Newbie 480: Game Over!

[Erg0]

The self-contradiction that I'm referring to from Zeek is his argument for Porochaz being scummy for following Zeek's own "crap logic" case on me. I kind of see what he was doing, but it seriously weakens his position on both of us.

[Civil Scum]

Why do you like Poro's consistency? Now and earlier?
As scum, this could only serve to link you two explicity in my mind. Convincing me to vote for Poro. This would make you and Zeek scum? Except you would have quicklynched.

Why do u like it? And what purpose do you have for even saying this?

[pablito]

Vote Count

Not Voting: everyone

With 5 alive, it takes 3 to lynch!

[Civil Scum]

The self-contradiction that I'm referring to from Zeek is his argument for Porochaz being scummy for following Zeek's own "crap logic" case on me. I kind of see what he was doing, but it seriously weakens his position on both of us.

Yeah, but this also kind of makes sense for why Zeek would abandon his vote for you and lynch Garn. It does weaken his position on you, but I understand what's scummy about it.

[Civil Scum]

EBWOP:
I don't understand what's scummy about it

[Erg0]

Basically, it's a poor foundation for a case. As Ripley said on day 1, scum need to fake suspicion, and a bad case can be a sign of that.

Going back to your earlier point, this is similar to the reason that I like Poro's consistency. He picked his suspects and stuck with them rather than leaping on the townie wagon du jour. Opportunism is a definite scumtell, and he didn't show any of that.

[Civil Scum]

Yeah, but Zeek didn't think his logic on you was all that bad at the time. He later points out that You and I both seemed to think so at the time. And then began wondering that if his case was not all that strong, then why Poro latched onto it so readily. Especially considering that it was based on buddying up to me, who he has constantly voiced assuredness of guilt.

If you're alright with Poro's "consistency" now, then you must be coming after me. If it was really just a matter of transcribing notes, you could have done it easily by now. From where I'm sitting, whatever you're about to do is going to reak of necessity.

-There are still some points of Destructor's you're avoiding.
-You haven't explained what has happened between your decision that Ripley, Poro, and I sounded like town vs. town to being alright with Poro only going to vote me.
-And please don't say that my actions around the Garnasha wagon were anymore opportunistic than yours.

However, the fact that Porochaz did not die DOES NOT mean you aren't scum. You say it would have been a good set up against you if he had died... but since he didn't die, it obviously was not a "set up", which could be because you are scum so naturally you wouldn't want to "set up" yourself.

QFT

What Zeek said is true. BUT-Poro, you're saying that the very fact that you are alive means that I AM scum. Can you not see the problem with reasoning this way?

[Porochaz]

If you're alright with Poro's "consistency" now, then you must be coming after me. If it was really just a matter of transcribing notes, you could have done it easily by now. From where I'm sitting, whatever you're about to do is going to reak of necessity.

Although we may have made it look like a two horse race to the finish of day 2 but from townies point of view there are still 4 players that could be scum. Erg0 has posted about me but not you yet. I would wait to see what he says before you start second guessing him.

However, the fact that Porochaz did not die DOES NOT mean you aren't scum. You say it would have been a good set up against you if he had died... but since he didn't die, it obviously was not a "set up", which could be because you are scum so naturally you wouldn't want to "set up" yourself.

QFT

What Zeek said is true. BUT-Poro, you're saying that the very fact that you are alive means that I AM scum. Can you not see the problem with reasoning this way?

Yes. if I was reasoning this way, the only thing QFT says is I agree with the quoted exerpt. Obviously I am thinking you are scum, I mean it doesnt take a brain surgeon to work that one out, however me QFTing that post was not in anyway saying "You are scum, cause I didnt die" its saying "Cause I didn't die, it's a possibility Civil didnt want to set himself up". Now, I believe your scum but I didnt say it in that post.

[Civil Scum]

Alright.

But hey, weren't you like, suspicious of Ergo?

If you absolutely had to choose, who's your second choice?

[Porochaz]

Alright.

