purposefully give WIFOM material to scum unless there's a very specific reason. Proving that you can "call it" isn't a reason.

Actually, the more you have to make the scum think about their night-kill, the harder on them. You're assuming that night is some magically super-long time where they can make these brilliant analysis. It's really not. And if you actually start participating in the game tomorrow instead of sitting on the RQS answers, maybe you can actually sort the WIFOM from the real scummy behavior anyway.

Or are you just annoyed that I called your night-kill choice, you scummy scum?

[Krazy]

And the thing about Llama, is that his hammer contradicts the position he's been taking the whole game. "I want the game to be eventful" but is making it out like nothing has happened lately; there are people on the page of his vote who have either posted once or not at all, and as soon as they post he hammers? It's like, yeah, I'm just going to forget about those players because they're not the ones I want to lynch right now. Because it's not convenient for me to prolong the day and actually talk to people who might complicate the wagon on the obvtown player who trolled himself to L-1.

[Krazy]

First of all, we don't know your role yet. I can only assume by this belligerent attitude you have that you are, in fact, town. Which is unfortunate for us, yes. However, you had a wagon for a reason, and people thought you were scum for a reason, so don't go playing the victim with "oh no, you've lost the bestest townie you've ever had EVER." Yes we WILL get something out of your wagon, and yes we WILL find out who scum is because of it. A mislynch on D1 is not the end of the world, contrary to apparently only YOUR beliefs.

I'm dead and you're still completely misrepresenting my points. I am not even blaming the town for my lynch. I am saying a hammer when people are JUST getting into the game is unquestionably anti-town. Early hammer = anti-town. And I wasn't saying I was the "bestest townie ever," I'm saying that Llama hammered me despite me really being his best choice, and before he even managed to get a better sense of his top choice. I just. can't. see. town. doing. that. I hate this phrase with a vengeance, but to me, at this point, he's obvscum. Why rush a hammer on someone who isn't even a player you REALLY suspect? It's just not town play.

Which means there's no scum motive to feign scum-hunting, because they are legitimately trying to find the other scum.

Sort of true, but it's also more important to prevent being linked by the town strongly with another player. All in all, it is still more valuable for the scum on D1 to avoid having strongly held viewpoints that would tie them in any meaningful way to another player.

Because then they have to night kill according to what they know of cheating players, as opposed to people who will actually play this game.

Did you just say I'm cheating? Wow. Rage more, please.

And Furc is a policy lynch of mine. If I were scum in this game, I would night-kill the fuck out of him (see what I did there?).

Why is Furc a policy lynch? Also, lynch all policy lynchers. You are now lynched.

You're fake wifom will backfire if you actually allow it to be taken seriously. You know why? Because WIFOM is an elegant art, not the natural outpouring of any scum in any situation. And if you put scum into a position where they have to Wifom instead of saying NOTHING AT ALL, then you actually have something to sort through rather than something to imagine sorting through.

You trolled yourself to L-1? You...did this on purpose?

Has any post of mine in this game not been provocative? I deliberately confronted a wider range of players than normal simply to get more people to participate. Because some content is better for the town then no content. So yes, I was deliberately provocative, and yes, I was deliberately provocative. But this town is still holding on to the backwards assumption that scum would actually want to participate or take any sort of meaningful position in a game this slow, and thus I got lynched. It happens.

[Krazy]

There were a lot of typos in that last post because I'm in a bit of a rush at this point. Anyway, this will probably be my last post before I'm officially lynched.

GOOD LUCK TOWN!

(even though you suck for lynching me )

[Krazy]

How did Llama not get lynched... I expressly explained that he was scum at the end of D1. Wow. Painful.