Henchmen Anonymafia - GAME OVER - SCUM WIN

[Tohsaka Rin]

The Day 1 Tony case was a Day 1 case and has been dropped accordingly. He defended against it decently enough anyway.

[Tanaka]

Can you explain what you mean by "I've never liked seein' votes based on what people haven't done"? Are you referring to Oddjob's harping on the Prinnies for supposedly being deceptive?

Somehow missed this one earlier. Sorry, pal! Two things in this case have met this condition, pal! Firstly, I called out the Axems on it here with their "You should have spoken about Gilgamesh!" That's been mostly written off as an early Day 1 thing, though, combined with good cases from them otherwise (despite what's said below). As you've said, the other was Oddjob's "You should have said you were saving yourself!" ...Why? If it's that obvious, does it really need saying? You're better off judgin' by who's been saying what - if you're gonna create cases based around what people have not mentioned, make sure it's people they haven't mentioned, pal!

Also, looked through Smithers' posts. I'm seein' nothing that really stands out as suspicious, pal, and I definitely think there are much better cases myself. Nothing particularly pro-Town, but nothing too offensive. Things still stand at Oddjob > Whim > Weasels for me, so my vote's staying where it is.

[Tanaka]

Mandatory image, since I forgot it in the last post. Must have... hit my head or something, I guess!

[Chad Hutchins]

@Tony: Uhhhhh if you can give me a scumhunting method that always works 100%, please do? I don't buy it as something purely indicative of playstyle, and if it is your style then you should stop doing it as, like I said, it's an easy way to looking like you're talking without doing so.

No. Also, I don't know a scumhunting method that works, but I know one that doesn't.

The more I read this post the more I think you are trying to get under my skin and this makes me highly suspicious of you. You have been pretty volatile all game. (I have only tried to be because of Tony!) That + sliding under the radar as Guildy pointed out = eehhhh.

Axem Red vs. Smithers: I really think Axem Red is overreacting pretty mightily to this entire thing. It seems that his insistence on the innocence of Gumshoe/Whim officially makes his reading of people the opposite of mine. I am also biased since the crux of his case revolves in me and Smithers being scumbuddies (from what I am interpreting) and yeah that does not sit well with me.

I am mostly just posting this to let everyone know I'm still alive, I will be a little less cursory once I have some free time later in the day. I feel like Gumshoe has defended himself well enough even though he really seemed to like flipping everywhere with his votes and said some pretty weird stuff with the spreading of suspicion. Don't know precisely what to think now, but I feel like it's good enough to:

##UNVOTE: Gumshoe
##VOTE: Gilgamesh

[Bill Hellsnake]

Okay, I'm really not liking what I'm hearing here. Single-mindedness is nice and all, but not to the length of focussing on precisely one rather dubious point. I can't quite call it tunnelling when you're talking about other people, but your priorities both in raising this one issue far above all else and in basically wilfully disregarding previous threads irks me immensely, especially given the short-sightedness is based off what is effectively a matter of opinion.

##Vote: Axem Rangers

While I'm at it, you say now (#150) that you've dropped your position against Tony, yet this is practically immediately after saying that you'd still be open to his lynch due to your position on me (#146). This screen doesn't help either. Nor your stance of pointedly leaving a whole 5/8 avenues open for vote swapping later.

[Tohsaka Rin]

I dropped my Day 1 case against Tony. The potential link to you is another thing entirely.

[Bill Hellsnake]

So your position is "I don't have any problems with Tony per se, but would be willing to vote for him on the basis that maybe, just maybe he's scumbuddies with scumSmithers and the latter is covering for him" or thereabouts? That's seriously weak.

[Bill Hellsnake]

#134 Tony: re: OMGUS: you shouldn't be taking that seriously. I'm not actually applying OMGUS or using it as a factor in voting, what with it being wrong and all, I've just been finding it amusing that now three of my votes in a row were at least partially sparked by posts in which I was voted for. The actual bases behind them are sound, which is what should be addressed if anything.

And right, actually getting back to your posts. Still on #97. I don't want to push the reporter thing too much if it is personal and sours your game here, but play style or otherwise it's harmful when dominating, which I mention far less now for your own style, but principally for you giving the Prinnies carte blanche based on that when what they'd actually written was terrible. But with them dead and town and all that sounds more like post-game discussion. Oh, and for attacking Gilgamesh on the grounds of him taking similar issue later on.