But hey, weren't you like, suspicious of Ergo?

If you absolutely had to choose, who's your second choice?

Yes but I dont see the point in second guessing him until all his views become clear, then respond to that.

Currently my second choice would be destructor. His Erg0 post, many of the points had been made and had been replied to. The next post he sort of explodes over me and you, spending the first half of the post with the impression that you are cummy then the next half thinking I am scummy but not really ever coming to a conclusion about it. From that post also I noticed this

Essentially, coming into Day Two after the two deaths, my perception of Erg0 has changed and I don't believe they've done much to affect my case (which may even be something to think about!). But Erg0 still hasn't responded and it is beginning to look like he's sitting back and letting the town point at each other instead.

I think I just called the kettle black. LOL

Is destructor just sitting back and letting town go to work on each other? Is his lack of posting scummy or has he genuinely not had time to look at the thread anymore?

I also like consistency in the tone, destructors is all over the place. Just after Erg0 posted the analysis on me, there was part of the post that made me think that destructor worked as a lawyer "Do you deny this?" It felt very formal and strict. Which would be ok if the quoted bit above didnt sound like destructor was talking to his best mate. I mean I accept variation in the tone but not to that degree.

I said in my early PBPA that leetonicon was quite likely to be town but I was watching with interest, well combined with destructors posts it starting less to look newbie and more scummy to me.

[destructor]

I don't see what's wrong with putting you back at L-2 here. In my mind, I didn't have a better place to put my vote. Why wait?

I didn't have an issue with being put at L-2, and it didn't even occur to me. And your question here is exactly what I'm asking! Why

did

you wait to vote?

As for invoking WIFOM in this case, I disagree. If he was scum, there was nothing to be gained. Which usually would be WIFOM I guess. But, this isn't exactly an allstar game.

The "Sure" comment, voting Ergo on Zeek's case alone and labelling Peapod town are three things you bought up as more likely being results of over-keen-town-play than scum-play. Could both the "sure" comment and voting based on Zeek's case not have been newbie scum thinking they'd found a good bandwagon? I can agree with the Peapod thing though, now that we know that she

was

town, but could this have been Poro getting in early to call someone innocent for town-creds? Maybe that's a reach, but should we call Poro town based on his Peapod comment alone? Are there more explanations for this?

What I'm trying to point out is that there is more WIFOM here than you seem to be acknowledging.

His Erg0 post, many of the points had been made and had been replied to. The next post he sort of explodes over me and you, spending the first half of the post with the impression that you are cummy then the next half thinking I am scummy but not really ever coming to a conclusion about it.

Well, I disagree that the post in question was mostly repetition.

About my first Day 2 post, what sort of conclusion should I have come to? What is scummy about not having a conclusion?

Is destructor just sitting back and letting town go to work on each other? Is his lack of posting scummy or has he genuinely not had time to look at the thread anymore?

My contribution has improved, hasn't it? You can check my other games, if you want, and see that during the time I was 'away' I was about as inactive in them as this.

The 'kettle' comment was meant to be a light-hearted attempt at humility, and I suppose in anticipation for questions like those you just asked.

I also like consistency in the tone, destructors is all over the place. Just after Erg0 posted the analysis on me, there was part of the post that made me think that destructor worked as a lawyer "Do you deny this?" It felt very formal and strict. Which would be ok if the quoted bit above didnt sound like destructor was talking to his best mate. I mean I accept variation in the tone but not to that degree.

This is a reach. First of all, I don't see such a discrepancy in tone, and secondly, even if there is I don't see why it's scummy.

[Civil Scum]

I suppose I could have re-voted in my last post in that span (153).
-I was going to wait for a response, but was itching to put my vote back on you at that time. When no response came in a day or so (is that right?). I voted. I don't really understand what is significant about the delay?

WIFOM- Regardless, I still am thinking Poro reaks. I'll let you defend yourself against his last post.

[destructor]

I suppose I could have re-voted in my last post in that span (153).

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying.

