NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[petroleumjelly]

Mod

, my apologies, I will actually be

V/LA

May 24-27 (Memorial Day weekend).

1.)

Not happy asking these questions, as these are the kind of questions I grind newbies with just to get a better sense of how they play. But given that I have not played with Tigris, I'll give myself a pass. Tigris:

->

a.)

Why do (did) you consider your style to be unorthodox?

->

b.)

Why does the fact that the Glork wagon was "fairly large" make voting the third voter more legitimate? If the wagon had stopped at three votes would you still have voted MafiaSSK?

->

c.)

In the last game you played here (Newbie #1441), you explicitly avoided voting a player who was third on a wagon:

Generally speaking, I wouldn't think that mafia would be aggressive enough to place a third vote on someone the first page (thus bringing attention to themselves)...

That player turned out to be Town. Mind distinguishing that game from this one?

2.)

Vote: MafiaSSK

for this:

...why would I join a bandwagon instead of choosing an alternative that I think may lead to more information on the first day?

Because bandwagons are guaranteed information especially at high vote counts. You choosing to go after someone different has in fact more potential to gain less information...

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

My vote on MafiaSSK was not based solely on a theory disagreement, but his interactions with Tigris that lead to the "theory."

Tigris voted MafiaSSK for being the third vote on Glork. chamber and Glork then vote Tigris without explanation. MafiaSSK then votes Tigris in what seems to be a humorous, lighthearted post:

Coming from someone who didn't even join the almighty Glork wagon?

VOTE: Tigris

The conversation at this point involved a subtle appeal to majority (or "groupthink" as Seol suggests) that suddenly turns from playful to "theory":

...why would I join a bandwagon instead of choosing an alternative that I think may lead to more information on the first day?

Because bandwagons are guaranteed information especially at high vote counts. You choosing to go after someone different has in fact more potential to gain less information...

This is an over-the-top assertion. Where I would

expect

MafiaSSK to simply agree that Tigris not joining a page-two bandwagon is natural

or

to simply respond with a continuation in a lighthearted vein, he instead takes a rather indefensible theory position. I think this reflects a scum mindset ("shoot, now I have to make this sound good") over a Town mindset ("eh, I was mostly joking and voting you for pressure").

On a weaker note, MafiaSSK's Tigris vote also goes against his own theory somewhat because he silently unvoted Glork (then at six votes, the largest bandwagon) to vote for Tigris (placing a third vote). Why not stick to the "guaranteed information" by keeping Glork a higher vote count.

2.)

MafiaSSK, why do you think Tigris' vote on you was merely a "complete other RVS wagon"? Do you think there is no merit in the "third on the bandwagon" tell? At the very least it is not random.

3.)

MrBuddyLee, thoughts on Sotty7?

4.)

VitaminR, who do you think the "weak" players are in this game? And yes, I ask this question with the knowledge that you are unlikely to be making friends with your answer.

Also, if you were strictly limited to the first two pages of the game and placing a serious vote, who would you vote and why?

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Untrod Tripod, do you prefer playing as scum or town? Why?

2.)

Still think MafiaSSK is the likeliest player to be scum.

People will deviate from the wagon, that's fine.

I just don't like the way Tigris did it...

I do not believe that MafiaSSK believes this. As CrashTextDummie has noted, it feels like he is trying to legitimize what was, in reality, a lighthearted vote for pressure purposes. And MafiaSSK has essentially said as much in Post 124.

Additionally, Post 156 is filled with over-the-top language ("damning," "insane tunnel vision," "utterly convinced," "real nail in the coffin"). MafiaSSK feels like he is overstating himself for his self image (appearing helpful, competent, decisive, what have you). For those concerned with the overuse of rhetoric / hyperbole, this post is a prime example.

3.)

CrashTextDummie, I have not read the last Oldy game. Please explain how you "caught UT in that game." And then explain why you decided to bring it up.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

4.)

VitaminR, who do you think the "weak" players are in this game? And yes, I ask this question with the knowledge that you are unlikely to be making friends with your answer...

I didn't necessarily mean to draw a distinction between good and bad players. Mentally substitute in: 'players who are typically perceived as being strong at theory discussion'. I thought it was striking that you, Seol, and LML were all going after the same person based largely on bandwagon theory in a short period of time. I don't know MafiaSSK's pedigree that well, but it seemed to me like there was a power disparity there that none of you seemed concerned about.

Thank you for your answer. Now please answer who you think the "weak" players are in the game.

You are correct that I am not concerned with whether MafiaSSK is a "weak" player. I am concerned with lynching scum.

2.)

VitaminR, I asked you to decide who you would vote in the first two pages of the game because that was all the information

I

had when I placed my original vote on MafiaSSK. If the best

you

can come up with is:

As for the first two pages, I placed a semi-serious vote on DGB, who I thought was very quick to declare chamber town

... then I fail to see what is wrong with pursuing MafiaSSK's switch to Tigris and subsequent theory assertion.

3.)

Not impressed with Glork.

->

a.)

He has mentioned how interesting Tigris is for him (Post 59 and Post 141), but he failed to ask Tigris a single question.

->

b.)

He has acted like nobody considered that MafiaSSK's act of voting Tigris was not following his own theory advice of sticking with the largest bandwagon (to the point of being "SUPER DUPER AMUSED"). This topic

has

been covered (see, e.g., Post 107) and reflects poorly MafiaSSK if anything, especially since MafiaSSK pretty much has to argue that Tigris did a "legitimately scummy thing" to explain his own switch.

Relatedly, Glork tries to act like the votes and suspicions on MafiaSSK are comprised solely on a disagreement on theory. They are not, though a few of the original pressure votes appear to be theory-based.

->

c.)

I'd like PJ to branch out and actually give scum/town opinions on people not named MafiaSSK. While I'm fine with the asking-questions thing (in part because it's consistent with what I'd expect him to do, and in part because I've behaved similarly this far), I'm anxious for follow-up.

Bluntly, I don't care what you'd like. I have no Town reads. I will pursue potential scum as I see fit.

4.)

But even if you do feel that my very real "artificial suspicions" on CES were bad, I don't see how you can actually think of them as scummy. I am creating these interactions with each of these players. I am giving my opinions. I am creating active discussion within the town that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Generating discussion does not excuse or justify your artificial and inflated suspicions on Cogito Ergo Sum. Still happy with my vote.

Side note: MafiaSSK, please stop quoting entire posts. Only quote what is required.

5.)

@PJ:

Any particular reason why you picked the two players that you did in your Question 3 of Post 107?

Yes.

6.)

Yeah I don't really feel like reading the thread...

This is insulting. If you don't want to read the game, please replace out. There are others who would be happy to take your slot.

7.)

I need both of you to trust me. Right now, okay? Please just work with me here, and I promise I will explain everything later, okay?

FoS: Albert B. Rampage

. May switch my vote soon.

[petroleumjelly]

I was not able to submit this post last night due to internet issues. I see that I have a few questions but I do not have time to answer them this morning and I will try to get to them after work tonight.

1.)

Why did you feel the need to telegraph a potential vote change?

I originally had switched my vote while writing my post, but as I pared it down I downgraded to a FoS. Albert B. Rampage's post was so outrageously out of place that I could see myself just switching my vote the next morning even without more content being added.

Given Albert B. Rampage was apparently just quoting something, the FoS is retracted.

2.)

In response to VitaminR's Post 249, my concern is that you are drawing a poor distinction between strong and weak players in an invitational game filled with players who have generally each been playing mafia for over five years. I do not plan on underestimating players.

Even assuming I

did

believe there are a few "weak" players in the game, then if a "weak" player is scum, pretty much the only way they are going to get lynched is if they are attacked by the other "strong" players.

But I take it you also think there are only a few "strong" players? Mind sharing who

those

are, if you are not willing to divulge who you think the "weak" players are?

3.)

As I have explained, my problem with MafiaSSK is

not

based on his theory. It is based on how he

got

to the theory. Namely, he did not want to back down from his Tigris vote and has tried to legitimize it as more than it was. I know a couple players (e.g., Green Crayons, Shanba) have tried to separate his theory from his vote, but MafiaSSK has intertwined to the two to the point of having to argue that Tigris was "legitimately scummy." The way he has worded and responded about his theory shows an entrenchment mentality and not a scumhunting or true explanatory mentality.

Since then, his vote on Cogito Ergo Sum looks like an attempt to

look

productive moreso than legitimate scumhunting; it looks like he picked a target and then tried to make his "case" look good by blowing up every instance of "Seol tunnel vision" reflects a scum mentality. This is why the overuse of rhetoric and hyperbole is concerning.

His "connection" between Cogito Ergo Sum and CrashTextDummie did not apply, and yet he has since defended it even after his mistake was pointed out to him. And now he has tried to justify his bad reasoning on Cogito Ergo Sum as not being scummy because it

generates discussion

. His play reads as post hoc justifications and

not

naturally born thought-processes.

I also do not like Post 193.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

@PJ, Poro, CTD and undo, you have somewhat similar reasons for voting SSK. I haven't read the guy in other games yet--have you? I want to know whether these odd behaviors you've noted are scumtells of his, or as Sotty has alluded to, are hallmarks of his overall loose/"lynchable" play. If you believe that one or more of these behaviors are genuine tells for him in particular, please elaborate.

@PJ, do you think Glorkscum would defend SSKscum as stridently as he has?

If cannot find a game where I played with MafiaSSK. My suspicions are based solely on his play in this game. He has played in two games I have modded, where he was lynched as a Townie on Day Two (a 2009 game) and as a Townie on Day Four (a 2010 game), but I do not remember his play in either game.

Yes, I can easily see Glorkscum defending MafiaSSKscum. I certainly have no reason to rule it out.

2.)

Do you think that a debate between MafiaSSK, on the one hand, and you and Seol (+/- LML), on the other, is going to end with the town going "by golly, that MafiaSSK guy is totally right"? If you think I'm using outdated meta, fine, just tell me I'm wrong. (No offence meant, MafiaSSK.)

In a vacuum, no.

Your question in itself, though, practically concedes that if both Seol and I are debating MafiaSSK on the same issue, we probably have a

valid point

we are trying to get across. This is opposed to

purposefully ganging up on a "weak" player

. Certainly neither of us has a pressing need to go attacking "weak" players. I take it you would agree either of us can stand toe-to-toe on theory with practically anybody.

This has been the root of my issue with you. Rather than giving weight to the theory that Seol and I (plus or minus LoudmouthLee) are trying to uncover something in good faith, you instead jump -- or willingly invite others to take the leap -- to the conclusion that we are scum swooping in on an easy mislynch.

Even

if

MafiaSSK is "weak" Town, your attitude does not reflect well on you because I would fully expect scum to proactively attributing / sowing the seeds of blame, and of course scum would know MafiaSSK is Town to begin with. The

easiest

path is actually to let MafiaSSK draw out his own noose and weakly protest his lynch and malign his attackers.

~

Your defensiveness on my follow-up line of questioning has not impressed me, either. It was very clear players were interested in your answer to my original question ("who are the weak players"), but you instead sidestepped it twice and have now sidestepped my question on strong players.

3.)

In response to Post 377, as I have said,when I first read Albert B. Rampage's "trust me" post I immediately switched my vote. As I started to edit my post to be shorter (starting around midnight) I decided I would rather stick to my MafiaSSK vote, but I wanted to make it clear I could just as easily vote Albert B. Rampage on that one post alone.

"Give me X Days/Nights" is a highly reliable scumtell in my experience. But I was so confused by its positioning (Albert B. Rampage did not have a pressing urgency to

make

such a claim) that I felt more comfortable leaving my vote on MafiaSSK at the time.

4.)

Unvote: MafiaSSK

Vote: LoudmouthLee

FoS: MafiaSSK

FoS: VitaminR

I have been giving LoudmouthLee a large berth so far, because I have been trying to separate his tone (the words that come to mind are "weaselly" and "argumentative," though I feel bad using such obviously negatively connotative words) from his play. In general I tend to not like his tone (definitely reminiscent of stereotypical "New Yorker"), and so I have put a concerted effort in trying to read him based on his content instead of his wording. But at this point I can no longer believe he believes his own content, particularly his Vote Count Analysis.

LoudmouthLee indeed (as others have already pointed out) seems to be ignoring the context of votes completely to come to his conclusions.

->

a.)

He labels every first vote in the game as a "random" vote (even though not all first votes are random; indeed, mine was not random in the slightest).
->

b.)

He then focuses on those who have changed their votes several times. I tend to think Townspeople are actually more likely to change their votes and their minds as evidence presents itself, especially if they are largely voting for pressure and reactions.
->

c.)

His take on the Natirasha wagon is simply incorrect. The Natirasha push was a policy push for action; action which has now occurred.
->

d.)

He makes no mention of the players who have not moved their vote at all (Porochoz, MrBuddyLee, Shanba, and myself) even though that would be an

easier

route for scum to take.

The biggest kicker for me is that LoudmouthLee has been defensive of his own voting history by trying to explain the circumstances:

... I've already explained multiple times why I felt your move stood out in particular. You're just picking on my wording there.

So, to paraphrase you: You're voting me because I went along with two (wait, one and an FoS) weak wagons with less than 7 pages on D1, and when I find something that truly looks and smells scummy to me, I change my vote to that person?

When I voted StD, I had a grand total of 2 or 3 votes on me (You, DrippingGoofball- who will vote for me regardless of anything whatsoever due to history, and Albert- who also likes voting me as well) - Hardly a wagon. There was no real pressure (sorry!) for me to make a move. I did it because I'm actively scum hunting.

(And this is not the only example I could cite).