...and honestly, as much as I went in expecting to find a fight and a wall of text to write, that's about all I've got. The reporter style has continued into day two, but it's uncommon enough and coupled with sufficient direction that I won't take issue with it.


Elsewhere, I still read Gilgamesh as the most agreeable of the quieter members. Perhaps this is somewhat due to having opinions that are closest to my own, but the presence he has had reads solidly.

Oddjob and Whim have both now been gone for approaching 36 hours, by which I mean practically all of the day's discussion. Add in the weasels' lost post and it still feels like we're not playing with everyone. I want to be more concerned about all of the lurking, but it's just never been a priority yet.

Guildenstern tops the little group there for me, with new material including a gloriously meaningless post (#138 - "hey, maybe this, oh, except maybe not"), a rather tepid offering on Gilgamesh (#142), and everything related to the Oddjob/weasels theory (#142 again - more "hey, maybe this, oh, except maybe not" on top of just not making sense anyway). I do appreciate the expansion from just the weasels, though, even if it seems to be lurker-centric.

Which leaves me with Dick, who I effectively unvoted to go for Axem. I'm still uncomfortable with the guy, but the resolution on the contradiction was fairer than I had expected to find it, and though it doesn't sit well with me, the day end manoeuvres are very wurgly and I'd rate the actual stances held at about the same position as Guildenstern, it's not as bad as the insanity that has overcome the Axems.

...

Well that took altogether far too long, so now I'm off again. I'm not sure how we should go about actually doing anything about it, but our collective votes are hilariously spread out at this point (I know, my vote didn't help).

[Tohsaka Rin]

So your position is "I don't have any problems with Tony per se, but would be willing to vote for him on the basis that maybe, just maybe he's scumbuddies with scumSmithers and the latter is covering for him" or thereabouts? That's seriously weak.

It admittedly is, which is why I listed him last (for the record, vote preference order would be Smithers > Gilgamesh > Weasels > Oddjob >>> Tony), but it is enough to push him ahead of Guildenstern, Gumshoe and Whim. The first two I don't see any reason to vote for and Whim's been getting a pretty bum rap all game from various sources to the point where I believe there's some scum intent behind it, even with the eyebrow-raising Weasel vote and the subsequent vanishing.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Actually, in thinking about it, switch Gilgamesh and the Weasels. The one Weasel post today was very unimpressive and Gilgamesh has at least been trying.

[Tanaka]

Looking over the cases people have been putting forward, Smithers presents a decent bit of evidence against Guildenstern - it's something I'd casually skipped over when reading the posts myself, but it looks pretty damning when pointed out like that. All that does in my eyes, though, is pushes him ahead of Smithers and the Axems in my suspicions, and those are pretty much at the bottom of my list, you know?

I'm still not changing my vote until Oddjob defends himself, though. (Seriously, what is it with people disappearing when they're accused in this game? Not saying it's never for a good reason, just... dammit, pal!) I just seriously can't see where the logic lies in his voting/reasoning, and I'm still surprised that nobody seems to think his 5-minute change from Weasels to Prinnies on the grounds of "They didn't say they were saving themselves!" is not suspicious at all.
Would like to know how long we have to a modkill, though. That's gotta be close, r-right, sir?
Post is mostly "Hey, I'm here, but nothing new to add right now."

[Chiaki]

Sorry for afk-ness. Sleep + work = bad hours. I'll have something this afternoon.

[Princess Leia]

Find our defenders.
Look over their cases, hard.
Though teach is cool, dood.

[Zerg Rush]

@Tony/Guildenstern: I'm not actually sensing a case from either of these people. I don't really know what to make of votes on me for so-called nonpresence in the face of so many other similar offenders, and I should be forgiven for rolling my eyes when Tony accuses me of trying to rile people up. The fact that you pointed out your own hypocrisy doesn't, you know, make it go away.

That said, Guild looks worse than Tony at the moment (the latter has been pretty aggressive with points I agreed a lot on all day and is giving me some pretty strong townie vibes, day one stuff is a nonevent by now.) It doesn't seem like the former has really done any investigating on his own, and he dismisses Oddjob's switch at the end as 'bad but okay, I guess', to paraphrase. It's kinda the opposite of how he saw my posts, which were apparently solid but somehow also bad.