I was going to wait for a response, but was itching to put my vote back on you at that time. When no response came in a day or so (is that right?). I voted. I don't really understand what is significant about the delay?

I pretty much addressed this here:

Post 153 and 156, in which you voted, were

less than 12 hours apart

and 142 was

just a day before them

.

Why was a lack of response within this time, which is not really that long, enough to make you vote?

[Civil Scum]

I did post before you came in which was a longer time ago. I also took issue with you saying "His focus on leet continues in Post 80. In this as well, he clearly misinterprets or misrepresents leet's posts."

I didn't think that I was misinterpreting or misrepresenting. I may have been overly-agressive. Ripley did say that he broadly agreed with some of the observations. Leet invented some reasoning (assumptions opposite other assumptions) for unvoting me. I don't see myself misinterpreting this. I can say now that I don't think this was motivated by scummy goals.

I was willing to wait for a response, and then decided not to.
Q: Why was a lack of response within this time, which is really not that long, enough to make you vote?
A: Uh, becuase I didn't really want to wait. I was fairly sure that Leet was acting scummy. It wasn't alleviated. I was willing to wait for a response, but was itching. I like people to know where I stand maybe? I usually have my vote on someone. My voting changes instantly, uh. You're sort of asking me to explain a trait.

Q: What is significant about the delay?
A:...

I believe that I understand some of what you're getting at here. From a CS/Ergo standpoint it would make very good sense for us to get the first two votes in. You are very seriously trying to piece together whether I am Ergo's scum partner.

Ergo's incidental defense of me as anti-town struck me as you assuming guilt of me. You explained this later. Porochaz flat-out asking Ergo to explain my behavior stikes me as odd now. It actually makes sense from a town standpoint, as he would expect me to tell lies. This means Ergo/Zeek, again impossibe, they would have hammered.

I really can't wait to hear what Ergo is cooking up.

Ergo-1
Poro-1
Zeek-3
Destructor-4

Well that's where I stand until I hear from Ergo. As of this second, I would vote for either of them.

For the record, anytime I accepted Ergo's explanations easily or agreed with him D-2 was for the express reason of making him believe I would work with him. This obviously failed, and he is fixing to come after me. Right? Ergo?

[Civil Scum]

I also didn't like Ergo's post about why your first PBPA made him hapopy with his vote. It wasn't very convincing.

[Erg0]

Paranoid much?

I've just been really busy the last few days, but you seem to be extremely anxious about what I'm going to say about you. Considering you think I'm super-scummy, I'm not sure why you're so worried.

[Erg0]

Yeah, but Zeek didn't think his logic on you was all that bad at the time. He later points out that You and I both seemed to think so at the time. And then began wondering that if his case was not all that strong, then why Poro latched onto it so readily. Especially considering that it was based on buddying up to me, who he has constantly voiced assuredness of guilt.

This is exactly my point - Zeek was attacking Poro for following his (possibly bad) logic, but Zeek's vote was still on me. It's one or the other, surely? If he actually thought his logic was bad, he shouldn't have still been voting for me. If he thought his logic was sound then there was no case against Poro.

[Erg0]

Ok, I tried summarising this and it wasn't really working so you're just getting a selection of my notes in raw form. This is pretty much a summary of CS's statements of suspicion throughout the game.

