Mini 1130 - A Fishbowl Invasion by Ninja Monkeys! - Over

[[winger]]

Well, if I was close to being lynched before, I definitely am now.

I'm a

Town Doctor

. And yes, it specifically says "Town" before my role name. I assume I don't have to explain what that is.

[Twistedspoon]

told you guys he was probTown/newbtown

"looks like your scum is in another wagon"
to use an old meme

anyways, this is an awful start for the town, as our doctor is probably going to get NK'd now. It's quite like my newbie game where the doc claimed D1 as well as the cop and we basically lost all of our PRs due to roleblocks and NKs

Twisted - seems to just be having a dandy old time.

uh, thanks

[Sundy]

Twistedspoon, do you have any doubts about his claim, or are you pretty sure it's the truth? Also, this:

I'm not quite prepared to leave him to be hammered just yet,

even though It would be so easy to hop off of the CP or Sundy wagon now that their passengers are jumping onto the winger wagon.

The part I italicized hit a bad note with me. You say you're not prepared to hammer, but one pro of voting Winger is that everyone else is doing it and it would be "so easy." This seems more like a good reason from the perspective of someone trying to blend in than someone trying to scum-hunt. Am I reading your quote wrong?

[Cecily]

I'm with Sundy, I'm not thoroughly convinced that what he's saying is true. All of his play style indicates scummy motivations, but since he is new, I guess it could be attributed to that.

I'm honestly at a loss for what to do now.

Winger, did you intentionally answer questions without actually giving rebuttals, or did you truly think that how you responded to people's claims was the right thing to do? And can you explain?

[Oso]

..
I'm a

Town Doctor

...

Well, I guess that wraps up that, for now at least.

UNVOTE: [winger]

Sundy and Cecily, I don't think he is true-claiming.

That said, call it Oso's PR policy if you want, there is no chance we are going to get a counter today (it's D1, it's a Doc claim and we don't even know if there is a Doctor to counter if winger is false-claiming) and absolutely no way to tell if he is lying about the claim. His play up to this point (as bad as I think it may be) doesn't override the claim, in my opinion.

Back to Page 1....

[Bub Bidderskins]

I am positively opposed to the winger wagon. The case on him is thin, and most likely scum-driven. The main reason behind it is his attacks on crazy, which I view to be quite legitimate.

In response to cecily suggesting I don't pick up on sarcasm very well, let me say that I picked up on the sarcasm of the 'lol'. The reason for my suspision is that I find it odd for somebody to be sarcastic in that position. But in addition to that, crazy has looked scummy. Over the course of this day, crazypianist's only posts have been to either:

1) Defend himself
2) Attack Winger

He only started to attack winger

after

Sundy made a case on winger and

after

it became clear that winger was the other big wagon. All of his posts have been focused on not getting himself lynched. He has not hunted for scum, and the only suspision he's had is piggy-backed off of sundy's suspision. And he only decided to piggy back that position after Sundy had explained his original scummy posting and no longer looked scummy.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Your vote on crazy, myself and then back to crazy is fairly alignment null as far as

crazy and I

are concerned.

Possible scum-slip, much?

Sure, why not......

umm, where's the vote. I looked. It should be there.

There was no vote. There wasn't supposed to be one. I just thought it odd that you would say "as far as crazy and I are concerned." It won't mean anything if crazy flips town...but it does raise at least two eyebrows.

[[winger]]

Winger, did you intentionally answer questions without actually giving rebuttals, or did you truly think that how you responded to people's claims was the right thing to do? And can you explain?

Huh? I'm not even sure what you're talking about, here.

I am positively opposed to the winger wagon. The case on him is thin, and most likely scum-driven. The main reason behind it is his attacks on crazy, which I view to be quite legitimate.

Did you show any defense of me/opposition to my wagon before here? I can't recall.

His play up to this point (as bad as I think it may be) doesn't override the claim, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what exactly makes my play so bad. I pressured someone I found scummy, thought they didn't respond well under pressure, and pursued it.

He only started to attack winger

after

Sundy made a case on winger and

after

it became clear that winger was the other big wagon.

This is something I failed to point out earlier, but it seemed like crazypianist was attacking me and focusing on me because I was attacking him, rather than legitimately finding me scummy.

[[winger]]

I think there is a good chance there was scum on my wagon. With 6 voters, and the weakness of the case against me, I don't see six townies jumping on the wagon. Which means I'd like to take a closer look at my wagoners:

Oso, Sundy, crazypianist1116, AGar, Akira, Cecily

I just found that nifty isolation feature at the bottom of the page, so it's time for some fun! I'll try and make this as concise as possible:

Oso:

His original jump onto voting me is weak. He admits that he finds crazypianist scummy, but his reasons for voting me in his first post are as follows: 1) I "double RVSed", 2) I used the word "lie" which is too strong, and 3) that I said DemonHybrid was the first person to mention the "Lol" post, which is true, but Oso implies it is false. The rest of his stuff seems rather… "fluffy". Empty. He asks for more votes on me, then questions me on my history on this website and playing this game in general, and multiple times makes comments in the light of protection his own image. He says things like, "At the risk of being accused of overthinking", or "Call me paranoid", or "At the risk of starting an MD discussion". This kind of language strikes me as off.

