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

[Glass]

he was being an opportunistic scum

Why can't it be all of the above?

Lol. VOTE: krazy

[ThAdmiral]

Aaah, parknourie and wizrak have indeed been banned for cheating which is pretty disgusting. I'll be replacing them along with thebiglebowski, which sucks as that's more than a third of the playing group.

But bear with it. Hopefully I'll be able to call in some favors and get this game running properly again asap.

[ThAdmiral]

Some great people have already offered to replace in.

Zodiark replaces parknourie

LlamaFluff replaces TheBigLebowski

singersigner replaces wizrak

Furculow replaces aaah400

Thank you so much guys. Now lets get this game back on the road!

[singersigner]

Sup.

[ThAdmiral]

vote count

Crazy - 1 (Jerbs)
Jerbs
Krazy - 3 (Crazy, smashbro_of_the_SSS, Glass)
Quaroath - 1 (LlamaFluff)
singersigner - 1 (Krazy)
Glass
smashbro_of_the_SSS
Zodiark
LlamaFluff
chkflip - 2 (Quaroath, singersigner)
Furculow - 1 (Jerbs)

[smashbro_of_the_SSS]

a lot of long quotes, so i put it in a few spoilers.

Spoiler: regarding 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!

if you want to risk it, whatever :p

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.

true, but not a good reason for lynching at all

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

fair enough

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.

gotta look back at the whole convo, but yeah, i just wanted to make sure this was a joke

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%"

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

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.

ok, went back, i see it

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?

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: regarding chkflp

my top scum right now is chkflp though.

Now, which comment is more odd - Quaroath's choo-choo comment without him actually being on the wagon

or

the fact that Glass felt it necessary to point out the obvious? Neither. They're both dismissable.

Jerbs' OMGUS through an RVS filter is something to note, though.

This post is full of scumminess, bringing up 3 things that could be called scummy if put together with another case, and bringing them up would probably make chk look good and that he could use later. I could easily see him going back and saying they aren't dismissible anymore if he needs to. He's setting himself up for calling anybody from this group scum if somebody starts a wagon.

I've pretty much just said the opposite to that. Is there anything else you could easily see me doing after playing a whole one game with me (where you were scum and I lynched you) prior to this one?

Nah, can't use much meta on you, don't really know any. I just saw this as an easy way to bring something that may or may not be scummy up, test the waters to see if anyone latches on, and then agree and look pro-town for bringing it up. You just said why you phrased your post like that, fine. I didn't mean to say that I could easily see you in particular doing that because of meta, I just see it in general as a way for scum to try to stay clean while starting up wagons.

Spoiler: regarding Glass

He's setting himself up for calling anybody from this group scum if somebody starts a wagon.

That is such a stretch, even if he goes on to say that it is not dismissible, attacking someone for something that would have happened pages ago without any support is ludicrous. If he does have other support than it is not really a scum move to reconsider his thoughts.

i could see people referring back to something that may have been looked over earlier, but adds to a case later. People go back and say "oh, hey, this looked innocent at the time, but now that x has flipped scum/town it might make a connection. I don't believe anyone would make a case solely on that sort of thing

now that chk hasn't been around, there really isn't much more to comment on, so I'll
vote Krazy for now, at least until chk or a replacement comes back.

You don't think that chk might feel more inclined to post if there is pressure on him?

no. people come back when they're ready, not when someone votes them. he was already under suspicion, and throwing on another vote wouldn't change that. If he was scum worried about clearing his name, he wouldn't have left when there was attention on him, so I don't think the vote would have helped.

that being said, I'll keep my vote where it is for now. I like the Krazy wagon.

[Crazy]

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

This is very much on par with something I've said as scum before, in an old game that I just looked at the other day.

A townie wants to play well and be helpful to the town. A scum just wants to look like town, even if it's

bad

town. So Krazy pointing out "Hey, look in this game where I also played badly" just seems like an argument scum would use.

[Krazy]

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

[Crazy]

Okay, I should work on some other reads, too.

[LlamaFluff]

Havent done an indepth read, but just a skim shows Quar is probably town (along with Crazy and SSB).

unvote
Vote Zodiark

(just replaced park)

Case comes later today.

[Glass]

Welcome signer and llama. Good work thadmiral for getting replacements so quickly.

Havent done an indepth read, but just a skim shows Quar is probably town (along with Crazy and SSB).

You think that SSS is town? Care to explain why?

i could see people referring back to something that may have been looked over earlier, but adds to a case later. People go back and say "oh, hey, this looked innocent at the time, but now that x has flipped scum/town it might make a connection. I don't believe anyone would make a case solely on that sort of thing

So..... How is it scummy?

no. people come back when they're ready, not when someone votes them. he was already under suspicion, and throwing on another vote wouldn't change that. If he was scum worried about clearing his name, he wouldn't have left when there was attention on him, so I don't think the vote would have helped.

Fair enough.

[Jerbs]

I word things the way I do to get rouses out of people. Use big words and people really start to go

apeshit

, don't they? I didn't find it noteworthy, so I said it was dismissible. It worked with Quaroath too, it seems, as I hardly even noted about him and he feels I'm giving him some sort of grilling. Sorry about my slight absence, I had some hefty college exams. That doesn't happen often.