Civil Scum

51 - likes Erg0 for defending him, wishy washy on Zeek, dislikes leeton
62 - doesn't think I'm buddying up, wishy washy on Zeek, dislikes peapod
80 - thinks my defence of him could be viewed as a scum tactic, mentions this a few times. peapod lurking, still dislikes leeton (reaching a bit)
111 - still dislikes leeton. Wishy washy on buddying up
121 - dislikes destructor, wants to hear from peapod.
137 - says he's waiting for peapod before voting
142 - defends Erg0 from destructor
152 - waiting for someone to defend destructor (?), thinks porochaz is defensive
156 - votes destructor (appears to have thought he was already voting him)
170 - defends Poro against destructor, wishy washy on leeton, waiting for Garn, thinks destructor made several valid points (?)
178 - starting to back down on leeton, questions me on case against Ripley, dislikes Garn, prods Zeek
182 - suspicious of Erg0, says he won't pick up on case against Ripley
183 - starts to swing towards Ripley, calls him defensive
193 - says he won't vote Erg0, makes a case on Ripley. Thinks Ripley/Garn or Ripley/leeton (destructor).
203 - leaning towards Ripley/destructor
209 - Defends Garn, Erg0. FoS destructor, mainly for leeton's behaviour
231 - likes Erg0, calls Zeek 100% town. Still dislikes Poro, backing down on Ripley.
234 - moves towards Garn lynch, Person C tell (cites Ripley & Zeek's cases)
238 - thinks Garn is town (but not 100%), unvotes destructor
239 - "little case can be made for destructor or Garnasha"
240 - willing to listen to case on Garn or destructor, but won't lynch purely for lurking
242 - accuses Poro of following, votes Garn "regardless of his alignment" ("sneaking suspicion" he is scum)
249 - thinks Zack is "not at all scummy", says he changed opinions due to thinking Ripley is innocent, starting to think destructor is town, thinks Poro is scummy but wants to lynch Garn
279 - thinks Poro/Garn are scumpair, increasing suspicion of Erg0

As can be seen from the above, CS swings around a lot on day 1. Two of the biggest examples are his swing on Ripley between 182 and 193, and on Garnasha between 238 and 242. I take his point about my vote on Garnasha being similar, but an important difference is that I never said that I thought Garn was town. I also didn't have someone else in my sights as the scum at that point.

There are other bits and pieces as well - he says in 303 that Ripley thought he (CS) was a deluded townie, which is not really true (see Ripley's post 267). I somewhat agree with Porochaz on this point, though saying that Ripley was moving towards making a case might be a bit strong.

The issue that I really have here is that for all the hopping I can't really divine CS's intent because of the age old "newb or scum?" question. I'd like to hear his reactions to this and then go from there.

[Erg0]

And finally...

leetonicon/destructor

leeton started off on a bad note with his overly developed conspiracy theories in the first couple of pages. Looking back, I have a slight feeling that he might have been trying to set up a wagon so that scum would come in with a quick hammer. Failing that, he just seemed to misunderstand the workings of the game a little bit - an impression which is reinforced by the way he looks to the ICs for input (when he would have known we were both town if he were scum).

I wasn't a big fan of some of destructor's theories on relative scumminess (or his strong insistence that he not be held accountable for leet's actions), but his follow-ups in response to me make me think that he was being genuine. Ironically, he's about the only person I really think is solidly town.

With that out of the way, I have some outstanding questions to answer. That's next on my "to do" list.

[ZeekLTK]

Went down to Purdue for the MSU game (bowl eligible baby!) so that's why I haven't posted all weekend.

First thing I want to note is my displeasure at Zeek's hammer on Garn. Especially in light of the fact that I'd been inactive and had said I had more to contribute. Also, with 48 hours before deadline, I didn't see the rush. While discussion was still going, hammering like that was the most questionable and anti-town thing Zeek's done this game. Granted, he did provide some reasoning, but it still earned him some seriously anti-town points from me and I'll be going over his posts with a fine-tooth comb.

48 hours sounds like a decent amount of time, but it's not really for a game like this. It didn't look like either you or Poro were going to vote for him (you were going after Erg0 and Poro had been defending Garn the whole time), and since I'm usually busy on the weekends I felt that if I didn't cast the vote then, I might not have a chance to again and then we'd get screwed with a no lynch, which as Erg0 already pointed out is a very bad thing for the town.

Oh, I had a question. Why was Ripley saying that a lynch was going to be better than No Lynch in Day 1? If we didn't lynch yesterday, even with a night kill, we wouldn't be at lylo now, would we?

Yes, we would (6 players left after night, 1 mislynch + 1 nightkill = 2 scum and 2 town remaining). A no lynch is almost the worst thing you can do on day 1 of a C9 (apart from lynching a power role).