But then he turns around and ignores similar circumstances in his Vote Count Analysis (and in his earlier argument with Save the Dragons). He seems to give no consideration to what a player actively trying to scumhunt might be doing with her vote, and further insinuates that if a vote was on a bandwagon it must have been opportunistic to a degree. Putting in work is not the same as actually scumhunting, and right now, I think LoudmouthLee is trying substitute one for the other.

5.)

Yosarian2, why do you think LoudmouthLee and VitaminR are unlikely bedfellows?

[petroleumjelly]

6.)

And MrBuddyLee, when you have time please answer my earlier question:

3.) MrBuddyLee, thoughts on Sotty7?

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

VitaminR, I understand your point of view just fine -- you feel that MafiaSSK was obviously outclassed trying to argue theory against myself, Seol, and potentially LoudmouthLee. But your point of view is simply

not workable

.

The fact that we all had the same "theory"-based issue with MafiaSSK is neither a reason to think Seol, myself, or LoudmouthLee are scum,

nor

is it a reason to think MafiaSSK is Town. If anything, it should be expected that if somebody espouses a bad theory in a game filled with "Oldies" that they are going to be taken to task for it. And if the player with a bad theory is considered "weak," they are necessarily going to appear to be outclassed.

While you accuse me of not trying to understand your vote or intentions,

you

(and others) have tried to compact both my and Seol's vote on MafiaSSK to being based on theory. If you read our posts, while theory

was

an initial springboard in-part, it was not (and is not) the crux of

either

of our arguments. The question is why he claims to have that theory (e.g., is he being honest?, does he actually believe it?, has he applied it sensibly?, is he overstating himself?, is he willing to amend his theory?). I can assume that everybody here has some elements of mafia theory that I would disagree with. But here, the circumstances surrounding MafiaSSK's theory all suggest to me a scum mentality more than a true Town mentality.

2.)

Glork and VitaminR, please explain how my LoudmouthLee vote is "opportunistic" and why this "opportunism" is scummy.

I have been biting my tongue on LoudmouthLee for a while, but his Vote Count Analysis (apparently made to rekindle interest in the game after the crash) has so little worthwhile analysis that I can draw no conclusions beyond that he is acting busy in the hopes it makes him look Town.

At what point would it

not

be "opportunistic" of me to vote LoudmouthLee?

3.)

I am genuinely curious to know why people think LML went through the VC analysis to try to frame/jump on someone who hadn't had any attention whatsoever. Yeah, he lacked context as PJ indicated, but I'm really really really not seeing the connect between what LML did and an actual scum motivation. PJ's vote also feels in that opportunistic category. There's not a lot going on, and people might be feeling antsy after the downtime, so why not punish LML?

Hey Yos, since you're here, what motivation do you see for scum-LML parking his vote on UT?

FoS: Glork

This is striking me as purposefully framing an issue in a particular light instead of the correct light. I do not believe any person who voted for LoudmouthLee based on his ultimate choice of vote (Untrod Tripod) -- the concern was the manner and (lack of) analysis that led him to it.

The burden is not on us to figure out why LoudmouthLee would vote for Untrod Tripod.

LoudmouthLee has already taken some heat, as you concede by suggesting people are "riding the tides to an easy lynch." To alleviate such heat, scum are going to want to look productive and Townish. LoudmouthLee's post looks designed

precisely

for that purpose, substituting work for scumhunting. I do not get the impression he is actually trying to figure out players' alignments. He is pushing names into an Excel document and focusing on the outliers in one direction (lots of vote changing) but not the other direction (lack of vote changing).

Skimming LoudmouthLee's posts in the Mountainous game Yosarian2 linked to, I get the same impression. In the linked game, LoudmouthLee asked pointed questions and dissected others' opinions. In

this

game he largely argues with people attacking him, and now that he has put forth his own analysis on the game it is devoid of in-game context.

4.)

c) Here's a really great question for you, PJ (and Yos, and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE POLICY KICK), why Nat, and not any of the other players that hadn't moved their votes? Because Nat was being adversarial. Was stirring the pot. Was angering people. You say policy. I say VI. I think, somewhere in the middle, we're both right.

This is far from a great question. Natirasha was being deliberately and abrasively unhelpful. He refused to read the game upon replacing in, and then rather than contributing posted merely that he was "lurking." In short, he was not playing the game, nor was he even making an appearance of playing the game. Players like that do not belong in games. Had I been on-line I would have gladly voted for him to force him into either contributing or replacing out. Feel free to add me as temporarily changing my vote to Natirasha in your Vote Count Analysis if it would help.

[petroleumjelly]

Going to separate LoudmouthLee things from other things. This is a LoudmouthLee post.

1.)

I responded to your 4 points. You a single point and completely misrepresented it. Let's take a step back and work our way through a few new points.

There is no need to respond to every response you make; back-and-forths of that nature get difficult / boring for others to follow.

Your view on Natirasha is simply incorrect -- purposefully unhelpful players do not turn helpful unless Towns actively do something about them (i.e., voting for them or doing a sort of "wisdom of the masses" behind the scenes to force Moderator action). If you truly believe "voting is for lynching"

only

, then your meta should uphold that. I will make a note to skim some of your previous games.

For your other three responses, though:

->

a.)

Using "random" to label everybody's first post is merely an additional indicator that you were not putting effort to put votes into actual context. While you

could

have labeled everybody's first vote an "initial" vote, you did

not

.
->

b.)

I do not believe that switching ones vote several times on Day One "helps scum" more than it helps Town, nor do I believe it is a scumtell.
->

c.)

Already responded.
->

d.)

A player not moving their vote is not the same as a "lurker tell."

2.)

I did not have real suspicion of you until your Vote Count Analysis.

I gave you a wide berth because I already know that I do not like your play and I do not like arguing with you. (You probably don't remember, but the last time we played and argued with each other, you pushed me into replacing out, followed by Glork pushing me to replace out. I ultimately replaced out.)

I have been putting special effort into trying to not fall into the trap of "I don't like his posts, therefore he is scummy." I have not liked much of your posting this game -- you are abrasive, argumentative, and your language is often condescending. But I did not actually suspect you of being scum until your Vote Count Analysis, hence the timing of my vote.

3.)

As for your points:

->

a.)

My suspicions on Glork is not bluster. He seems to be deliberately strawmanning. He acts like the suspicion on MafiaSSK is based solely on "theory" when it is not. He then acts like nobody considered that MafiaSSK went against his own theory when that was in fact a point

against

MafiaSSK. When discussing your Vote Count Analysis he tries to focus on "why would LoudmouthLee vote for Untrod Tripod?" instead of "why would LoudmouthLee provide largely contextless analysis to make his vote"? It is looking to me like he is purposefully mis-framing issues.

->

b.)

I did not hint at suspecting you because I did not suspect you until your Vote Count Analysis. See above.

->

c.)

I concede that I was pushing VitaminR overly strongly on the "weak" v "strong" division, especially given that he was not likely to give an answer. My "rationale" was that I was trying to make a point -- I presumed VitaminR would only find a couple players "weak" and most players to be "strong." And so his own logic would lead him to concede that if a "weak" player is scum they must necessarily be attacked by "strong" players in order to be lynched, and furthermore, that strong players all attacking a "weak" player should not be alignment indicative in either direction. It was basically an attempt at the Socratic Method to get VitaminR to understand my position by having him explain my position in his own words.

->

d.)

My vote on Albert B. Rampage has been discussed. "Trust me, give me more time" is a reliable scumtell, and I wanted to vote on it. What held me back was the strange timing / context of the post.

[petroleumjelly]

Other stuff.

1.)

@PetroleumJelly: In a game this size with this many players, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to put in the effort to do that analysis if LML was scum? I think it would be pretty easy to blend in with the pack and not make too many waves. VCA data is verifiable by town and can be used throughout the game to catch scum, though I think it's really not that useful until later. Why would scum make an effort to tell the truth to town when they could generally just coast? This line of argument seems fabricated and could be used against anyone, town or scum, who put in effort to provide data. To paraphrase chamber's tagline, it's as if you're saying "content is scummy."

No.

Follow-up: do you think my play has been coasting? Do you think I have been making any waves? What makes you say I have "given a minimal approach to contributions to the game so far"?

2.)

MafiaSSK, where are you?

3.)

chamber, could I get an update on your thoughts on LoudmouthLee, please? I would prefer a few lines if your thoughts have changed since last time.

[petroleumjelly]

BooKitty:

1.)

Content is not scummy.

Bad

content is scummy. The fact that LoudmouthLee was relying on "facts" (i.e., "X voted for A, then B, then C") is irrelevant -- what is relevant is the conclusions he was drawing from those facts. His conclusions did not take into account actual game circumstances beyond "this vote was on somebody who has been wagoned."

2.)

I had "posted eight times" because I post about once a night (or sometimes the following morning). I cannot afford to contribute more time than I already do.

3.)

I asked Tigris questions to get a feel for her play. I even explained this as I was asking Tigris my questions.

Her answers did not arouse my suspicion. I also skimmed the posts of her last game (Newbie #1441, which I referenced while asking my questions) where I had personally noted that one of my annoyances with Tigris (her use of nervous-sounding filler words such as "anywho") is something she does as Town. I think had she continued posting at a similar rate and with a similar amount of openness I would have ultimately been able to get a good read on her alignment.

4.)

What do you think your main contributions have been so far?

What do you feel you've learned from your questioning? Do you still think MafiaSSK is scum? Is it likely he is scum with LML?

Reading the game for the second and third time, I'm seeing a lot of heat and smoke from your posts, but I just don't see a lot of light.

I cannot think of a non-condescending way to decline to answer your bolded question, so I am simply going to decline to answer it.

My lines of questioning:

->

a.)

My Tigris questions have led me to think I could eventually get a good read on Tigris had she not replaced out (see above).
->

b.)

My question to MrBuddyLee on Sotty7 was to see if I could get reasoning from MrBuddyLee (I remember him being tight-lipped in the past which makes him difficult for me to read) on a player I would normally have trouble getting a read on.
->

c.)

My questions to VitaminR (the "weak" v "strong" push) was to see if I could get him to agree with my stance through a Socratic line of questions. Given that I feel the direction I was going was pretty obvious, his refusal to answer my questions (or least to admit "I see where you are going with this, but I disagree") strikes me as being purposefully slippery. His point ("MafiaSSK was outclassed,

therefore

I suspect the attackers going after an 'easy target' and do not suspect MafiaSSK") is simple but flawed given the realities of this invitational game.
->

d.)

My questions to Yosarian2 and chamber concerning LoudmouthLee (and VitaminR) were attempts to see what other players whose posts I have liked so far (and

no

, I do not have Townreads on either chamber or Yosarian2) think about players I think are scummy. Their answers have not helped me get a more nuanced read on LoudmouthLee (or VitaminR). That said, I

am

interested in chamber's theory that LoudmouthLee may have

purposefully

made a bad Vote Count Analysis (potentially for reactions?).

~

I still believe MafiaSSK has a good chance of being scum. I can see him being scum with LoudmouthLee, but I really have no reason to suspect the pairing in particular. They are independently scummy.

Update: Actually, looking over their posts again, the pairing actually looks quite plausible. While LoudmouthLee initially FoS'd MafiaSSK, he has declined to push MafiaSSK in the slightest. Since the initial FoS, he has only talked about MafiaSSK in the context of (i) Tigris' vote on MafiaSSK and (ii) the fact that MafiaSSK was a bandwagoned player. And the only mention MafiaSSK has made of LoudmouthLee was to question why Save the Dragons voted for LoudmouthLee.

~

Please explain what you mean when you say you are seeing a "lot of heat and smoke" from my posts.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

MafiaSSK, why do you believe the scum in this game do not have daytalk?

2.)

MafiaSSK, what do you think of LoudmouthLee?

3.)

LoudmouthLee, what do you think of MafiaSSK?

4.)

LoudmouthLee, is there scum on my wagon?

5.)

LoudmouthLee, for the record, I actually spent a fair deal of time just now skimming over some of your latest games (admittedly several years old). I have indeed noted a fairly consistent pattern of you deciding that "X scum are on Y wagon" without really bothering to look at what other players are doing with their votes. While I don't agree with the concept, I will no longer consider it a point against you.

So now the question focuses on whether you are actually doing this:

It is of my opinion that content matters much less than analyzing voting patterns.

When the voting patterns lead you to choices, that's when you compare content.

I have not seen you put your own Vote Count Analysis into context (or "comparing the content"). I realize you are not currently voting for Untrod Tripod, but could you explain whether (and if so, how) you actually compared Untrod Tripod's (or Save the Dragons') voting patterns to their content?

6.)

LoudmouthLee, why do you believe that Save the Dragons' meta does not involve hopping on bandwagons? Save the Dragons essentially actually asked you this same question in Post 285.

7.)

LoudmouthLee, unfortunately I did not happen to notice any situations where you have similarly argued against a Town voting to get a player to

act

instead of voting to get a player

lynched

(e.g., the Natirasha situation). Can you link me to a game where that has happened before? If you don't believe (or can't remember) if it has come up in a game before, please say so.

[petroleumjelly]

BooKitty,

1.)

Your explanations actually make a lot of sense to me. However, the Tigris explanation and your results are nowhere in the thread that I saw. If it's valuable information, shouldn't you share your findings with town? Do you intend to make a similar investigation of the person who replaced into her slot?

No. "I think I will be able to get a read on Tigris later in the game" is not something I feel the need to share. And no, I do not intend on seeing if I can happen to read Kublai Khan (her replacement); it is not Kublai Khan's posting I see myself having trouble with. My questions were particular to Tigris because I could tell I was going to have some issues with her posting.

I do not feel the need to update the Town on every little thought I have. The people I pursue and the questions I ask generally should give you a fair idea of where my mind is at.

2.)

The "Socratic dialogue" with VitaminR reads completely like smoke and mirrors. Reread it for yourself and I think you'll see exactly why.