The more I think, the more I'm inclined to switch to him, since I'm starting to feel as though I'm harping on a choice of words too much wrt to Gumshoe (and after going through it again, I've concluded that scum!gumshoe wouldn't have needed to care about voting out one of the prinnies or weasels unless he's buddies with one of them (and it's highly unlikely he's buddies with weasels given how that played out), so his actions are looking a bit more legitimate in my eyes.)

So I will. ##Unvote, ##Vote: Guildenstern.

[Maya Kumashiro]

Act II.  Scene II.

Rosencrantz
Sure is quiet here.

Guildenstern
As for Gilgamesh's comments, I'll note that I pushed the heat on the Weasels (still unclear as to how correct that was, but that was a Day 1 case) and I just haven't been around much on Day 2 due to out-of-game issues (similar to Whim and the Weasels...  where are they?).  I did, however, push some heat onto you, which I will freely admit was not backed up by much.  You haven't exactly given us tons to work with, though, so I think we can share the blame on that.

To your credit, I will repeat again that no, you aren't saying anything *obviously* stupid or trying to rum some obvious scum ploy (in response to "my posts are somehow bad").  Scum, however, are smart too, and this kind of occasional vigorous sniping is pretty plausibly scum to me.

Also...

Smithers

everything related to the Oddjob/weasels theory (#142 again - more "hey, maybe this, oh, except maybe not" on top of just not making sense anyway

Guildenstern
What doesn't make sense about it?  If Oddjob / Weasels were the scumteam, I think semi-blatant ploys like this may be more common on Day 1 considering how bad a Day 1 scum lynch would be.  I said "maybe not" because declaring I'd cracked the case and Oddjob / Weasels were obviously both scum would be Stupid.  Oddjob's Day 2 posts felt fairly townie to me (even if I disagreed with the Gumshoe case) so this is more a thought I had during Night 1 while waiting about backstage with just the flip results.

Rosencrantz
Not much more to say at the moment.  In general we favor Tony and Axem's comments earlier on Day 2, no surprises there.

Guildenstern
I have a nasty feeling that this post is going to be held up as evidence of weak blather, but this is because I don't feel there are any slam-dunk cases to be made.  The main "But this proves he's scum!" case, Gumshoe, I feel is just as likely to be an innocent slip-up overmagnified, so falling back on the "lurking suspiciously" case.

[Chiaki]

Ok back, caught up, commenting.

Not impressed with Gumshoe's "arguments". A bunch of opinions does not a case make. Where's your evidence? (as they would say in the game).
I don't have much to add on that, other than pointing again to his dodgy arguments(opinions); there's nothing really to 'defend myself' from, as I can't defend from an opinion.

Axem red.. railroading is disturbing, but not outright scummy. I must admit, if he's right about Smithers then Smithers plays scum quite well. Axem's aggressiveness is theoretically neutral, but I like his style if nothing else.

Guildenstern's allegation of an Oddjob/Weasel scumteam is baffling, bizzare and bloated. I like alliteration. I don't like his accusation, but it seems he doesn't either, wtf. Accusing me of being scummy for voting Weasels for scumcredit then jumping off the train when it got dangerous is a contradiction. Scum would do one or the other, not both. But whatever, it seems you're not even serious (so why mention it at all?)

Whim has been gone longer than me yes; I had legitimate reasons, I don't see why she might not also.

Yes, my posts are short - but they are concise! This is the best way to roleplay Oddjob. Other than emoting everything.

[Haruhi Suzumiya]

LOL SUP VOTECOUNT

Day 2

Smithers (1): Axem Rangers
Gumshoe (1): Tony, Oddjob, Gilgamesh
Oddjob (1): Gumshoe
Weasels (1): Whim
Guildenstern (2): Weasels, Gilgamesh
Gilgamesh (2): Guildenstern, Tony
Axem Rangers (1): Smithers

No Votes: Nobody!


With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.  There are like 12ish hours left in Day 2. 
LOL whim u want 2 b mascot for the SOS-dan after this?  make out w/Mikuru, itd be hot!!

[Tanaka]

Not impressed with Gumshoe's "arguments". A bunch of opinions does not a case make. Where's your evidence? (as they would say in the game).
I don't have much to add on that, other than pointing again to his dodgy arguments(opinions); there's nothing really to 'defend myself' from, as I can't defend from an opinion.