Sundy:

His first vote on me comes after he expresses suspicions of Bub Bidderskins, DemonHybrid, and Parama. However, he places his vote on me for two reasons: 1) it will "count" more on me, and 2) he believed the "case" on me is better than the pianist case. After he is called out on his unacceptable post, he clears things up a bit… though I'm not sure him calling pianist's "Lol" post a "subtle and brilliant accusation of DemonHybrid, for voting twice during the RVS". That is

quite

the stretch, and it kinda looks like, pardon my language, ass-kissing (if not outright uncalled for defense of a player). He calls my interpretation of pianist's "Lol" vote "extensive and imaginative" and "a load of crap"; but goes on to call the "Lol" vote itself "brilliant", "subtle", and "elegant". If he can interpret this so wildly, why is my interpretation any less valid?

crazypianist1116:

Aside from what has already been discussed (the "Lol" post, the flailing, the paranoia), his first vote on me was odd. He spends most of the previous posts attacking/respond to Parama & DemonHybrid. He even calls DemonHybrid's post a "bluff". The only time he mentions me before his vote on me is here:

[winger], 74 is just plain wrong. I never contradicted myself. DH was trying to form a wagon on me for what seem like a weak reason(stated above) which is why I lol'd and why I had no problem.

He spends the rest of the time arguing with Parama/DemonHybrid, then decides to vote me by completely putting words in my mouth. He says:

[winger] don't try and say your question didn't imply you interpreted somehow other than a laugh. A laugh would mean I had no problem. Further your vote said I was contradicting myself which means you thought I had problems with DH.

I never tried to say my "question didn't imply I interpreted somehow other than a laugh". The fact that I posted the question about his "Lol" vote obviously shows that I did not consider it to be a normal laugh, and I wanted to dig a bit deeper. This is a complete misrepresentation (and falsification) of what I said and implied. He saw that my wagon was taking off and tried to fabricate a reason to vote for me.

AGar:

His original vote on me was fine, in my opinion. He expressed his opinion succinctly, and said that he thought I was trying to push a bandwagon without doing the work myself, essentially. That's a fair opinion, but then goes on to start chiming in with Oso going "Moar winger votes, plz". Then he gets off my wagon to vote Sundy… but after Sundy and crazypianist join my wagon, he puts his vote back on me, saying:

Sundy still really caught my attention, and I'm not letting that one go, but [Winger] is just digging himself deeper and deeper, flailing about.

No explanation as to how I was digging myself deeper. He just pointed to two posts and said "[winger] wagon is go", then voted me. If someone he found suspicious, and isn't willing to let go, joined my wagon, shouldn't that give him MORE pause to not jump on the wagon with him?

Akira:

He regurgitates other people's cases on me in order to make his own case, using cute buzzwords like "flailing". I'm not sure what to make of his vote on me. It came at quite the opportune moment on the wagon, and the fact he added pretty much nothing to the discussion seems like mafia who are trying to hop on a wagon without looking bad.

Cecily:

His case on me was muddled between tons of other stuff, so it's a little hard to pick out what he was actually saying. He boiled it down to this:

winger - easily threatened, comes back with remarks that make it seem like everyone is personally attacking him. He also likes to say things as if they are facts when they truly are not.

I'm not easily threatened, and there's no evidence for that. I never once suggested I was being personally attacked in an ad hominem way, which is what this implies. Furthermore, I state things as facts, but how does that make me suspicious? It's the way I talk/play. I assume my opinion is the most valid, because I'm the only person I know for sure is not a bad guy, thus that's how it comes across. I only put (in my opinion) in parenthesis because it wasn't obvious enough to everyone else that EVERYTHING someone says in this game is in their own opinion, barring some type of role-related information. More than that, though, he puts me at "L-1", and has no problem in doing so.