Uh. Sure. I reread my posts. And I understand

exactly

where I was going and I think VitaminR (should have) understood as well.

Why don't

you

try rereading

my

posts and then decide if you think I was trying to herd VitaminR into a particular answer (i.e., "there are lots of 'strong' players and not many 'weak' players"). VitaminR put out the theory that MafiaSSK was an "easy target" and that there was a "power disparity" in those voting for MafiaSSK and

therefore

the "strong" players were suspicious but MafiaSSK was not. I do not think his position is tenable if he agrees there not many "weak" players in the game

or

if he agrees this game is largely made up of "strong" players.

3.)

I don't like you saying that you were giving LML a wide berth and then suddenly springing your assessment on everyone.

Do you feel that the scumtell I mentioned before is the one you were picking up on?

It wasn't really clear to me from the wording of your post.

I am trying to read this question charitably, but I do not understand the "scumtell you mentioned before" I am potentially "picking up on." If you are referring to this:

LML is a null-leaning-scum read for me. The scum part is:

He pulls his vote off STD and then votes UT for the EXACT SAME thing. His VCA actually shows that. I realize he's only got one vote, but why switch it at the point he does and then blame it on his VCA? That's not reading honest to me. STD ducked my question on that, but I would be interested to know how STD sees that move. To me, it was the scummiest thing LML did all game and it made me look hard at STD as a result.

Then no, I was not "picking up on" your thought-process.

~

4.)

Why, if LoudmouthLee's switch to Untrod Tripid was scummy, did LoudmouthLee's Vote Count Analysis "make you look hard" at Save the Dragons as a result? Were you looking for potential LoudmouthLee and Save the Dragons connections?

5.)

You claim you have been reading this game from the very beginning and that you've read the game several times over the last few days. You have also posted ten times now. What has prevented you from noting other potentially opportunistic votes or suspicions? Your "transparency" spiel is not lining up with your own posts very well. I will grant that you have not been in the game long, but it's not like you had to catch up or have not had time to post.

Your posts are suggesting that you have had to tailor your thoughts somewhat since joining the game, which suggests you have drawn a scum role and made a change of plans.

FoS: BooKitty

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: LoudmouthLee

Vote: Bookitty

Bookitty's readthrough looks almost specifically designed to justify her suspicions of me. I am sensing that she is writing it with an agenda in mind (and probably an agenda towards more players than simply myself, but I am obviously a bit more attuned to agendas against myself). It seems like every time she comes across one of my posts she is obliged to mention something about it, but she does not give others' posts a similar treatment. Much of the time she does not even seem to draw conclusions from my posts -- she just mentions them as if they are significant and by implication scummy in some manner.

As for the things she has tried to drum up as being suspicious:

My questions to Tigris were all to see how she would respond, including my second and third questions. My second question ("would you still vote MafiaSSK if Glork's wagon had stopped at three votes?") was to get a feel for her grasp on theory and how strongly she would abide by it. My third question ("last time you did not think three votes on page 1 was suspicious, so why was it enough to justify your vote here?") had an obvious answer (namely, "the last game was a Newbie game and this is a Large game") and I largely wanted to see how she worded her answer and if she would draw further distinctions. Her answers were ho-hum (not great, not bad) and I felt no need to pursue her further.

And I guess there's not much else. For all the times she mentions my name there is actually nothing much to respond to.

As an aside, I'm assuming you meant MafiaSSK's Post 124 when you said this, since Post 107 is my post that MafiaSSK was responding to:

MafiaSSK’s Post 107 is mostly town to me.

~

1.)

LoudmouthLee, what do you think of Bookitty? (And I'm aware I have five pending questions to you, apologies for tossing another on the pile).

2.)

mathcam, I would specifically like your opinions on LoudmouthLee and Bookitty when you have the chance.

3.)

mathcam, why do you think MafiaSSK replaced out?

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Perhaps I am VERY old school, but I don't remember EVER playing in a game with a day-talking Mafia. Ever. This may be my memory failing me, but I seriously cannot remember a time. Since this is Oldy Mafia, and I assume that Day Talking mafia is a new construct, what makes anyone think that it would be in this game? It's an odd speculation on everyone's behalf, and when people have too much information, there's generally a good reason (cough, scum)

...FOS whoever it was that asked [MafiaSSK] why he thought there was no daytalk...

Hi!

Daytalk has become increasingly common, and there is in fact an explicitly Normal role called an Encryptor which allows Daytalk while limiting it to the span of the role's life.

Browsing MafiaSSK most recently completed games, Mini #1543 had unlimited Mafia Daytalk (completed April 10, 2014) and Mafia in the Land of Fantasy had a Mafia Encryptor (completed April 7, 2014). He also recently finished modding a game with unlimited Mafia Daytalk (completed April 8, 2014), and a Micro Game with a Mafia Encryptor (completed January 7, 2014).

Given MafiaSSK's very recent experiences with Mafia Daytalk (to the point of often using it in his own games), his unnecessary assumption that the Mafia in

this

game does not have Daytalk stuck out to me.

~

Concerning whether Patrick would implement Mafia Daytalk, scanning his "recent" games he did allow Daytalk in Invitational #11: Pick Your Poison 5 (run in 2010) and a Mafia Encryptor in Speed Mafia (run in 2011).

2.)

Responding generally to MrBuddyLee's Post 616, your summaries of my suspicions are fair (though I have not voted all of them). I also see some potential connections between a few them but am trying to stay away from mentally linking people until I'm working from flips.

My strongest suspicions are Bookitty, LoudmouthLee (although I am wavering on that lately after trying to meta his play a couple nights ago), and mathcam (replacing MafiaSSK).

I feel a bit disillusioned by both VitaminR and Glork's play -- they both seem to be purposefully talking past me and my points (and I will grant that the fact that they both claim to suspect me does neither of them favors), but they are not particularly strong suspicions, and not who I would prefer to lynch right now. To some extent my suspicion of them may be attributable to annoyance with their play. And also to some extent, I think I am already

somewhat

mentally associating them as having strange (potentially scummy) defenses of players I think are scummy and so I am more skeptical of their posts as a result. (And yes, I did just say I try to avoid this).

Concerning the possible agenda with Bookitty's PBPA, I will freely admit that I was primarily concerned with her comments towards me (and reading it again just now, I still get the feeling she was looking for ways to take stabs at me). I actually agree that her comments towards Save the Dragons and potential deflection from LoudmouthLee looks somewhat like an agenda in her posting (as Save the Dragons described in Post 617). Most of her PBPA is just a description of game events (and who is voting who) with subtle indications of her thoughts or implications, suggesting that she is putting in work to look Town. Beyond that, it is difficult to draw conclusions. I can see undo's argument that Bookitty might be overly defensive of VitaminR, but that does not strike me as an agenda she had in mind while writing her posts, especially given the relative lack of pressure on VitaminR.

3.)

I do not think MafiaSSK's replace-out was Town. He was under lingering pressure with three votes, I had just asked him a couple pointed questions that he may have rather avoided, and it was fairly obvious that he was going to be under more pressure if he did not step it up. Charitably it is null.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

LoudmouthLee, you've twice made a reference to the Daytalk speculation (Post 601 and Post 653), both times essentially saying you find such speculation suspicious. But you have not clarified who you are suspicious of -- reading your posts it almost seems like you are suspicious of

me

for following up with MafiaSSK. Could you clarify?

Are you still suspicious of the MafiaSSK slot (now mathcam)? You seem to be avoiding saying as much.

2.)

I am not surprised that a MafiaSSK/LoudmouthLee pairing had occurred to me earlier, as now I am also seeing a mathcam/LoudmouthLee pairing.

LoudmouthLee jumped on others saying that MafiaSSK's replace out "looked Town" as a reason for not voting for the slot today, but the more I look at it the more of an excuse it is looking like to not vote for mathcam.

3.)

I am not a fan of Bookitty's "martyr" post; if she believed it she would have voted for herself (which would also be annoying). "Martyr" posts, if done by Town or Scum, almost necessarily must come from players who are going to claim Vanilla Townie, so I do not consider that a point in her favor. Just because some players (e.g., Glork) would apparently try to draw out power roles does not mean every other player would do the same.

4.)

Not particularly interested in the Cogito Ergo Sum wagon; it largely looks like a bad "Cogito Ergo Sum v Bookitty" dichotomy.

That said, Glork, what were the "~reasons~" you mentioned about him earlier.

~

I am still willing to vote Bookitty.

Unvote: Bookitty

Vote: LoudmouthLee

This day needs to get a move-on. Deadline is Wednesday and there are not reduced-majority rules for lynching. We

must

get twelve votes to achieve a lynch. Rather than failing to get something together or lynching last-minute, let's get it done. Players with votes that are unlikely to lead to a lynch need to compromise and move elsewhere or else actually argue and pursue their top choice instead of idly sitting on their votes.

[petroleumjelly]

^
LoudmouthLee,

1.)

MafiaSSK made a post where he assumed the Mafia did not have Daytalk to support his Cogito Ergo Sum / CrashTextDummie case. I then questioned him about it. You (and mathcam) alleged (or implied) that of course the Mafia does not have Daytalk, to which I responded, explaining that Mafia Daytalk has become increasingly common and there is in fact an explicitly Normal role -- Mafia Encryptor -- that enables (and upon death, disables) Mafia Daytalk. In doing so, I also pointed out that MafiaSSK has both played and moderated games with Mafia Daytalk very recently (all in 2014), and so his assumption of no Mafia Daytalk does not conform very well to his recent experience.

That is the bite-sized history of the Mafia Daytalk discussion. Like I suspected, you are acting like the person who brought up the possibility of a Mafia Encryptor (me) is more suspicious than the person who assumed no Mafia Daytalk (MafiaSSK).

2.)

How is my opinion on two different major wagons at the same time at all relevant? That is a pretty sorry job at both myself and the players who suspected you for your early Tigris/MafiaSSK vote/FoS.

3.)

You did not answer my question:

Are you still suspicious of the MafiaSSK slot (now mathcam)? You seem to be avoiding saying as much.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

I also pointed out that MafiaSSK has both played and moderated games with Mafia Daytalk very recently

Was he scum in said games? As town you don't always notice things like that post game.

He was Town in both games. In the first game, the Mod apparently explicitly announced that all factions had "Daytalk enabled." In the second game, the first role lynched was the Mafia Encryptor (and it looks like there was also a Mason Encryptor that died Night Five).

2.)

... An oversimplification: as I read through, I assign little +1's and -1's to people if their post strikes me as pro-town or scummy (with most posts getting a neutral 0). Most people accrue some of both. In this game, moreso than usual, I have lots of people with more town points than scum points...

Can we see some of this?

Also, can you explain the arguments against VitaminR in your own words?

3.)

Glork, kindly explain your previous vote on me. In detail. In fact, I would prefer if you attempt to write a persuasive case against me. I have a hard time believing you

actually

think I am scummy. It seems more like a default position than anything else. Do you just

want

me to be scum, or what?

4.)

Glork, do you feel like Bookitty has pandered to you this game?

5.)

Kublai Khan (and inHimshallibe),

please

catch up and place a vote. We're on a deadline.

6.)

MrBuddyLee, your vote is on Kublai Khan (replacing Tigris). Your vote has been there the entire game. Kindly move it or make a compelling argument for why we should lynch Kublai Khan.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

I will be at work when deadline hits. I will check the game before heading to work tomorrow. And I will try to remember to get on my phone during lunch (which should be maybe an hour before the deadline hits) if I need to change my vote to achieve a lynch.

2.)

I most prefer a LoudmouthLee lynch. I am completely fine with a Bookitty lynch. I also like the makeup of her bandwagon more than the people I am voting with right now. I do not think a mathcam lynch is happening this late in the Day (nor will I be pushing it over LoudmouthLee or Bookitty).

I can fully believe that Kublai Khan has not been particularly motivated to catch up, but I cannot put an alignment to it. His explanations for his "first impressions" are not very compatible (e.g., I cannot tell if he thinks the MafiaSSK wagon is bad; he suggests Seol's case was "trumped up and bad" but chastises Sotty7 for "diffusing" the MafiaSSK wagon and VitaminR for "shaming" the wagon), but given that he was explaining "first impressions" I don't find it very telling. I don't have much of an issue with his two most recent posts, though I would like to know his opinion on more than simply myself and LoudmouthLee. I do not think that is where I want my vote. I also am not enthused by any of the players on his wagon, save for MrBuddyLee.

3.)

VitaminR, I do not think it is obvious

at all

why mathcam "sees the arguments" for you being scum. He never mentioned you at all prior to that post. At best mathcam suggested that -- in response to Yosarian2's question -- if Bookitty flips scum, then you will be a "point of interest."

The first problem there is that Yosarian2's question was who matcham would suspect if Bookitty flipped Town. And the second problem is that whether you might be scum with Bookitty is not an argument for you being scum -- it is an argument for you being

partnered

with

potential scum

, and is hence an argument entirely contingent on the alignment of another player.

Unsurprisingly, I am a little skeptical about what exactly mathcam "sees" the arguments against you, or why he thought he was actually answering Yosarian2's question (which was a follow-up I was going to do, but I am just tossing it in now given the deadline and the fact that he has yet to respond).

4.)

And in response to Glork's reasons for finding me scummy, I can understand the frustration in having completely divergent reads. However, my questions have all had reasons behind them and I

have

provided an analysis on the players I am pursuing. But I see you are sweeping that aside by acknowledging it.

Your accusation that I am "playing for me and me alone" I do not understand. I even reread my posts as critically as possible, and I'm not seeing it. (And if I

was

"playing for me alone" then I fail to see how that is even compatible with being Mafia, as a Mafiate very clearly has a list of people they

know

they are playing for).