Which is correct, but it's contradicting of his own statements as he claims he is "suspicious" of me for casting the hammer in the post RIGHT BEFORE that.

Post 295 (the hammer post) doesn't really justify the vote in my opinion. In post 230 he said that he found CS and me scummy, but would accept lynching Garn. By the time 295 rolls around there's a definite movement in my direction by destructor and, to a lesser extent, Ripley, but he ignores it and opts to hammer Garn instead.

As you just explained, a no lynch is awful for the town, I did what I could to help us avoid a no-lynch and also take out a player who was likely to be scum AND was not helping the town. You can claim there was a "movement" but there really wasn't. Was CS going to vote for you? I felt he was your possible scum partner, so no. Was Poro going to vote for you? No, he was stuck on CS (and might actually be your partner anyways). Ripley had not changed his vote the entire game... it was very unlikely that, within 2 days enough people were going to swing in a completely different direction. Especially during the weekend. What would have happened would probably have been some people would have changes their minds to vote for you, some would have stuck with Garn, and Poro probably would have stayed on CS and then we might not have lynched at all.

And, I don't even understand this... so you are upset that I cast the final vote to lynch a player who had not been helping us at all and was very likely to be scum - instead of trying to kill you instead? If you are a townie, that makes absolutely zero sense. If you are mafia I can kinda understand the frustration: if we had played around with destructor's case on you, maybe the town would have been split never made up our mind, and there might not have been a lynch... and then you could go after Garn on Day 2 to get your quick lynch and win.

But trying to attack me for hammering Garn... instead of you... If I was mafia why would I do that then? Wouldn't having Garn around hurt the town more, since no one would know his alliance and he'd still be posting excuses about "oh I gotta go eat now"? I can't figure out, as a townie, why you would be upset about that? Especially considering you were the only other option really. I mean, I could understand if it was destructor coming after me and saying "I really thought Erg0 was mafia, and instead you lynched Garn who wasn't, wtf"... okay I can see him being upset about that (if that's how he felt)... but it was YOU who was the other option.

You're upset that I didn't wait to lynch you? WHY? Are you saying we should have lynched you?

[ZeekLTK]

The self-contradiction that I'm referring to from Zeek is his argument for Porochaz being scummy for following Zeek's own "crap logic" case on me. I kind of see what he was doing, but it seriously weakens his position on both of us.

We already went over this several times. Interesting contradiction from you again... Earlier you said it was a great scum-tell... but now you just "kinda see" what was going on?

[ZeekLTK]

At this point I'm almost certain Erg0 is mafia, but the trouble is... who is his partner?

I initially pegged Erg0 as mafia early in the game and changed my vote to him.

I also initially pegged CS as his partner, so I'm wondering if I was right from the start.

CS has made a case for Erg0/Poro, but I'm not really seeing any connection between the two.

However, here on Day 2 it's odd that Erg0 has came in and attacked me, Poro, and CS with long posts... but just puts in a paragraph about destructor saying "he is a solid townie".

I am wondering if that post destructor made near the end of Day 1 was to do what I just accused Erg0 of in my first post on this page: to try to divide the town so that we couldn't agree on a lynch. Surely destructor knew that with time running out until the deadline, there was no way he was going to sway enough people to vote for Erg0, so it was a good attempt to make it look like the two were against each other, and maybe save Garn so they could lynch him today...

[Civil Scum]

I agree that Ergo/Destructor is possible in spite of what has happened recently. But since Poro won't vote for anyone else first, it really just doesn't matter.

This is exactly my point - Zeek was attacking Poro for following his (possibly bad) logic, but Zeek's vote was still on me. It's one or the other, surely? If he actually thought his logic was bad, he shouldn't have still been voting for me. If he thought his logic was sound then there was no case against Poro.

I agreed with this point. It would mean that the suspicions are falsified, or not really based on logic.
That is, I agreed with it until I found this post.