I take issue with most of the people on my wagon, because a lot of it feels… forced, and weak. There was never a clearly stated case against me. It was just people bringing up a point, then someone else regurgitating it and turning it into a vote. Here is what happened with the "Lol" thing, from my perspective, to set things straight:

- Crazy posts his "Lol" vote in response to DemonHybrid voting him in the RVS
- I question him on this, because it seemed like he took an issue with this vote
- Crazy denies having a problem with DemonHybrid's vote
- DemonHybrid points out the contradiction between the implied tone of "Lol" and the "not having an issue statement"
- Rather than responding, crazypianist says he is "calling DemonHybrid's bluff"
- I check the game again, see the developments, and vote crazypianist in my first non-random vote for the following reasons: 1) I believe he had a problem with the vote on him, which is suspicious since it is the random voting stage, and nobody else had shown an issue with any of the votes; 2) crazypianist said he didn't have a problem with the vote, which contradicts what I interpreted from his "Lol", and thus would make him lying

Then, people start to suspect me for many reasons: randomly voting twice, attempting to start a lynchwagon on crazypianist (when all I did was question her "Lol" response, which is hardly starting a wagon), and even because I'm playing the "newbie" card. All of these reasons are weak and easily disproven (randomly voting twice doesn't really make one scummy since it's all random; I wasn't trying to start a wagon, I was just questioning something; and I'm not playing the "newbie" card, I'm asking honest questions about things I have never heard of/don't know…I'm not a total newbie, I've played this game before).

The wagon on me was full of people I'd like to lynch, but here's my preferred order:

Most Want to Lynch

crazypianist1116
Cecily = Sundy
AGar
Akira
Oso

Least Want to Lynch

crazypianist's ignoring of my pressure on him, and waiting until there were two votes on me already to "safely" join the wagon is what sits worse with me. Cecily putting me in danger of being lynched is bad, but I can't decide if its worse than Sundy's arbitrary and elaborate defense of crazypianist's "Lol" post while hypocritically telling me my interpretation of the "Lol" post was too imaginative.

[[winger]]

Oh god, sorry. I really did mean to keep that short. I got carried away.

[Sundy]

My interpretation of Crazypianist's post was supposed to be sarcastic... I was trying to say you could project any interpretation onto it, and then giving my own ridiculous example. Sorry if that didn't come across.

[Oso]

..

His play up to this point (as bad as I think it may be) doesn't override the claim, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what exactly makes my play so bad. I pressured someone I found scummy, thought they didn't respond well under pressure, and pursued it.
..

Easy to explain. Since quite a few folks have put their own interpretation on the "lol", I'll give mine.

"lol.

Jesus, DH make up your friggin' mind would you

"

Anybody, and I mean anybody, that got something other than that out of crazy's response is well.....crazy. Trying to build a case out of it then and continuing to read something into it other than that now isn't crazy, it is scummy. Continuing to attack the 'lol' post and the people who are dismissing it as null and continuing to use it as evidence against crazy isn't doing you any favors in my eyes.

2 things I can say for an

almost

certainty about D1 in regards to me:

• You(winger) won't be getting vote for the rest of the day. True or false, your claim saved you from any further vote harassment from me today.
  
• crazypianist won't be getting my vote today. The case against him started with the whole 'lol' post and as I just stated, that case is a whole load of crap as far as I'm concerned and pretty much anything generated by it is pretty much useless in regards to him(crazy). It's only use was to find opportunistic scum who tried to push it, of which you were the front runner in that race as far as I was (and still am) concerned.

[[winger]]

You can say that you interpreted one way, and I respect that, but I

definitely

took the "Lol" as avoidance. Rather than making an actual comment about the vote, or just ignoring it completely, for some reason crazypianist saw it fit to just say "Lol". It's complete avoidance of something that didn't need to be avoided or reflected in the first place.

I'm glad I won't be getting your vote today, but you definitely won't be getting my doc-save tonight.

[Parama]

If you take every word spoken at face value, you'd spend an entire game lynching town. Just sayin'.

This is why you lynch the people that try to make things seem scummier than they really are.

And the people who don't mean what they say.

I'm so glad we ran winger up to a claim when we could've been lynching crazy instead. I'm so terribly happy that now we'll have to WIFOM it up and think "Is he lying? Should we lynch him? But wait! What if he's town and we lynch him? Then we lose a doc! But... maybe that's why he claimed doc. To avoid a lynch as scum. Should we lynch him?"

Yeah thanks for nothing. Winger claimed too early IMO.

Cecily's post seems to be mostly about me, then he votes winger, the biggest wagon. And dismisses his read of me as playstyle.

...sound familiar?

Okay, it's confirmed: We have at least one really crappy townie. Because there's like a million suspicious people and they can't all be scum.

Twisted is really damn quick to believe winger's claim. Why, twisted?

Everything else I can see is pointless and boring wallposting. I'mma ignore it kthx.

[Cecily]

I like Oso's examination of the "lol".

And I guess there's no use in postponing my unvote so..

unvote

Winger, I'm glad you finally went through and analyzed people instead of just saying "I'm right" because that's a big part of the reason why I was voting you. I don't agree with your crazy call, because of how rational he stayed throughout the entire wagon. And I'm confused at you calling his post avoidance. If he were avoiding something, he wouldn't have posted at all, and it seems to me that his post was more of an acknowledgment without saying omgus, because everyone had been doing that at that point.