Is this some sort of jab at the fact that I am choosing to keep some cards closer to my chest than others? Because that is a playstyle choice, and I am far from the first player to adopt such a playstyle. I do not like discussing Townreads overly much; players overtly declared to be Town have a habit of being nightkilled. Or, if they are scum, people start to get entrenched into thinking they are Town and it gets more difficult to change that mentality as the game wears on. About the only time discussing Townreads is strategically good is if (i) they are in danger of being lynched or (ii) you are scumhunting through process of elimination.

If you mean something else, I would like a more detailed explanation.

[petroleumjelly]

So you're not going to claim, but are you going to imply (i.e., essentially claim) you are a Doc(tor).

I would not suggest anybody give opinions on his claim, as doing so will only help scum hunt for power. Votes, please -- we have very little time.

[petroleumjelly]

I actually LoudmouthLee's "bus" language was completely deliberate. I am not inclined to focus on who was on what wagon. I think he was giving the pot a stir, and I don't care to try to figure out in what direction.

Vote: DrippingGoofball

Her current suspicions are pretty much completely unacceptable. Her pursuit of Porochaz yesterday was bad, and her focus on those who voted for LoudmouthLee based on LoudmouthLee's own "bus" comment is worse.

Also still willing to lynch Bookitty, mathcam, and Glork has also substantially risen in suspicion after the LoudmouthLee flip.

~

Bookitty, kindly explain your LoudmouthLee Roleblocker theory in more detail. You thought that

I

thought that LoudmouthLee was a (Town) Roleblocker, so you thought I started attacking LoudmouthLee in order to "save the nightkill"? Is that the theory you claimed to have been going off of on Day One?

[petroleumjelly]

lol @ dgb votes.

If you legit think that she is scum because she defended LML D1, you're in the wrong game.

FoS: Glork

Why is it you have to continually twist cases into their weakest shapes in order to argue against them? And why are you doing that as opposed to pursuing your

own

preferred lynches?

Take a look at the thread. Not a single person voting for DrippingGoofball has said they are voting her for her

because

she defended LoudmouthLee. At best Kublai Khan has said he wants DrippingGoofball to answer his question from Day One (which was, in fact, asking

how

DrippingGoofball got a Townread on LoudmouthLee), and Save the Dragons has mentioned that it certainly does not

help

her.

I

think her Porochaz case was awful, and I also think her "method" for picking out suspicions (which is reliant on the veracity of LoudmouthLee's "bus" comment, and now relying on players who are voting for her) is similarly awful. And of course, her willingness to

No Lynch

over lynching LoudmouthLee is

at best

awful strategy. She instead pushed on Kublai Khan, a lynch pretty much guaranteed not to happen. Her choices for votes to me look arbitrary and not like actual scumhunting.

You are quite literally arguing against a theory

nobody

has announced using as their crux for voting DrippingGoofball. Were you simply

expecting

DrippingGoofball to draw some fire because of her defense of LoudmouthLee?

You say VitaminR is the lynch today. Then why aren't you voting for him? Where's your case?

[petroleumjelly]

PJ thoughts on Untrod Tripod, mathcam and Yosarian?

1.)

Untrod Tripod has a very slight Townread from me.

LoudmouthLee and Untrod Tripod crossvoted to a certain (lazy) extent, and I can draw no indications on alignment in either direction based on those votes, although mentally I find myself thinking Untrod Tripod is more likely to be Town even with the lack of reasoned-out pursuit for LoudmouthLee.

My biggest problem with Untrod Tripod is how excited he claims to have been about the game in addition to her stated preference for playing Town as compared to his posting in this game (where he is apparently doing most of his thinking/dissecting internally).

I would prefer to see more posts from Untrod Tripod before trying to come down on one side of the fence.

2.)

mathcam I strongly suspect.

I did not like MafiaSSK's play. To recap: he tried to justify a joke vote as more than it was. He made a bad case on Cogito Ergo Sum based on the "Seol tunnel." He then tried to connect CrashTextDummie to Cogito Ergo Sum for a bad reason, and when that was explained to him, he kept trying to hang on to the connection. When his play was criticized, he tried to defend it on the basis he had "generated discussion." After pressure let up on him, he stopped posting. He made an unnecessary assumption that the Mafia in this game do not have Daytalk. When I asked him pointed questions concerning a potential LoudmouthLee-MafiaSSK pairing and why he assumed the Mafia do not have Daytalk, he failed to answer and instead replaced out.

LoudmouthLee, while he did FoS MafiaSSK early, did not really pursue MafiaSSK and seemed more than content to simply waggle his finger at MafiaSSK and do nothing further.

mathcam's replace-in has done nothing to change my mind that the slot is scum. He started by supporting MafiaSSK's suspicion of Cogito Ergo Sum to the extent of leaving his vote there instead of placing it on his top suspect. I highly doubt that Cogito Ergo Sum would actually be mathcam's top suspect at that point of the game. I specifically asked him for his opinion on LoudmouthLee, and he started with a "slight scum read" on him (along with Bookitty), but later declined to agree that LoudmouthLee was as good a vote as Bookitty (the Green Crayons/mathcam discussion), and clarified later that LoudmouthLee was in his "top 5 scummiest". And yet today he claims he "didn't really see it," despite not seeing a single post from LoudmouthLee that looked Town.

I am also not happy that he has yet to answer my questions to him from Day One, though for now I am not letting myself draw negative inferences from it on the assumption he has been unable to find the time.

3.)

Yosarian2 also has a slight Townread. He would have a stronger Townread if I were not cautious about his scumplay. He had multiple chances to take the game in directions other than LoudmouthLee on Day One but seemed to continually circle the drain back towards that topic. I did not get the feel overly much that he was bussing. His continued suspicions on Day Two also seem reasonable to me, even though I do not agree with all of them.

(And his defense of me also makes me want to think he is more likely to be Town, though I try not to let things like that influence me overly much).

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: DrippingGoofball, Vote: Glork

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: Glork

Vote: DrippingGoofball

I wanted to spread some votes today, but now I am just ready to lynch DrippingGoofball. Let's cut down on the page count and get it done. In the meantime:

1.)

Glork, answer my questions. Ignoring them does not make them go away.

2.)

Glork, acting like your late and "reluctant" vote on LoudmouthLee is a point in your favor is doing you no favors. At that point in the game, if you are scum, you could not suddenly "see the light" and attack LoudmouthLee for credit. So your only choice if you wanted

any

Towncredit was to vote LoudmouthLee but to act unhappy about it.

Your other options as scum (which would not gain you

any

Towncredit) would be to be simply shoot for a No Lynch, either by being conveniently absent

or

by pushing a wagon doomed to failure (i.e., Untrod Tripod and Kublai Khan and possibly even Bookitty if we got too close to the deadline).

The fact that you are trying to shine the spotlight away from players who were sticking their heads in the sand is legitimately baffling. That is a

perfectly

good place to look, and somewhere I have looked at myself.

Any scum can bus any partner. Any scum can defend any partner. It's really that simple. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

~

3.)

I do not think Bookitty's explanation of her reasons for jumping on me Day One make sense, and I disagree with Sotty7 that it makes Bookitty look Town.

First, why would Bookitty assume that LoudmouthLee crumbing "roleblocker" made LoudmouthLee

Town

, even after he made a post she (half) admits is scummy?

Second, given that Bookitty has admitted that LoudmouthLee's Vote Count Analysis was scummy, why would she assume that my jump on LoudmouthLee was because I actually thought LoudmouthLee was a Town Roleblocker? Apparently because my vote was "fabricated"? Fabricated

how

? Opportunistic? Opportunistic

how

? When

else

was I supposed to vote for him?

Third, I was

far

from the only player to attack LoudmouthLee, so why would Bookitty focus on

me

as having discerned LoudmouthLee's role, but nobody else?

There are also other issues (such as the obvious, "scum playing the long game would rather just

nightkill

suspected power roles rather than having them claim and potentially having the bandwagon backfire on them," and the fact that LoudmouthLee was obviously making a pun on "cockblocking" with his "diceblocking" comment) that slightly notch down her credibility.

To me, this is feeling like Bookitty knew she was going to catch heat today and so she spent Night One (potentially with her partners) trying to figure out how to justify her Day One actions. She could even have done this as Town. But I do not believe this is actually what was going on in Bookitty's head on Day One.

Her jump to explain chamber's question on why LoudmouthLee did not attack her when the question was posed to Glork is also suggestive of giving a lot of thought on bleaching her Day One play.

PPE

: I see DrippingGoofball has posted some giant thing, so I will read it now.

[petroleumjelly]

No. That is just awful. The laser-focus on players who attacked LoudmouthLee is so astoundingly dumb I can hardly believe it. Even if some scum bussed LoudmouthLee (and I will even grant there was probably one or two), I would also suspect there was scum

off

of his wagon. Looking at one pool while ignoring the other based on LoudmouthLee's second-to-last post in the game, where I think he knew the jig was up and was obviously trying to stir the pot, is literally as bad as it gets.

DrippingGoofball can eat rope. Predictably, only now that she is the "lynch du jour" does she post anything with even a

resemblance

to actual content. And the content that she does produce is stilted and she knows it. Acting like she did not understand the Hickory Dickory Doc(tor) claim is not credible.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Bookitty seems more reasonable now, I can more see where she might have been coming from. If true, her thought-process was not particularly well thought-out.

2.)

Glork, however, does not seem much more reasonable. Why are you resorting to cursing to emphasize your points? And you are again avoiding answering my questions by waving your hand at me. To repeat myself:

->

a.)

Why are you not voting for VitaminR?

->

b.)

Why have you spent more time arguing against wagons as opposed to arguing for your

own

preferred targets?

->

c.)

When you argue against wagons, why are you continually arguing against the weakest possible form (strawmanning) to do so? When MafiaSSK was being wagoned, you falsely acted like the wagon was based solely on theory. When LoudmouthLee was being wagoned, you tried to emphasize the discussion on "why would LoudmouthLee vote Untrod Tripod" as opposed to "why would LoudmouthLee write up this Vote Count Analysis?" And now with DrippingGoofball you are acting like those voting her are doing so because she defended LoudmouthLee, when the stated reasons against her obviously include other aspects of her play.

3.)

DrippingGoofball not understanding the implied Doctor claim I can believe.

But DrippingGoofball gave the definite impression that LoudmouthLee had breadcrumbed Roleblocker with his Hickory Dickory Dock poem, which is very difficult to believe. Especially after quoting my Day One post where I noted that LoudmouthLee essentially claimed Doctor, but suddenly acts confused when

Glork

mentions on Day Two that LoudmouthLee claimed Doctor.

4.)

mathcam, for the record, my questions still pending to you are:

->

a.)

Can we see some of your "little +1s and -1s" (i.e., your notes). I question whether they really exist.

->

b.)

Please explain in your own words why you "saw the arguments" against VitaminR on Day One?

What

arguments? I fail to see how this question is patronizing. I want to see

your

reasoning and not somebody else's reasoning. I explained as much Post #821.

I also do not like the fact that you answered Yosarian2's question of who you would pursue of Bookitty flips

Town

with "if Bookitty flips

scum

, VitaminR will be a point of interest." You didn't answer the question at all. And if you "see the arguments against VitaminR" then VitaminR should be a "point of interest" independent of Bookitty's alignment. Or were you saying that you "saw the arguments against VitaminR...

in the event Bookitty is scum

"?

I am basically failing to understand what your entire line of thought was in terms of VitaminR. I see that you now have a slight Pro-Town read on VitaminR, but that should not make it more difficult for you to recount what you originally saw against him.

~

5.)

Prepost Edit: Nice of you to chime in again, MrBuddyLee.

In the Himalayan Mafia game both you and DrippingGoofball have mentioned at length, you emphasize that LoudmouthLee hard-bussed two of his partners. Given that both you and DrippingGoofball are intimately aware of this game of LoudmouthLee, what are your thoughts on LoudmouthLee doing the same thing in this game? You both apparently remember it very well -- why do you not think LoudmouthLee would not similarly have that game on his mind? Does he strike you as a creature of habit who cannot adapt for an invitational game filled with Oldies? Does the fact that this game is not (and likely never was going to be) a Mountainous game change how you think LoudmouthLee might approach this game? Did you feel like he was

actually

trying to get anybody lynched besides me?

I can see and understand the argument that LoudmouthLee may well have been bussing a partner. He certainly could have been. But your argument that it is practically a necessary part of his play to feed his own ego (or "need to be right") gives LoudmouthLee very little credit. Do you have experience of LoudmouthLeescum beyond Himalayan Mafia you are drawing from?

What are your thoughts on DrippingGoofball?

[petroleumjelly]

Now some follow-up questions for mathcam. It should be noted that I did not realize your +1/-1 system would not even give

post numbers

. I imagine this makes it difficult for you later on to interpret them, and so you are certainly correct that it makes it more difficult for anybody else to figure out what went on. And yet I still have questions!

1.)

About what posts does your list actually span? It is certainly missing your multitude of FoS's against me, so it cannot be anything close to up-to-date or really past Post 657. Am I correctly assuming that if something is bad enough to make you FoS a person in-game, it would also get at least a -1 mark from you on your list?

~

2.)

Here's your posted list:

But lest I be accused of being obstructionist, here's my list:

Tigris -1
Glork +1
VitaminR -1
GC +1
ABR -1
Tigris +1
Yos2 +1 (comes in, votes, and leaves)
Seol -1
UT +1
PJ +1
CES -2
CTD +1
Glork +2
chamber +1
undo -1
Yos +1
ABR +1
Shanba +1

LML -1

STD +1

LML +1

ABR +1
Chamber +1
DGB +1
Zorblag +1
Yos +1
DGB +1
STD +1
Boo +1

And here was your earlier assertion concerning LoudmouthLee:

An oversimplification: as I read through, I assign little +1's and -1's to people if their post strikes me as pro-town or scummy (with most posts getting a neutral 0). Most people accrue some of both. In this game, moreso than usual, I have lots of people with more town points than scum points.