This is getting hard to follow

Porochaz wrote:
Zeek do you still find Erg0 scummy?

I haven't really changed my mind on Erg0.

I am kinda confused about his response to my "attack" on Porochaz (where I wondered if Porochaz was just trying to start a bandwagon on Erg0 using my "bad" reasoning):

Erg0 wrote:
This is actually an interesting point, as voting a player based on someone else's bad case is apparently a very reliable scumtell (though one I haven't really tested myself).


I can't tell if he is being sarcastic or not (because of the word "apparently") and if not, I can't understand why he said it because there has been nothing to prove that it is a reliable scumtell.

The whole point was, as I said, two people said they didn't like my logic (CS and Erg0 for what it's worth), however one person (Porochaz) agreed with it and even voted based on it, so I took a step back and said "hmmm... if my logic is bad, why is Poro voting for it? What does he have to gain?"

Answer: if he is town - nothing; if he is mafia - he could be able to start a bandwagon and get Erg0 lynched (and this would assume Erg0 is town if Porochaz is mafia because obviously he wouldn't try to get a bandwagon against his only teammate).

However, as I said, I don't feel it is bad logic, so that doesn't give me any reason to assume Erg0 is town, hence why I still have my vote on him.

But no one else really responded or had a thought either way about it; haven't heard Ripley, CS, destructor, or Garn comment on it... heck, other than CS, the others haven't even weighed in on whether or not it was good/bad logic in the first place.

I also didn't like his response about "WIFOM"...

Erg0 wrote:
Everything is WIFOM. There are degrees of WIFOM though, and that's what you need to think about here. I would not normally ever raise a point like this regarding my own actions, but it was pretty clear that nobody was thinking about it.


Before this he had basically tried to make it sound like he shouldn't have to take heat for doing something suspicious because "why would he do something blatantly suspicious if he was mafia? that would be too obvious"... I called him out and said that is no excuse at all. Why would you do something blatantly suspicious if you were town? His response (quoted above) again completely ignores what I said and again just says what he originally said.

To me this (the quoted part above) reads: "I pointed it out because everyone thought what I had done was suspicious and started to think I was mafia, and no one bothered to think that is too obvious of a mafia move to make, so that should mean I'm not mafia" (which makes no sense to me - if you do something that a mafia would do, then why shouldn't we think you are mafia? - so I called him out on it when I said "complete WIFOM").


However, with the deadline approaching, I am thinking maybe I should change my vote to Garnasha. With all things considered, I would be more satisfied with a Garnasha lynch than anyone else. Even though, as I said, I find erg0 scummy, and am really wondering about CS again (especially due to his recent crusade against Ripley for no apparent reason)... I think the safest bet is Garnasha.

Why? Because, if Erg0 and/or CS are town, it will be a big loss to lose them. If Garnasha is town... meh, what's the harm? The way I see it, we have a 33% (2/6) chance of lynching scum... which means we have a 67% (4/6) chance of lynching town. If we are going to screw up, I'd rather screw up and lynch someone who's not helping us than someone who might be able to. Combine this with the fact that I think Garnasha may be scum anyways - has he contributed anything to the town or tried to help us find scum so far? I don't think so - so it's probably a good bet to lynch him if it comes down to the deadline and we are still unsure about everyone else.


Speaking of CS, Ripley brought up an interesting point.

Ripley wrote:
Anyway, after a few more pages of trying to get me lynched he just changed his mind and went after someone else. The point here is that we were both town; he was just plain wrong, though utterly convinced he was right.


This is what I did last game (Mini Game)... I was convinced this guy named Off The Mark was scum and I went after him for a couple pages. Eventually it turned out it was up to me and him to win the game for the town. I'm actually trying to play more balanced and look at both sides (trying to consider everyone as scum and town - and not blindly go after anyone like OTM) in this game because of that.

Zeek has been uncertain of whether or not his logic was all that bad. I think it comes across in this post and others. I don't think that the contradiction is as cut and dry as you've labeled it, Ergo.