So you purposely used the word "dissmissable" to get peoples interest on you? And if it wasn't noteworthy, why even bring it up in the first place?

[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.

[LlamaFluff]

So park was very obviously scum.

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).

Eventually he jumps on wizrak for what she says was a reaction test on chkflip, and not answering the RQS questions (props for not answering it, I encorage all other replacements not to).

Doesn't seem like a serious player, he is by far the scummiest yet. He still has to answer what kind of "reaction" he was looking for with his stupid vote on Post 70.

Also he pushed on the fact that the wizrak is "not serious", which if what he is TRYING to say is active lurking, that applies to a majority of the game, including park, who said nothing until the post he voted wiz in. From there on out he just ignores what wiz is saying about reaction testing.

Finally he understands what wiz is saying, but gets

I merely asked for some explanation since it was at the point that we get serious.
You are seriously getting on my nerves. Solidifying my vote here.

So he does realize that what he is attacking is a pressure/reaction vote, but calls it scummy as opposed to anything else. After that he turns around wiz getting aggressive and frustrated to being a scumtell, which in this case is a towntell, wiz is one of my townish reads for how she handled the whole situation.

Park has done nothing this game but post fluff and jump on someone for reaction testing. When he realized it was reaction testing, all he did was use the response as fodder to further the wagon that already is on shaky ground.

[Crazy]

I agree about your assessment of wizrak - that was a pretty bad wagon.

As for park, uhh, I just don't quite feel it. Wizrak's actions were kind of scummy according to traditional tells, so even though I disagree with the wagon, I

can

kind of see where it came from. IMO Krazy's attitude towards the wagon was way worse than park's, and I think initiating a case on someone is almost always more pro-town than bandwagoning on that case. Eh, I dunno, I'll probably have to get a read on park's replacement. I'm just not as confident with park being scum as I am with Krazy or chkflip.

[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

[Quaroath]

Number 2 seems the most likely to me considering his postings about lynching-all-lurkers, is it poor play? Yes, but poor play does not equate to scummy play. I honestly do not see how krazy was trying to push a lynch by saying wizrak was thin-skinned, he was not marketing that to anyone, just saying that it makes him feel better.

My thoughts on post 140 are that while it isn't particularly a town fuzzy post, it's not as scummy as it has been made out to be. (by Crazy) I think pushing a quick lynch on wizrak would be A.) Impossible at that stage of the game, and B.) a big f'ing target on Krazy's back if it goes past the starting block. I have a hard time accepting it's scummy because its so ... poor of a play for scum. And yes, I know how dumb that sounds. It's a gut feeling, I can't back it up with logic.

[Quaroath]

Quaroath

: I didn't say answering questions is scummy. I'm also not trying to take the non-stance on a situation that doesn't even exist. I'll go ahead and reiterate. It's expected to have questions answered because it's just rude not to answer them. It's not that you answered, it was how meaningless your original statement was. It made you think of a song; that's awesome, lots of things make me think of songs, too, but I don't often think to mention that in the duration of a mafia game. That's what I found to be a little interesting. Not particularly scummy, but definitely reassures me that you're a bit defensive by the way you've reacted.

Dude, walking into the Walk-in fridge at my restaurant makes me start singing “Ice Ice Baby" acapella. What can I say it's a rare talent. I love music, and almost anything that touches on a random song gets the song running through my head word for word. It's actually really frustrating (It's actually crippling in school/etc..

Also, does it reassure you I’m town or scum, I can read that either way and I’d like to know.

Thanks for the explanation, I’m comfortable with an

unvote

I want to hear from all the replacements on their perspective. Hopefully replacing 4 lurkers will help make the game more interesting. I’d ask all the replacements to find specific people they want to ask questions about specific issues to help further discussion, rather than posting just cases, or recaps of conversations.

[LlamaFluff]

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.

No but I do support wagons based on players throwing out posts that will lead to large quanities of WIFOM and wagons based soley on differences of theory.

[Zodiark13]

Hey guys, haven't had a chance to get on all day, and just having gotten Pokemon White will push my read further back.

[chkflip]

Chk, you definitely have a way with stuffing a lot of words in your posts yet still saying nothing at all.

1

So you're basically denying ever having a stance on anything?

2

I don't care what you find "interesting" or what "strikes" you. Tell me what you find scummy!

3

What I find scummy is when someone tries to pass off the notion that calling something "dismissible" was part of an elaborate ploy to start discussion.

4

1

- Thanks?

2

- Quote my post in which I said I had an actual stance on the situation and I'll reiterate oncemore.

3

- Fair enough, I'll stick to what's scummy and keep slight things to myself until they're completely relevant.

4

- I reactionfish more often than not. I can supply proof if you'd like?

So you purposely used the word "dissmissable" to get peoples interest on you? And if it wasn't noteworthy, why even bring it up in the first place?

See

4

[Jerbs]

V/LA till monday

[singersigner]

Hey catching up in everything tonight. This one's my second priority.

mod: when's deadline?

[smashbro_of_the_SSS]

v/la till sunday

[Glass]

Sorry about the absence, these last couple days have been intense so I have not really gotten around to posting. Hopefully I can post something useful tonight (if not then tomorrow)