But in all of LML's posts thus far, I haven't marked a single one as pro-town.

Your list includes two marks for LoudmouthLee: one positive and one negative. Please explain.

3.)

Why did you have DrippingGoofball as "pretty Protown" on Day One? Apparently there were at least

two

posts to make you think as much.

[petroleumjelly]

Other things.

1.)

@PJ, what's your take on the interactions between LML and STD? Do you agree that LML's aggressive suspicion of STD was an outlier, and if so, how do you interpret that?

Honestly, I don't know. I do not have a good grasp on Save the Dragons' play. LoudmouthLee's reasons were weak, but that is consistent with Save the Dragons being of either alignment.

2.)

DrippingGoofball gave the definite impression

Wut no, it was a

VAGUE

impression. I did say after his fakeclaim that my brain shuts down when I see a riddle or a puzzle. Where do you get "definite" impression????????

You gave the definite impression of thinking LoudmouthLee was a Roleblocker in Post 893. My wording was not the best there, but you must have had that impression before LoudmouthLee actually flipped scum. Did you, like Bookitty, think the "Rollus Interruptus / Diceblocking" post was a Roleblocker crumb? The timeline of your thought process is confusing.

3.)

I am totally down with a lynch on any of DrippingGoofball, Glork, or mathcam. If I had a button to blow all of them up, I would press it.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

You gave the definite impression of thinking LoudmouthLee was a Roleblocker in Post 893. My wording was not the best there, but you must have had that impression before LoudmouthLee actually flipped scum. Did you, like Bookitty, think the "Rollus Interruptus / Diceblocking" post was a Roleblocker crumb? The timeline of your thought process is confusing.

I thought "lame PR" and roleblocker came to mind very vaguely from interfering with clock movement. I didn't catch the fake breadcrumb that Bookitty found.

Also your link to post 893 is a Glork post???? No wonder you find the timeline confusing.

I meant Post 983, the numbers got transposed.

2.)

mathcam

Hey PJ

Vote mathcam

I think ABR is hinting at a guilty result

Wow.

FoS: DrippingGoofball

. This is so bad.

3.)

PJ: Do you intend to answer questions, or only ask them?

While I'm here, can you give me some insight as to how long this might go on? Should I post my whole note sheet? Will you then hold me accountable for everything I wrote there? For discrepancies between things I thought when I wrote the note and things I later thought when I wrote certain posts? Why haven't you asked for anyone else's notes?

Point me to questions I have missed and I will answer them. I have tried to answer everything I can answer, but I am not perfect. And I have actually fielded quite a few questions this game.

~ I do not have a planned length of having a conversation with you.
~ If I felt like your notes were fine I would have left them at that and potentially apologized for wasting your time (which would have presumably consisted of "copy+paste"). But as it is, I had questions and so I asked them.
~ You are more than free to post your whole note sheet, and if you do, yes I will hold you accountable to it (which obviously includes potential discrepancies with your notes and your play -- why

else

would I be interested in your notes).
~ I have not asked for anybody else's notes because nobody else has explicitly stated they are

keeping

such detailed notes (except perhaps Bookitty?, but I think she actually said she was

not

keeping detailed notes) and basing their reads/suspicions off of such notes.

[petroleumjelly]

Wow. FoS: DrippingGoofball.

You REALLY are confused. You're voting me already. Now I get an FOS???

I love you're continuing your interrogation of mathcam like he hasn't just confessed scum.

I am

well

aware I am currently voting for you. Your continual incredulousness is noted.

And mathcam has not "confessed scum," though I agree his wording is not elegant.

If you are

Town

, your post is legitimately bad, and you

would

be "taking a stab" at Albert B. Rampage being a Cop with an investigation result on mathcam. And it should go without saying that if you are Town and

believe it

, then you should have just pursued mathcam without drawing the slightest bit of attention to such a potential result. If you

don't believe it

then you are unnecessarily inviting commentary from Albert B. Rampage (or other roles that have reason to doubt Albert B. Rampage could

have

such a result) to confirm or deny.

If you are

Scum

, then your post is still bad, and there is no actually no easy way mathcam could point this out without in some way suggesting Albert B. Rampage, if a Cop, could have such an investigation result. Simply put: because you were suggesting the investigation was on mathcam, mathcam would almost always appear to be incriminating himself on some level no matter what words he used to argue your post suggested you are Scum -- because of course you would "know" that Albert B. Rampage could not have a guilty on mathcam unless you are partnered with mathcam.

[petroleumjelly]

mathcam,

1.)

You in particular have made reference to your notes several times: you had "list of people" you thought were Town, then you mentioned your +1/-1 notes, then you mentioned that you did not have any positive marks for LoudmouthLee, and you also mentioned that unlike

most

games, most players had more Town points than scum points in your notes. Given that you were talking so much about your notes -- something

nobody else can see or verify

-- I wanted to

see

them to match them up to your in-game claims. You continually opened the door by referring to your notes as a basis for why you were playing the way you were playing.

2.)

I have felt that your claimed suspicions have been generally mainstream, with the two notable exceptions of Cogito Ergo Sum (which I think may have been fabricated to an extent on Day One to justify MafiaSSK's play) and VitaminR. But I could find nothing in your posts indicating

why

you thought VitaminR was scummy -- at best (as I have explained), you indicated that if Bookitty was scum,

then

VitaminR would be a "point of interest." Your strange positions towards VitaminR ("seeing the arguments" and linking him to Bookitty) had me seriously wondering if there was a mathcam-VitaminR pairing, or if you were just trying to set up an eventual VitaminR mislynch (which could in turn suggest mathcam-Bookitty). I still am not convinced you had genuine reasons for suspecting VitaminR. This is why I pursued your reasons for suspecting VitaminR.

3.)

I

was

to a certain extent playing for a "gotcha" moment; how people react to those moments can help me determine their alignment. Of course "gotcha!" moments might have reasonable explanations behind them. For example, you will note that I merely asked you to explain why LoudmouthLee had a positive next to his name without yet drawing inferences. This is in part because I actually chalk your inconsistency up to carelessness at this point, and I do not find it terribly alignment-telling. But I certainly was not going to

avoid

asking you about the inconsistency.

4.)

Overall, my questions have pretty much been designed to determine whether or not you are actually legitimately scumhunting, or

acting

like you're scumhunting (with an appeal to your notes as a silent indicator you have been putting in work and have reasons for your play), or else trying to determine whether -- if you are scum -- you might be paired with other players or vice versa (hence my Day One questions to you on Bookitty, LoudmouthLee, and VitaminR). The general exception was my question about why you thought MafiaSSK replaced out, which I posed largely as a counterpoint to DrippingGoofball's assertion that the MafiaSSK replace-out was Town. I did not think it was, and I thought (and still do) think he may have been folding under pressure, especially now that LoudmouthLee has proven to be scum.

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: DrippingGoofball
Vote: Albert B. Rampage

[petroleumjelly]

Echoing KK: Can both pj and Glork explain their switch to ABR? I don't get how his Post 1144 prompted those votes.

Two reasons.

First, the "breathe in, breathe out" commentary towards Glork's alleged "tilt" does not seem sincere or necessary. I don't like it.

And second, Albert B. Rampage alleged he had "looked into the players bussing LoudmouthLee" and decided mathcam was the worst (and maybe CrashTextDummie), but neither of those players had voted LoudmouthLee. Even if I was charitable enough to think he

meant

Bookitty when he said LoudmouthLee, the use of the word "bus" would still be wrong unless Bookitty is also scum (which then begs the question why Albert B. Rampage is not voting for Bookitty). It suggests that Albert B. Rampage has fairly artificial suspicions given that his single sentence must be read to have

two

mistakes in order to make any sense.

[petroleumjelly]

Not trying to lurk, but I'm tired and not sure where I want my vote right now. Might not be able to get in a good post until Saturday or Sunday.

I might have missed other questions and I will look for them later when I have more time, but the couple that I remember seeing:

I recognize that Albert B. Rampage's post was massively incorrect. Obviously he was mixing up people. But again, how is it scummy? If scum are trying to mislynch, then they take the time to make sure their arguments don't have silly mistakes. Because people don't join wagons that are based on bad data. Also, why wouldn't scum-Albert B. Rampage take advantage of DrippingGoofball's anti-mathcam push? Instead he backs off. Doesn't make sense for scum.

It was scummy because if he cannot keep the reasons for his suspicions straight it suggests his suspicions are fabricated. If I write off every potential mistake as "well,

scum

would surely be more careful than

that

" then I basically end up logicking everything to suggest players are Town (or else why would they allow themselves to make a mistake, or be so obvious, etc).

And I also don't like the "breathe in, breathe out" comment. Even though Albert B. Rampage says he was quoting some song, the quote was still directed at Glork's "tilt." I tend to think that kind of "peacemaking" comes from scum more often than Town.

If Albert B. Rampage "took advantage" of DrippingGoofball's theory that he was a Cop with a guilty on mathcam, then if mathcam is

Town

I imagine things would not go well for him (which would presumably be the case if Albert B. Rampage is

scum

, unless he happens to be partnered with mathcam). There are also plenty of other reasons he might decline to "take advantage" of it (thinking it was a trap, thinking somebody else might have information to counter a tacit acceptance that he had investigated mathcam, if he does not

actually

want mathcam lynched, etc.)

~

It seems to me you're using your questions to trap people. This seems like a repeat of your VitR baiting yesterday, with the exception that mathcam "stepped in it."

You asked for notes, mathcam deliviered, and you scrutinize it (which is valid because his opinions on LML, Bookitty, and ABR don't match up with his system).

It seems to me that your traps are as likely to catch scum as they are townies who screw up. How do you keep the latter out?

Deciding whether somebody is Town or Scum is pretty much

the point

of the game. And I feel I am better at making those types of decisions if people are actually forced to explain themselves when they say things that contradictory (even if they are only contradictory on the surface).

[petroleumjelly]

This game is too long.

Unvote: Albert B. Rampage, Vote: DrippingGoofball

1.)

The more I think about it the more I think she is scum. Her Day One Porochaz "suspicions" based in-part on some sort of Process of Elimination (I actually have Porochaz as a fairly good Townread at this point), her end-of-Day-One Untrod Tripod push (without reasons and asking other players to "read his iso"), openly preferring a No Lynch over a LoudmouthLee lynch, acting overly and loudly confused with LoudmouthLee's "Hickory Dickory Dock" hint (and I grant she did not understand the hint, but I still do not like that she presumed he was crumbing roleblocker, and I suspect that perhaps LoudmouthLee might have even left a comment to that effect in the Mafia QT, especially if his "Rollus Interruptus/DiceBlocking" post was

actually

a fake crumb), her focus on the LoudmouthLee voters due to LoudmouthLee's "bus" comment, her reaction to pressure, her attempt at acting like the LoudmouthLee voters voting her makes her wagon awful (when I think it actually rather suggests the wagon is

better

), her awful "Albert B. Rampage is hinting at being a Cop with a guilty on mathcam" post. Largely all reasons I have brought up before.

I also decided to check on DrippingGoofball's last game on-site, where she was a Mafia Godmother, Micro #327, Ladies Night 3 (which was painful even to skim). In it, she:

a.)

Declared many Town reads on Day One and seemed to only hunt scum through a sort of "process of elimination" (like she is doing here, likely because I expect it is easier to call people Town than it is to make up a fake case).

b.)

Openly acted like a Townie was a Cop on Day One (to the pont of asserting the Townie had "claimed Cop" when they had, in fact, made no such claim but said they wanted time to "investigate" players). The "Cop" was pretty much tying a noose on herself with her play, and DrippingGoofball nonchalantly threw fuel on the fire by acting confused on another topic ("that's so weird, why would she risk this... as scum or as cop?"). Eventually the "Cop" was compelled to claim Cop, they were counterclaimed (by the real Cop) and lynched.

c.)

She attacked her attackers

very

consistently.

d.)

She purposefully twisted attacks against her ("LOL") and gave the impression that the attacks were nonsensical or answered largely in near non sequiturs (

almost

answering but not

quite

answering questions).

There are also a few other parallels I could draw, but they are weaker and I'm not convinced they are very telling. But I am fairly convinced DrippingGoofball is scum.

The

biggest

argument for why DrippingGoofball is scum was her attempt to get Albert B. Rampage (or other players) to comment on whether Albert B. Rampage could be a Cop with a guilty result on mathcam. That sort of assertion in-game can generate information (for

scum

) in many ways, even if DrippingGoofball had reasons to believe Albert B. Rampage did not (or could not) have such a result. DrippingGoofball might

act

dumb and confused, but she is fairly savvy and knows how to extract information when she is scum and get away with precisely because of her playstyle. She also clearly knows how to pull a guilt trip (to the point of "writing the book on AtE"). While I sympathize with her real-life problems, that does not influence my thoughts on her slot.

I also think her expression confusion on LoudmouthLee's "Hickory Dickory Dock" may well have been a subtle invitation for others to let LoudmouthLee's obvious claim of a

power role

(regardless of

what

he was implying) sink in so that it could result in unvotes and an eventual No-Lynch or mislynch elsewhere. Taking these opportunities to subtly encourage discussion / reactions of

potentially

implied claims of power (thereby making it easier for the mafia to hunt for power roles) is too scummy to ignore.

2.)

I am not in love with the case against undo.

3.)

So briefly, then, what answer could VitR given yesterday that would have made you feel he was scum, and what answer would have made you feel he might be town?
I'd like to know the same with mathcam.