Self-Critical it remains in my opinion. Which Destructor and I agree is not really a scum tell.

Poro- I liked destructor's lack of a conclusion in his post. I also don't see how this is scummy.

Zeek hasn't given us an incredible amount of material, and I think Ergo is trying a little hard to find something dead-lock incriminating.

Destructor, you must have a general feeling as to what Ergo and I are doing to you. It makes much better sense from a certain scenario though, yeah?

Isn't Ergo saying "Newb or Scum" who can say? as inappropriate as my using that as a defense early?

...try your relationship with Ergo...a lot of reasons I voted you.

What about my relationship with Ergo would have you believe I am scum and he is not?

I almost feel like we should lynch the lurker at this point.

Isn't, 'regardless of alignment' sort of written into this?

I'll address Ergo's post at a later time.

[Civil Scum]

I've just been really busy the last few days, but you seem to be extremely anxious about what I'm going to say about you. Considering you think I'm super-scummy, I'm not sure why you're so worried.

This is a good point, so I'm not really going to adress you all that much. Just briefly.

But trying to attack me for hammering Garn... instead of you... If I was mafia why would I do that then? Wouldn't having Garn around hurt the town more, since no one would know his alliance and he'd still be posting excuses about "oh I gotta go eat now"? I can't figure out, as a townie, why you would be upset about that? Especially considering you were the only other option really. I mean, I could understand if it was destructor coming after me and saying "I really thought Erg0 was mafia, and instead you lynched Garn who wasn't, wtf"...

I generally agree with just about all of this and the post. I think a lot of the Garn lynch was a fear that nothing might have happened if a bunch of votes shifted places, coupled with the frustration of essentially lacking a player this entire time. This frustration comes across most believably in Zeek's posts. And leaving Garn in town for D-2 would have been a good move for scum. Point Zeek.

Destructor has more "space" to work with on this one (point Zeek)

Swing on Ripley: I really don't want to cover this again. I read the turbovolver post and some of the game and was immediately convinced that Ripley could not elicit these exact suspicions as scum.

Swing on Garn: Now that I look at that post, that wasn't me saying I thought Garn was town. As i said previously when I decided Ripley was town, destructor became town, Poro Ergo Garn became possible at that moment. This was a smart-ass remark and a reference to Poro's early/and present belief that Garn was town. From this point on I become suspicious of Poro/Ergo/Garn.

I did this same thing in Post 195 when I said that "I'm tempted to vote garnasha "to keep things moving while we wait" but that would be ridiculous." This time it was for Ergo. All the same, I wanted Garn to die.

There are other bits and pieces as well - he says in 303 that Ripley thought he (CS) was a deluded townie, which is not really true (see Ripley's post 267). I somewhat agree with Porochaz on this point, though saying that Ripley was moving towards making a case might be a bit strong.

Before 267 Ripely once again has a town read on me throughout most of my ranting. He says at one point that he's just gonna ignore me.

He says he almost voted me here in 267, citing my aggravation/reaction at being at L-2. He says he didn't see this in my other game. Had he survived to D-2 I most certainly would have gotten some posts. Idignant, increased posting, SWEARING.
Ergo- You can do better than overreacting at L-2 right?

The issue that I really have here is that for all the hopping I can't really divine CS's intent because of the age old "newb or scum?" question.

This seems incompatible with you liking Poro's consistency. You're uncertain on me, but you don't caution Poro about the danger's of his current tunnel-vision.


Zeek was trying to reason which pair Garn/Poro or CS/Ergo was pushing the wagon on the townie. Ergo mentioned (a good point I though) that this was a rather shallow analysis. I'm not detracting from Zeek (I actually was figuring along similar lines) But the likliehood of either scum pair voting one after the other on opposite wagons is not very high.

There are degrees to WIFOM which is what you have to remember...