Parama, I didn't vote for you because of how you played in the last game we were in together. You were acting just like this, got everyone riled up, we voted for you, you were town. I don't like making the same mistake twice.

And I'm a female. It says so under my name.

[Parama]

hiraki's sig.

[[winger]]

Winger, I'm glad you finally went through and analyzed people instead of just saying "I'm right" because that's a big part of the reason why I was voting you. I don't agree with your crazy call, because of how rational he stayed throughout the entire wagon. And I'm confused at you calling his post avoidance. If he were avoiding something, he wouldn't have posted at all, and it seems to me that his post was more of an acknowledgment without saying omgus, because everyone had been doing that at that point.

1) How does my analysis of people mean that I'm not saying I'm right anymore? Because I am.
2) He stayed rational and calm because he had other people with torches and pitchforks to do all the shouting for him.
3) Avoidance wasn't the proper word; let's call it reflective... or something. Deflection? I don't know, you get the idea.

[[winger]]

3a) He essentially tried to shoot down the vote by not looking like he cared about it, but in doing so, showed that he cared about it.

[Cecily]

Parama, don't be a dick.

And I wasn't saying that you

weren't

right, just that I'm happy you gave explanation as to how you were right instead of just stating it matter of factly.
In response to 3a, I just don't see that. Differing opinions I guess is all we can attribute it to at this point.

[Parama]

hiraki's sig, again.

[Oso]

..
There was no vote. There wasn't supposed to be one. I just thought it odd that you would say "as far as crazy and I are concerned." It won't mean anything if crazy flips town...but it does raise at least two eyebrows.

Ah, I see. Perhaps some context would help:

@winger, if you would, enlighten me on the motivation behind this?

[snip]
..
If that's the case, and me double voting like I did, does that say anything about the connection between me/Oso or me/crazypianist? Or is it an individual tell?

Call me paranoid (I am by the way) but that looks like a backhand way to tie yourself to two players, disguised as a mafia theory question.

It took a while to get there, but what you quoted was in direct relation to the question winger asked you in Post-70

[crazypianist1116]

Winger, the part that I was talking about was this:

In fact, part of the debate that has gone on (which you would know if you had actually read and paid attention) involves the fact that I

wasn't

the first one to really give context to the "Lol". I simply asked a question, pianist said "Lol", then DEMONHYBRID is the one who actually pointed out why it was scummy first. In actuality, I only asked crazypianist a question to try and dig a little deeper.

You said you weren't giving context with the question but you just admitted your question implied a context.

Further:

He stayed rational and calm because he had other people with torches and pitchforks to do all the shouting for him.

What? We're talking about the wagon on me or yours? Cecily's quote implies mine, and people were accusing me. So I don't see how it would be easy to stay calm in that situation, but she's saying I did. If you were talking about your own wagon then that's fine but reread it now with the other point in mind.

If you take every word spoken at face value, you'd spend an entire game lynching town. Just sayin'.

This is why you lynch the people that try to make things seem scummier than they really are.

And the people who don't mean what they say.

These aren't mutually exclusive, ne?

Normally I'd post more but I'm totally stressed out with schoolwork. I should have more time this weekend.

[AGar]

told you guys he was probTown/newbtown

"looks like your scum is in another wagon"
to use an old meme

anyways, this is an awful start for the town, as our doctor is probably going to get NK'd now. It's quite like my newbie game where the doc claimed D1 as well as the cop and we basically lost all of our PRs due to roleblocks and NKs

1) Town Docs are a weak PR, as they're usually inefficiently used.
2) Mafia Doc is a totally plausible role.

I don't like the way you automatically believe the claim.

@[winger]: Sundy at least showed some kind of viewpoint between my vote and unvote, as to why he placed his vote elsewhere. You continued to flail.

Winger wagon loses it's momentum, so now...

UNVOTE:
VOTE: TwistedSpoon

4srs.

[Twistedspoon]

Twisted is really damn quick to believe winger's claim. Why, twisted?

becuase I never believed him to be scum, just newbtown

[Enigma]

Votecount 1.4

You walk into a room.

On the floor there is a puddle. There is some broken glass and a dead goldfish near the puddle.
The window is open. But door was locked shut.

What happened?

crazypianist1116 (4) -[winger], Parama, Bud Bidderskins, TwistedSpoon

[winger] (3) - Sundy, crazypianist1116, Akira
Sundy (1) - DemonHybrid
TwistedSpoon (1) - AGar
Cecily (1) - Riceballtail

Not Voting (3) - sordros, Oso, Cecily

With 13 Alive it takes 7 to lynch, 6 to no lynch.
The

deadline

is 3:30pm 20th March GMT+10.30.