I'm trying to differentiate between TownPJ asking questions and genuinely criticizing the answers and scumPJ twisting the answers to suit your needs, and how likely townPJ picks up false scum reads in particular from your "trap" questions.

I cannot answer that for you. I ask questions for the potential of getting reads based on reactions / answers. Oftentimes I expect certain responses and do not, in fact, get them (it is in fact very rare for a planned set of questions to "go as planned," in large part because people are surely on their guard when they feel there must be a hook in the worm). An open and honest response I tend to favor; a closed response or a refusal to answer can either be good or bad depending on the question.

In this case, VitaminR refused to answer my question (which is understandable on one level because I realized when I asked it that getting him to narrow down the "weak players" was not going to do well for his publicity, and so I tried to undercut that effect by openly recognizing that his answer was not going to make him any friends; however, in doing so, he continually acted like I was purposefully misunderstanding his argument when I in fact understood his argument very well and found fault in it, and I think he too saw my point but was reluctant to acknowledge it). And mathcam's response ended up not being particularly enlightening (in part because his +1/-1's did not include post numbers, making it very difficult to determine if he was truthfully trying to determine alignments).

[petroleumjelly]

DrippingGoofball has sidestepped the

biggest

problems with her play in her post, and instead tries to focus on how she is "hunting scum" by focusing on players who lynched LoudmouthLee and players who are voting for her.

1.)

DrippingGoofball, how often -- as

Scum

-- have you pointed out in-thread that somebody

might

be a power role? How often do you do that as

Town

?

2.)

DrippingGoofball, please explain your Day One reasons for voting for Porochaz and Untrod Tripod. It seems you have still failed to give any.

3.)

DrippingGoofball,

why

would you prefer a No Lynch over a LoudmouthLee lynch? It is not like you don't understand basic mafia theory.

~

DrippingGoofball, you are

more

than free to post an analysis of the game. But I am not going to give you an extra game Day (or whatever) to do so -- no stalling will be permitted. In the meantime I am going to heartily encourage votes on you. Dance whatever dance you're going to dance.

[petroleumjelly]

Not very impressed with DrippingGoofball's analysis, actually. From the looks of it, she starts with reads and then uses her reads to justify her reads while looking at vote counts and making statements about the make-up of those wagons (and the statements of the wagons are largely based on the reads she started with). It's largely circular.

1.)

I feel like PJ isn't having fun, which is weird considering we caught scum D1.

Then you don't remember me very well. I do not have fun in mafia games. Mafia is more of a chore for me than a game. I have had rather explicit discussions with you on this exact topic in the past.

Why would you think this game is fun for me? Why is it "weird" that it is not?

2.)

DrippingGoofball, I do not have time to attempt a full meta of you, nor did I claim I was trying to figure out your meta. My concern (and why I looked into that game) was whether you are willing to be so blatantly antitown and defensive of your scumpartners when you are scum -- and you are.

Nevertheless, I actually bothered looking into another game where you were Town tonight, Mini #1512, Bipolar Mafia. In it you claimed a player was a Cop (he was a Bodyguard) and suggested another player was a Mason (they were Mafia).

So apparently I pretty much dislike your play across the board.

3.)

It is Day Two and almost page

sixty

. This is disgraceful. Deadline is Saturday, but we do not have to wait until the Deadline to lynch people (

again

).

4.)

I do not like the attitude behind undo's posting, but I do not believe he is scum.

5.)

Glork, why are you

still

swearing? Do you feel like you swear more as Town or as Scum? It is not becoming.

6.)

PJ, do you think that ABR and DGB are scum together?

Did you think this at the time you moved your vote from DGB to ABR?

I do not find the pairing particularly likely.

My votes today have not been born of whether living players might be partnered with each other. The only potential partnerships I am concerned with at the moment are whether players may have been partnered with LoudmouthLee. My suspicions are generally not interrelated. My Albert B. Rampage vote was placed a time where I thought the (unexplained) pressure might get a semi-informative reaction from Albert B. Rampage. I moved back to voting DrippingGoofball after reading through the latest and thinking she had the best likelihood of flipping scum.

7.)

chamber, what do you think of Porochaz's Post #1212?

[petroleumjelly]

To save time, I am a Mason and I am partnered with undo.

While I would prefer not to claim at all, I can already see the cluster this Day is (

somehow

) headed for and I don't want a last-minute scramble for a lynch later or risk either of us actually being lynched.

1.)

DrippingGoofball, at the time I voted for Albert B. Rampage my vote was unexplained. I did this on purpose to potentially get a better reaction. My vote nevertheless had reasons which I indeed later explained in "exquisite detail" upon being asked to explain by Kublai Khan and VitaminR. The fact that you do not grant this rather obvious explanation any charity (even after Green Crayons

pointed it out

) does not reflect well on you.

Your analysis is

not

much of an analysis, and when I treat it dismissively it is because it is not helpful. You hitch your reads up by using your reads, and you use your reads to confirm your reads. It is completely circular and largely useless. Players who think you are Town because you posted it clearly have not actually put any time into reading it critically.

I do not have

time

to meta your play. You may notice (and I am sure you did not) that I actually voted for you at 5:34 AM board time (which is 3:34 AM for

me

). I was already staying up late reading that

single

game for the purpose of trying to decide if you are scum in

this

game. Acting like my efforts are "shamelessly dishonest" is itself dishonest.

You

have the burden (and have had ample opportunity) to rebut your scum meta with your Town meta, and I in fact explicitly invited you to provide examples of your Town meta in my next post. It is only because I really hate being wrong that I specifically searched for games where you hounded on "breadcrumbs" as Town.

Your play is dramatically antitown, I disagree with almost all of your reads, you have failed to provide anything worthwhile until you were under the gun (and even then you would only provide it while trying to offer a poisoned pill in what looks to be a gambit to save your hide), and the analysis you

did

provide is long but doesn't actually say much. In addition to at all you have claimed Townie. You are a perfectly good slot to lynch.

2.)

To answer Green Crayon's question, I changed my vote from Bookitty to LoudmouthLee because I was having doubts on Bookitty and I felt like LoudmouthLee had the highest chance of being scum. I am usually a pretty big sucker for Martyr posts (even though I don't like them).

~

If I missed other questions please point them out to me. Right now I am planning on going into angry questioning mode.

[petroleumjelly]

I am a Mason and I am partnered with undo.

Yeaaaah. Did you bread crumb that anywhere?

I did not.

[petroleumjelly]

Do you have day talk?

No. Which is one of the reasons I was especially interested in MafiaSSK's assumption that scum did not have Daytalk, because I knew he could not be basing such an assertion from being a Mason himself.

[petroleumjelly]

Hey PJ, did you get undo's permission to claim for him?

No.

At a glance I see 0 interactions between you and undo. If this is untrue can you point me to one you remember? If this is true, why haven't you been treating a known protown entity as more of a sounding board for your theories?

I treat Masons as sounding partners for theories at night in the QT, not during the Day in-thread. At best I made a comment towards undo that I did not think his VitaminR-Bookitty theory was correct, and I have otherwise generally avoided commentary on him beyond the fact that I (obviously) do not like the case on him. I did note that I think he was posting with a bit too much attitude (Post #1470). undo I felt was actually a little overly protective of me on Day One and reading his posts should make that evident.

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: DrippingGoofball
Vote: Glork

[petroleumjelly]

Glork,

1.)

Answer my questions. I don't ask them to be asinine. Why are you swearing so much in this game? And do you feel like you swear more as Town or Scum?

2.)

Are you

purposefully

trying to be a jerk in this game? If so, why?

3.)

Explain your case on me again. What makes (or made) you think I was scum. It has felt the entire game that you are pushing me because I am me.

4.)

What do you think of mathcam? You can take your time on this question because I am not looking for an off-the-cuff response.

[petroleumjelly]

I don't think it's alignment indicative. For what it's worth, I've toned it down since you complained about it. I don't understand why you're so intent on pursuing an answer from me, when others (KK is the most prominent example I can think of) have, too.

I

do

believe swearing is often alignment-indicative in the right context.

I noticed years ago that one of

my

most consistent tells that I was scum was swearing to emphasize my points or to act emotional (because of course swearing makes you sound more authentic and raw -- e.g., why say "I am confident X is Scum" when I can say "I am

damned sure

X is Scum!").

When swearing is added to a post for the seeming purpose of "selling" the post (or "selling" the emotion), I think it is more likely to come from Scum. I have used this tell to fairly good effect (including Georgetown II where I felt Maestro was unnecessarily swearing, Purified Mafia where I felt StrangerCoug was unnecessarily swearing), and this has also caused me to pursue players without explicitly using this reasoning (and so I cannot easily find those games to show more examples).

Some of your posts in particular appear to be trying to sell themselves because you are shouting and swearing. While other players have also cursed in this game, not all cursing is equal; yours in particular has stuck out to me as most likely to be deliberate or calculated. It is not casual cursing -- it is usually cursing either defending your actions or directed at other players.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

PJ: Why on earth did you claim so pre-emptively? I know there was a little momentum there, but only from people who will seemingly vote for anything that moves. There were at least a few of us who were pretty sold on your townliness. I'm with you on speeding up the game, but that seemed pretty drastic.

Deadline is approaching and two of the biggest suspects this entire Day have been myself and undo. It has been frustrating to read (and play) and I felt like the game was reaching a point where the conversation would eventually distill to "PJ v undo lynch." Given that I know

both

of those options are wrong, I would rather push the game in more accurate directions and do so while giving everybody enough time to figure out the best lynch instead of forcing a last-minute compromise lynch or a No-Lynch.

I know very well that Masons are theoretically more effective the longer they live into the game (and I in fact welcomed having some latent suspicion on myself to a certain extent, although I never purposefully tried to garner any suspicion, in the hopes of making me a less likely nightkill), but at this point I feel like the Town is better served by not allowing it to waste more time (and

pages

).

2.)

The DrippingGoofball lynch is looking more appealing. I honestly do not understand how a mathcam wagon is growing but not a DrippingGoofball wagon.

3.)

Mathcam/everyone else, what are your thoughts on Porochaz? He has received very little attention in this entire game.

Porochaz is one of my strongest Townreads. While his Day One posts were not reader-friendly (in that you literally have to have the game open and look up posts he is talking about), they read legitimately to me. I do not think he was "bussing" or "distancing" from LoudmouthLee or trying to get any credit. His points against LoudmouthLee were sometimes rather original. Given that nature of Porochaz's posting, I am inclined to think if he is scum he would have silently not mentioned as many negative points against LoudmouthLee. While he did seem to focus mostly on LoudmouthLee and undo, I think his points against both were reasonable and I feel like he has been trying to hunt scum as opposed to acting like he is hunting scum.

This is in contrast to, for example, CrashTextDummie's stream-of-consciousness posts, which I noted a suspiciously distinct lack of commentary on LoudmouthLee even though I would

fully expect

there were in fact many things CrashTextDummie would pick up on or comment about. CrashTextDummie has been a latent suspicion of mine for much of Day Two, but I do not have a firm enough grasp on his play to make a determination. CrashTextDummie also feels like he is looking for scum to an extent, but it feels very unnatural that he would have so little to say about LoudmouthLee given the stream-of-consciousness style he employed while posting about the game on Day One.

4.)

Glork, how much would you say you have buddied with Bookitty and DrippingGoofball? Why?

[petroleumjelly]

Very tired, general thoughts:

1.)

I most want to lynch DrippingGoofball. I am just not feeling like she is Town. I would be

surprised

if she is Town.

If she is scum I think a likely partner is Glork (given that he defended her against reasons which were not even lobbied against her at the start of Day Two).

2.)

Even separating out my suspicion of DrippingGoofball, I would prefer a Glork lynch if the dichotomy for today ends up between mathcam and Glork. Glork has several times strawmanned arguments (the MafiaSSK wagon being "theory," questioning why LoudmouthLee would do a Vote Count Analysis to vote for Untrod Tripod, defending DrippingGoofball against a case that was not made against her).

I have felt more like he has been diverting wagons (for mixed buddying, Towncred, or helping partners) without actually pursuing his own suspicions; and the wagons he

has

supported (without really making his own arguments) have been bad (and his vote has pretty much landed on me and undo). I believe the times he has cursed in this game shows he does not casually curse, but rather does so at times where he is trying to sell himself or get people off his back (particularly evident if you search for the word "fuck" in his posts).

I do not understand how Glork got a point on Day One where he was deciding between voting for me or Bookitty (I do not believe this was

ever

really explained), and I further do not understand what would then compel him to vote for me

except for

he is trying to get something out of Bookitty (e.g., a Townbuddy, credit for later if Bookitty is Town, or just plain defending one's partner).

3.)

I also

really

don't like VitaminR's play now that I am looking at it more carefully. He should die sooner rather than later. It is difficult to explain why I do not like him (which in turn makes it easy for him to respond to all points against him with "ha!" as he has been doing...), but I am getting the definite feeling he is playing out the long game and is trying to set himself up for such.

4.)

I believe that scum premeditated focusing (or subtly trying to get others to do the focusing) on the LoudmouthLee "bus" comment. The Shanba kill falls into that theory (since he had defended LoudmouthLee and was not on the wagon). While it is certainly possible (in fact, almost certain) that some scum were voting for LoudmouthLee by the end, relying on a scum assertion (especially near their own lynch) to

hunt

for scum is very obviously unsound.

DrippingGoofball seemed to come into Day Two with a plan in mind (focusing on players who might have been "bussing" LoudmouthLee), and where there are plans there are scum. DrippingGoofball is surely the best candidate for pushing such a blatantly bad theory because she is least likely to be called on it (or if she

is

called on it, the calls are most likely to be treated somewhat dismissively in a "oh, well, it's DrippingGoofball" manner). If I am correct, I expect other scum have either tacitly allowed discussion on the "bus" comment or else have passively endorsed without saying so (by largely not commenting on the topic, or arguing that LoudmouthLee is big on bussing his partners, etc.).