Start of game -Ergo incidentally defends me. Derails my early BW.
-I immediately voice that I believe Ergo's defense of me feels townish.
-Pressure comes off.
-I am making some decent, some reachy (Ergo seemed okay with them on the whole at the time) points on Leet. (I generally/outspokenly voice a lack of suspicion of Ergo throughout this early period)
-Post 81 'I say I'm happy the way things turned out. Sorry Ergo for all the trouble this has caused you' he says 'Oh don't sweat it. Happens all the time.' This may well have been followed by a hug.
-Ergo voices non-commital support of a vote on leet.
-Ergo says he's not gonna vote until Destructor arrives.
-I post saying why I am not unvoting during the replacement.
-In the very next post Ergo votes destructor.
-I unvote after Destructors first post.
-Ergo says he's happy with his vote now.
-I ask why
-He answers
-I go on to revote
-Ergo begins to back down on Destructor a bit
-Garn expressing suspicion of "leet"
-Ergo drops a couple mentions of trouble with Ripley's play.
-I ask anyone (Ergo by NAME) to make a case if possible.
-Ergo gives a few points on Ripley.
-I try to talk Ergo back into suspecting destructor. He says you've satisfied him.
-I unvote destructor.
-I use Ergo's minor points on Ripley to go on an all out crusade at the drop of a dime.
-Ergo says he liked the post with no elaboration. Want's to know why I had town reads.
-Ergo goes a little quiet in this span
-Ergo: "I almost feel like we should lynch the lurker at this point" (Reads, the luker is detracting form the game, he is the perosn I would least like to have to get a read on tomorrow)
-In the NEXT post I take actiona nd vote Garn (regardless of alignment) I say that I believe Ergo's suspicion of RIpley was genuine
-Ergo contradicts himself in the next post. We don't have townies to sacrifice.
-I begin attacking Porochaz, basiacally confirm my vote on Garn several times-> One of the many things about the situation that I believe totally expunges Zeek of hi vote. The Garnasha hammer was imminently forgivable, I wish Ergo wouldn't use this now.
-Ergo votes Garn (ostensibly in order to prompt a decent read-through)- A point I was screaming about

-Now D-2 Ergo and I are a bit at odds.

Do you see what I am getting at here? Degress of WIFOM. We couldn't have worked it out though. It's almsot as if we would have needed a phychic link. "Wow, that whole you defending me thing worked so good, we might as well tag along for the rest of D-1"

Voting, suspecting, unvoting, making cases right after each other (literally seperated by no posts sometimes) defending each other.

Now Ergo is an IC. I'm a newb but I'm not completely clueless.
Would we be THIS obvious? Looking back at the thread, in lots of places we might as well have been holding hands. Suspicious in order not to look suspicious. Outright coordinated, following, defending, in sequential posts.

Anyways, If Ergo and I were to reach into a bag without looking...what are the odds we both get the red sweets?

[Erg0]

The self-contradiction that I'm referring to from Zeek is his argument for Porochaz being scummy for following Zeek's own "crap logic" case on me. I kind of see what he was doing, but it seriously weakens his position on both of us.

We already went over this several times. Interesting contradiction from you again... Earlier you said it was a great scum-tell... but now you just "kinda see" what was going on?

I said it was "apparently" a good scum tell, which isn't the same thing. Also, it's only a good scumtell if you actually believe the case was crap, which you apparently didn't.

I understand your explanation, but I still think that the whole thing was either ill-conceived. Why would anything that CS and I said about your case have a bearing on your opinion of it? At that time we were the two scummiest people in the game from your point of view.

On the hammer: a hammer is not the same as avoiding a no lynch. Unless I'm mistaken on the deadline rules, we would have had a lynch on Garn with or without your vote. I do take your point on possibly splitting the vote, though. You're mischaracterising me by saying I'm upset, when I simply said that your post didn't seem to provide sufficient reasoning. Now that you've given me additional reasoning I'm happier with your hammer.

There are two reasons that my post on destructor is shorter:

1. Other than his four big posts, he didn't post that much on day 1.
2. I've already said plenty about him and didn't need to revisit it - unlike others, I already had a fairly clear opinion on him.