Unvote: Glork
Vote: DrippingGoofball

I will hopefully be able to switch my vote if necessary before deadline.

[petroleumjelly]

FoS: MrBuddyLee

Your suspicion of Save the Dragons is noted. We do not have time to lynch him. Put your vote somewhere else.

[petroleumjelly]

Are we sure Patrick didn't pull a fast one on us and use Masons from circa 2005?

This is a Normal game. Moderators lying to players is forbidden, and "Scum Masons" are also explicitly forbidden.

1.)

Why were you skeptical about me being a Mason with undo, given that you basically called the two of us out in Post #1406?

2.)

Why mathcam over DrippingGoofball? You have claimed (

several

times) you are unable to read DrippingGoofball.

For that matter, why mathcam over Glork? You expressed this leaning before (see Post #1685) but that was also unexplained.

[petroleumjelly]

Because you claiming masons with another scum suspect of mine

made me wonder if I wasn't just right about both of you

and if it was a gambit, both of you seemed to be in terrible shape before hand if scum so it wasn't risking much.

Given that you never expressed any suspicion of me whatsoever, this is not looking particularly honest. The only suspicion you came close to was your "dislike" of me "detracting" from the undo wagon in favor of DrippingGoofball.

Why did you think I was scum?

What about my last post (or posts) is "awful"?

[petroleumjelly]

Do you honestly think I'm scum trying to setup a mislynch on masons?

I'm

trying to decide if you're scum, which involves actually trying to extract opinions and reasoning from you. So again:

Why was my post (or posts) awful?

When you said you "wondered if you were just right about me," I assume this meant

you

thought I was scum before I claimed Mason. Why?

[petroleumjelly]

I'm not interested in convincing you that I'm town. You or me will get nightkilled before it matters.

Then don't be interested in it.

You thought my last post (or posts) was (or were)

"awful"

. Surprisingly, I cannot figure out why you think that until you actually explain why. If you think my reasoning is flawed (and you presumably do not think others should follow my reasoning), I would like to know why.

[petroleumjelly]

Yes, taking time to explain why you don't have time to give me a one or two line response for why my post is "awful" seems legit.

[petroleumjelly]

Busy (and I had sort of mentally clocked out of this game, thought it looks like I need to do some overtime...)

Not interested in the Scumputer in the slightest. It is based on flawed reasoning and I grant it little to no weight (especially given the selectivity involved and the fact that DrippingGoofball exempts herself as Town and acts like it is nevertheless objective information; but even then I do not agree with the premise that large wagons necessarily have scum on them). I feel have argued with DrippingGoofball over this type of analysis in the past. I prefer reasons, not "there is probably a scum on this wagon."

1.)

chamber, please answer my questions from yesterday, seeing as we are both still alive. Thanks.

2.)

Albert B. Rampage, I am not interested in "teaming up with you" when you are still plausible scum. Even if I thought you were very likely Town I would not be interested -- I don't engage in voting blocs. I will look into your claimed suspicions when I have more time, though.

Also, if you think my suspicions are terrible,

explain why

. I am willing (and often

do

) change my mind on players, but just saying I suck without more is not going to do anything to get me into your thought process.

3.)

Fairly certain I want to lynch DrippingGoofball. Would not be displeased with a mathcam lynch. I fully endorse pressure on SpyreX. As mentioned, the slot has been absent for two down-to-the-wire game Days. One does not agree to replace in near a deadline and then

not post or vote

.

Vote: SpyreX

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

pj, I think you and I read lml's interactions with mafiassk and saw opposite things. do you think my take is off-base? Lml definitely had an allergic reaction to being caught fosing ssk. It felt to me like if ssk were scum, lml might have puffed up his chest and claimed to have caught Scum upon being called out. I went on about it a bit end of day yesterday.. please let me know what you think.

I have admittedly been less and less sure about my mathcam (MafiaSSK) suspicion; the votes on him today "do not inspire trust." But I would not put any weight on what LoudmouthLee might or might not have done if MafiaSSK was Scum; I think how he treated MafiaSSK is very consistent with MafiaSSK being scum. He placed an unexplained FoS on him based on my post (which also did not actually give an explanation) and then never pursued the subject again. In other words, had MafiaSSK actually garnered a bigger and more dangerous bandwagon LoudmouthLee had the opportunity to jump back on (for bus points) but he clearly had a preference for his vote being somewhere else if possible. Now we know the answer for why his Vote Count Analysis ended up voting Untrod Tripod (the question Glork tried to focus on)... and it was at the very least in part because Untrod Tripod was Town. He switched voting me when pressured because I was also Town. Note that he did not vote the others attacking him (such as VitaminR).

I think relying on the theory that LoudmouthLee must have bussed

somebody

is faulty (and by extension, the thought that he would bus partners who are under some pressure is faulty), especially since so many players in this game are apparently aware of that "meta." Metas can change, and this is an Invitational game when his last games on site were years ago such that he may have purposefully played against his meta (perhaps even at the behest of his partners).

2.)

While I am not enthused with Albert B. Rampage, I think he could easily be right on the money on VitaminR. VitaminR has looked scummier every Day of the game. His Sotty7 vote in particular made me curl my lip. VitaminR's play, as I said earlier, looks like he is trying to set himself for play later in the game; he inoffensively is trying to join wagons. I would be willing to lynch him.

3.)

chamber, answer my questions. They are not difficult, and this is not a lot to ask. You said you would answer today if we were both still alive. Now we're here. Suck it up.

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: SpyreX
Vote: chamber

If you're going to be useless and purposefully make yourself unreadable, then I can just stubbornly park my vote on you and refuse to move it for the rest of the day, making achieving a lynch more difficult. I don't know if you're scum, but you're definitely not acting like Town. Most of your posts in this game can be boiled down to "actually, that's not a bean, that's a legume." You are making slight corrections on other players' statements without really holding yourself to statements. If this is how you play, then I will stoop down to your level.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Actually, VitaminR, I think all of your votes (save your LoudmouthLee vote and possibly your initial page two vote on DrippingGoofball) have been on Townspeople (Glork, myself, undo, Sotty7). You started Day Two with how I would expect scum to start Day Two. Your play is inoffensive and you generally respond to all suggestions you are scum with "Ha!." Given that your votes have been so

wrong

it is notable how few people actually seem to want to lynch you; the only thing you have going for you is that you attacked LoudmouthLee. And given that

so many people

have theorized that LoudmouthLee was bussed and the lack of attacks on

you

, you are a fine candidate for a lynch (supposing a purposeful blind eye towards you). You certainly don't look particularly Townish.

And yes, I am being 100% petty and grudging; that's why Banette is my spirit guide. I am content to sit here hateful and unhelpful if players are not going to answer simple questions. And if undo is going to be voting with me, that's two Town votes stuck on chamber because of chamber's refusal to answer questions. chamber also refused to answer undo's questions on Day One. I don't care if his playstyle is minimalistic; if he makes statements in-thread he should be willing to expand on them when asked. If he continues to not answer simple questions, I would like to suggest his slot is a good candidate for being Vigged.

2.)

DrippingGoofball, what do you think of VitaminR?

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

Actually, VitaminR, I think all of your votes (save your LoudmouthLee vote and possibly your initial page two vote on DrippingGoofball) have been on Townspeople (Glork, myself, undo, Sotty7). You started Day Two with how I would expect scum to start Day Two. Your play is inoffensive and you generally respond to all suggestions you are scum with "Ha!." Given that your votes have been so

wrong

it is notable how few people actually seem to want to lynch you; the only thing you have going for you is that you attacked LoudmouthLee. And given that

so many people

have theorized that LoudmouthLee was bussed and the lack of attacks on

you

, you are a fine candidate for a lynch (supposing a purposeful blind eye towards you). You certainly don't look particularly Townish.

I never voted undo and actually said that wagon was bad several times. Also, you don't know whether Sotty is town. But anyway, whether my votes were on townies wasn't at all your point. You said I looked like I was setting up play for later. How was I doing that with any of my other votes? You can tell me my votes for you and Glork were bad. Fine, I've earned that. I was wrong, I have to deal with the consequences. But you can't accuse me of setting up play for later in the game with them. I was trying to get both of you lynched and

as soon as possible

, even if I was wrong-headed in doing so.

My apologies, I mentally mixed your voting record with Glork's and was trying to go from memory.

It is not your votes that makes you look like you're setting yourself up for later, it is simply your playstyle and I am certainly influenced in reading your play this game in light of your play in the aforementioned Calvin & Hobbes Mafia where you were content to sit back as the Town tore itself to pieces but you were more than willing to place your votes in ways that achieved mislynches (while being willing to unvote when you "changed your mind," i.e., probably thought you might catch some flak for it and knew that changing your mind occasionally makes you look thoughtful and better). You played a little of the arbiter (trying not to get directly into confrontations) without outright defending players, and you ended up winning in LyLo. You are probably correct that I cannot read you, and so if I cannot read you, my frame of reference should be your votes, which besides your LoudmouthLee vote have not looked very good to me. It's more like you are testing for trap tiles in a room and seeing if you can put your full weight there; if you can, you do, or else you ease off.

2.)

My vote is on chamber in part because I have not found (or at least I have not

made

) time to reread this game and adjust my reads in light of the flips, which is how I would prefer to play. (This game is just way too long). I cannot read players who don't post anything to be read (such as chamber, Cogito Ergo Sum, Albert B. Rampage, and at least early in the game, DrippingGoofball). My questions are not trying to "trap" chamber -- I just want to understand his thought process

and

if my posts are "awful" I would like that explained. I cannot exactly correct my "awful" posts if one just says they suck without explaining why. I make mistakes all the time and I'm willing to admit to them, but just saying I suck without more isn't helping anything nor is it going to help my increasing disinterest and frustration with the game.

3.)

I am not sure what to think of Yosarian2's recent posts. It feels like he was trying to make a small point at first and upon getting pushback he expanded on the theme. To be fair, I don't think it's

overly

paranoid; with a game filled with high-caliber players, one would expect subtlety to be at a maximum, which is consistent with the theory that VitaminR could be scum. But I also don't really think Yosarian2 believes the theory he is asserting.

(Side-note: I don't think of myself as a "coldly logical" player. I am annoying hot-headed and easy to fluster and I wish I was less so. But anyways.)

[petroleumjelly]

Unvote: chamber
Vote: DrippingGoofball

[petroleumjelly]

DrippingGoofball needs to die. At the end of Day One she acted confused and threw up dust. Day Two she came out of the gates with the plan of attacking players based on LoudmouthLee's "bus" comment. On Day Three she came out of the gates with the scumputer. I feel like her play at the start of both Days Two and Three have been calculated and planned, and given that she has claimed to be a Townie the presence of a plan heavily implies she is scum. Her votes have been consistently bad, including her Sotty7 vote today.

If we do not get a replacement for Kublai Khan, I would also be in favor of lynching the slot. Nobody wants to replace into a 90-page game anyways.

The Sotty7 votes are astoundingly weak. I can hardly believe it is a wagon.

[petroleumjelly]

PJ you're town and I love you but your reads suck eggs. KK can be vig'ed. Sotty7 votes are awesome.

Actually, my reads have been fine. I played my last game with Sotty7 (Georgetown II) and I have paid particular attention to her posts in this game. I am confident Sotty7 is Town. The wagon must move elsewhere, and it should do so quickly.

[petroleumjelly]

I like the Sotty wagon best out of the options on the table, unless someone wants to lynch Yos, which I would also be up for.

Actually, my reads have been fine. I played my last game with Sotty7 (Georgetown II) and I have paid particular attention to her posts in this game. I am confident Sotty7 is Town. The wagon must move elsewhere, and it should do so quickly.

Really? Doesn't she seem more assertive in that game? Reading up on this claim actually made me

more

suspicious of Sotty. It didn't take long for me to find posts in Georgetown II with aggressive scum reads (e.g. "such-and-such needs to die", "you're scum"), for example. She's being much more diplomatic in this game.

In Georgetown II I spent a fair deal of time reading (and rereading) Sotty7's posts, being concerned in particular with (i) how she defended scum, (ii) how her play appeared to be coasting and (iii) how her play was potentially ingratiating towards a few select players while being selectively dismissive towards others.

Levels of aggression vary depending on the strength of the reads involved, and I believe that is the case here (as opposed to being an indicator of a different alignment). I believe she is honestly trying to determine alignments and her back-and-forth on views (in particular, her "wringing her hands about Save the Dragons being Town" as DrippingGoofball characterizes it) reads exceedingly genuinely. I would be

shocked

if she is scum.

[petroleumjelly]

I feel like DGB is playing precisely in line with my town-meta of her; in past games in which she has flipped scum, she has been more strategic (see Mafia 70 Traditional) and more hesitant in making firm stands. She also doesn't bring out the Scumputer so early in my experience. TownDGB is an assertive and aggressive advocate of her own opinions, right or wrong.

I think DrippingGoofball has been 100% strategic.

When LoudmouthLee was nearing a lynch, DrippingGoofball suddenly turned into the court jester, very distracting, pushing elsewhere, claiming she would not help lynch LoudmouthLee, and drawing particular attention to LoudmouthLee's attempt to roleclaim (after saying he would not roleclaim).

At the start of Day Two -- you know, after scum have had a chance to come up with plans overnight -- she immediately goes with the "LoudmouthLee bus" theory based on LoudmouthLee's own comment and starts attacking the people who helped lynch LoudmouthLee, including Untrod Tripod (dead and town) and myself (Mason). Her other attack targets have also been bad.

You

kept bringing up the Scumputer on Day Two, and so it is no surprise that she would use it on Day Three. Note how she also used it

immediately

upon Day Three happening, after Day Two ended with a near-lynch on her as opposed to the Glork wagon. By using the Scumputer (and I would go so far as to say she might have been "nutkicked" by her scumpartners into doing so), she preempted votes on herself by trying to act useful.

DrippingGoofball's play looks completely calculated with an attempt to look random and aggressive in the hopes it is swept under the "oh, it's just DrippingGoofball being DrippingGoofball" rug.

[petroleumjelly]

Deadline is

tomorrow

. This game is pretty disgraceful... why are we having to scramble for yet another deadline lynch. Deadlines are not the ideal times to be lynching people, especially when games are overly long such as this. This game has a definite "too many cooks spoil the broth" feeling. And there are still people who are

not voting

.

Votes need to move and

now

. I have updated Patrick's most recent vote count with the latest votes:

Votecount

Cogito Ergo Sum (3) -- Sotty7, Yosarian2, Bookitty
Save the Dragons (1) -- Cogito Ergo Sum
VitaminR (1) -- undo
DrippingGoofball (4) -- petroleumjelly, Porochaz, Save the Dragons, Green Crayons
Sotty7 (6) -- mathcam, Albert B. Rampage, DrippingGoofball, chamber, SpyreX, VitaminR

Not voting: MrBuddyLee, OhGodMyLife
17 alive, 9 to lynch.

At the very least, Cogito Ergo Sum, undo, MrBuddyLee and OhGodMyLife clearly must move their votes elsewhere.

I also

strongly

urge the players voting Sotty7 to move their votes now. I do not claim to be confident somebody is Town lightly. This is not me just thinking Sotty7 is

probably

Town -- I am

sure

she is Town.

~

As a note, I will be at work when deadline hits tomorrow. I will try to make myself available online but I can't make promises -- my phone actually has trouble logging in on mafiascum, and last time I had to use a work computer to log on (and the site is partially blocked).

[petroleumjelly]

A few notes.

First, I would propose that just about every player currently voting for Sotty7 would be an unlikely partner for Sotty7 were she to flip scum. Therefore mathcam's original reason to vote for her has been undermined by the very fact that people have voted due to his case. mathcam's own reasoning has therefore debunked itself.

Second, just about every player I have attacked in the game (with the exception of Bookitty) is currently voting for Sotty7. It is literally the worst assembly of voters I can imagine all on the same bandwagon.

Third, I have intimate knowledge of Sotty7's recent play, and I am

confident

she is Town.

This wagon needs to disassemble and

now

. The cheerleading is awful. If you want my shortlist for players who need to be lynched and vigged, they are

all

currently on the Sotty7 wagon.

Votecount

Cogito Ergo Sum (3) -- Sotty7, Yosarian2, Bookitty
Save the Dragons (1) -- Cogito Ergo Sum
VitaminR (1) -- undo
DrippingGoofball (4) -- petroleumjelly, Porochaz, Save the Dragons, Green Crayons
Sotty7 (6) -- mathcam, Albert B. Rampage, DrippingGoofball, chamber, SpyreX, VitaminR

Not voting: MrBuddyLee, OhGodMyLife
17 alive, 9 to lynch.

[petroleumjelly]

Both Albert B. Rampage and DrippingGoofball are spamming nonsense and should summarily be ignored. Practically all of their votes have been wrong and yet they are still trying to force the game into following them. They don't even bother to wipe the egg off their faces before doing so.

I would suggest lynching DrippingGoofball. VitaminR is also very likely scum -- he is continually looking like he is trying to justify helping mislynches, except his hand keeps getting caught in the hidden mousetraps. His "agony" (or whatever word he used) while voting for Sotty7 strikes me as completely fabricated and I think he just wanted to put his vote there and was going to do it, but he had to acknowledge (and dismiss) my read on Sotty7 to do so, hence the wording of his post. mathcam also looks worse. He failed to acknowledge the rather obvious flaw in his vote (i.e., he did not reassess Sotty7's potential partners after the wagon on her started, and this goes to show why that type of scumhunting is flawed this early in the game; such analysis also rewards players who have ever been in an argument with anybody or, really, ever been wagoned, because a player who has been wagoned is more likely to be seen as "not paired" with other players).

I have no read on Cogito Ergo Sum, and I would prefer to lynch players I actively think are scummy. I also do not have much of a read on OhGodMyLife.

[petroleumjelly]

The more I read the post the more it looks like it is written by scum:

Vote: Sotty

I've agonized about this a little in my head, but I think it's the best option. I still think her play with regard to LML looked bad and her votes have largely been easy ones.

I'm very intrigued by Sotty's last few posts, which have all focused on how there's nothing for her to argue against. There's no "The wagon is wrong because..." or "A better wagon is blah because..." She even goes so far as to call the wagon unfair. Whether or not this is true, this does paint to me a slight picture of scum bemoaning being caught for circumstances out of her control, annoyed that she played the game carefully enough to have nothing to actually be attacked for, and yet got caught away. I'm sure this is partly me trying to retroactively justify the wagon, but it sounds pretty reasonable.

I sort of had the same feeling. I also don't really like how she's using the fact that ABR called my case poor without coming out and calling it that herself. Seems a little disingenuous. If you think it's poor, say so. If you don't, don't use it in your defense.

As I mentioned above, the "agonized" language does not seem genuine to me at all.

The formatting of the post is also interesting because VitaminR immediately separates out his own "agonizing" language by quoting mathcam so that his post ends up with a different emphasis. Much like how VitaminR may have been using Glork as a shield early in the game, he is now using mathcam's reasoning as a shield. It seems whenever VitaminR is voting a Townsperson he has to cite somebody else's reasons, but when he was voting for LoudmouthLee it was all himself. This suggests he wants the credit when go "right" and wants to be "led astray" by others' thoughts when things go wrong.

[petroleumjelly]

At this point I would like players to choose between the Cogito Ergo Sum and DrippingGoofball wagon and no others. We do not have time to split votes up. I think if I could ultimately lynch

anybody

I might try for VitaminR, but now is just not the time. It is long past time to compromise. Let's go.

Votecount

Cogito Ergo Sum (5) -- Sotty7, Yosarian2, Bookitty, mathcam, Save the Dragons
VitaminR (2) -- undo, MrBuddyLee
DrippingGoofball (5) -- petroleumjelly, Porochaz, Green Crayons, OhGodMyLife, chamber
OhGodMyLife (2) -- DrippingGoofball, SpyreX
Yosarian2 (3) -- VitaminR, Cogito Ergo Sum, Albert B. Rampage

Not voting:
17 alive, 9 to lynch.

[petroleumjelly]

Vote: DrippingGoofball

[petroleumjelly]

PJ.

Please explain why you're voting a fellow townie instead of the filthy scumbags on these two wagons?

Pointing this out:

Seol/Bookitty (9) --

Sotty7, Shanba, Cogito Ergo Sum,

chamber,

Untrod Tripod,

Save the Dragons,

petroleumjelly,

MafiaSSK/mathcam,

undo

Also this:

MafiaSSK/mathcam (9) --

CrashTextDummie, Cogito Ergo Sum,

Albert B. Rampage, Seol/Bookitty,

Untrod Tripod, DrippingGoofball,

Save the Dragons,

Sotty7, Glork

I have explained several times.

1.)

When LoudmouthLee neared being lynch, you went into full Court Jester mode. You were distracting, you pushed frivolous wagons that could never be completed, you flat-out refused to vote for him (stating you would prefer a No Lynch).

Contrast this to Days Two and Three where you were willing to vote both Glork and Cogito Ergo Sum at deadline.

2.)

After LoudmouthLee was lynched, scum had to regroup. I think the plan was in general to push on specific Townspeople who helped lynch LoudmouthLee... hence the wagon on myself on Day Two.

Your play is highly consistent with such a plan. It is curious that other "bussers" -- such as VitaminR -- were left out of your analysis because his vote was not on LoudmouthLee at the time LoudmouthLee made his "bussing" comment. It completely ignores the actual

context

of the game in favor of a moment of time in voting history.

3.)

On Night Two, two of the biggest anti-DrippingGoofball players both died (CrashTextDummie and Untrod Tripod). No matter which was the scumkill their deaths both point to you.

4.)

On Day Three you come out of the gates with your scumputer, which is exactly what I expect from scum trying to save their hide knowing they had just barely survived a lynch on Day Two. Your play has since been spamming, capslock, and nonsense questions relying on assumptions nobody should be making.

5.)

And then you spend Day Three largely attacking Sotty7. When I start defending her, you basically call me an idiot, cheerlead the lynch to "prove me wrong," claim my reads are awful (when they have been just fine -- the only player I have been wrong about so far was Glork, and I did not even actually help lynch him), and basically try to discredit me.

6.)

You have

consistently

voted for Townspeople. Just about everybody who is confirmed Town you either tried to lynch, tried to discredit, helped lynch (while claiming to be unhappy about it), or those Townspeople thought you were scum. The only exception is Shanba, who expressed few opinions and few had expressed opinions on him.

You spent just about all of Day One attacking Untrod Tripod, who was Town, and Porochaz, who I have a strong Townread on. You spent about all of Day Two attacking me. You spent about all of Day Three attacking Sotty7. In the meantime, you helped lynch Glork (Town) and Cogito Ergo Sum (Town).

7.)

You have twice made not-so-subtle attempts to get players to speculate on power roles (once with LoudmouthLee's power role suggestion and again with the Albert B. Rampage with a guilty result on mathcam theory). This type of comment can help scum hunt down power roles just by the way other players react to your suggestion. It is patently bad play.

8.)

Your attack on OhGodMyLife at the end of Day Three was cringeworthy. I do not believe that

you

believed the accusations you were making. If the scum are trying to get you lynched, they certainly haven't been doing a very good job of it given that

I've

been trying to get you lynched for days. At this point, accusing everybody on your wagon of being scum is sounding more hollow each time you say it.

~

In essence, pretty much everything you done this game has been antitown. Assuming "I can't read you," the fact that you are

this

antitown is good enough for me to connect "antitown" to "scum." You cannot play this badly and not be lynched.

Furthermore, the difficulty of getting you lynched while players are willing to "compromise" to help lynching players they seemingly don't want to lynch (Glork / Cogito Ergo Sum) suggests the resistance to your wagon is unnatural, and the simplest explanation given that you have already claimed to be a Townie is that you are scum.

[petroleumjelly]

I'm also up for lynching VitaminR.

[petroleumjelly]

DrippingGoofball, your letter to me is a useless response.

If you are scum in this game you are a Mafiate with partners. Comparing the nightkill choices in this game to a game where you were a Serial Killer is completely useless because your partners would very obviously be able to influence the nightkill choices. I expect both Shanba and Untrod Tripod/CrashTextDummie were killed for more than one reason (I expect kills have in part been attempting to kill power roles) but the fact that two of your biggest detractors died on Night Two after you were almost lynched is notable and may have easily been a factor in deciding which problematic player to kill. You are completely correct that the Night Two kills in particular were on essential "nonentities" and so that in itself rather suggests they were killed before they

could

become entities (which would have likely consisted of a stronger and more concerted push on you in particular).

It is pretty much not even worth it to read your posts any longer. You act like putting in effort is the same as being Town. It isn't. Especially if you are acting like you came out of retirement for this game and so you might as well put in all the effort you can. I don't care about "rock solid Townreads" (your Townread on LoudmouthLee sure was not "rock solid"). The absolute easiest thing for scum to do is to claim to have Townreads (scum know who is Town, and you can also slip scum into your Townread piles without even having to explain why) and then vote everybody left (which is basically how you've played).

There is absolutely nothing in your play that looks Town. Shouting you are Town over and over does nothing to convince me. I want you dead.

[petroleumjelly]

I'm done. Have fun.

Requesting Replacement

[petroleumjelly]

If I were inclined to play mafia any longer -- which I am not, there is no chance I would play with Albert B. Rampage. The post he has complained about so much:

At this point I would like players to choose between the Cogito Ergo Sum and DrippingGoofball wagon and no others. We do not have time to split votes up. I think if I could ultimately lynch

anybody

I might try for VitaminR, but now is just not the time. It is long past time to compromise. Let's go.

Votecount

Cogito Ergo Sum (5) -- Sotty7, Yosarian2, Bookitty, mathcam, Save the Dragons
VitaminR (2) -- undo, MrBuddyLee
DrippingGoofball (5) -- petroleumjelly, Porochaz, Green Crayons, OhGodMyLife, chamber
OhGodMyLife (2) -- DrippingGoofball, SpyreX
Yosarian2 (3) -- VitaminR, Cogito Ergo Sum, Albert B. Rampage

Not voting:
17 alive, 9 to lynch.

Every single player being voted when I requested the Town consolidate their votes was Town. Furthermore, I made the request for vote consolidation on

the day of the deadline

. I never suspected Cogito Ergo Sum, and it is obvious I was only attempting to secure a lynch (Lynch > No Lynch). Your attempt at revisionist history is embarrassing.

Congratulations to the scum. You managed to slide through the game very well.

For those interested, there actually were real-life reasons I replaced out, but I will not lie that leaving a game with Albert B. Rampage and DrippingGoofball made me so happy.

[petroleumjelly]

MBL: Yeah, I deleted my paragraph of not-so-nice comments (about whom shall have to remain a secret! )

You can send your complaints about me by PM if you prefer.

[petroleumjelly]

Thanks for modding, Patrick.

Set-up looks fairly balanced, and it's impressive scum rallied from so many dead-end lynches (especially since all three Masons were viable lynch candidates, sigh) to still hit enough mislynches/misvigs to pull it off. Nice to see a cohesive and communicative scum team, the win is totally deserved.