...What the hell, pal? The fact that you claimed I had posted no arguments? The fact that you posted... nothing of content at the time? The 5-minute switch from Tony to Weasels to Prinnies? Your arguments have been weak, narrow-minded (up until that last one) and I've seen nothing in your actions that looks even remotely Town - you've been neutral at best, and even that's rare.

Guildenstern's allegation of an Oddjob/Weasel scumteam is baffling, bizzare and bloated. I like alliteration. I don't like his accusation, but it seems he doesn't either, wtf. Accusing me of being scummy for voting Weasels for scumcredit then jumping off the train when it got dangerous is a contradiction. Scum would do one or the other, not both. But whatever, it seems you're not even serious (so why mention it at all?)

While I agree on the idea of the scumteam being a stupid theory (and, apparently, so does Guild - agree with you on the not needing to mention it too!), this argument stinks like the Butz, pal. Why would scum do one or the other? Why are you even looking at that... WIFOM, pal? Yeah, WIFOM.
Also don't agree on your Axem assessment - railroading is scummy, even if only slightly. The fact that you're reading it as neutral seems to reflect solely on post-style, but you seem to be avoiding actually admittin' that, pal.

Guild's last post reads pretty well to me, especially at a time when there was nothing else really goin' on. Still, plan to read over his posts again to see if I can get a read - he's been mostly neutral to me since about halfway through Day 1, and has garnered a fair bit of attention, so definitely worth a re-read. (I'll be doing that in about 5-8 hours. Not sure when I'll be finished on this job, I'm afraid, pal.)

[Chiaki]

If a scum decides to bus for cred, then they do so.
If they hop off a sinking ship to avoid a lynch, then they've undone any cred, and gained suspicion. It is not a likely play.

It's game meta that is simple and boring. I can't understand why you're basing your case on things like this.

[Bill Hellsnake]

I don't really get what the Axems are doing, nor why it's just getting passed up by everyone else.

They've come into this day and used a single point to justify completely dropping all other lines of investigation. Not only have they stubbornly stuck to what is blatantly a matter of opinion, they haven't tried to find any other reason with which to vote me for, nor actually tried to convince anyone of this position. Not only that, but they've already set up a huge escape route to vote for practically anyone else (#146), but with the added fun that the only people they're not open to lynching (Guildenstern, Gumshoe and Whim, reconfirmed at #158) are ones rather likely to be trains, and even more fun bonus points for just kind of sitting there and either ignoring my points against them or actively agreeing with them, and for the deliciously cold irony that the point they have against me is for not pressing my point hard or long enough when this is what they're doing and set themselves up to do, but far worse. Biggest points of all go to rating Tony as lynchable solely by association.

This is baleful scum-hunting, and really rather actively scummy. Please reflect on this, guys.

My first bet at this point would be on an Axem/Guildenstern scum team (and man do I hope that we're only looking for two) given their interaction and the latter's own bad play, but I am as yet very much unwilling to change votes when the Axem's are flaunting their guilt so much, and it's hardly the only scum team I can see with Axem in.


Now that the Prinnies have had their say I'm going to have a quick check back to decode their message, as much as the general sense is clear.

[Bill Hellsnake]

#165 Oddjob: "Axem's aggressiveness is theoretically neutral, but I like his style if nothing else."

You see, that's the thing, he's not even being that aggressive. By far his listed top priority and all, sure, but he's put no effort into trying to make an actual case or convince anyone else. He's just sitting there and basically now waiting for his moment to go 'oh, it can't be helped, time to swap to this train that I don't like so much'. I don't like the ongoing theme of this game of giving carte blanche to bad and scummy actions and errors by labelling them as play style.

Aggression may be fine, but it's not the word for what's going on here.

[Bill Hellsnake]

Right, the penguins (#162). I'm actually a little lost, as I've no clue who they mean by 'defenders' (plural), given that four of those still alive voted for them, two of the others (Gilgamesh and Guildenstern) also supported the lynch, Axem was less visibly so but certainly was anti- rather than pro-Prinnies, and Tony's ruled out by the last line instead. This leaves just Dick.

So sure, it seems pretty clear that the penguins don't like Dick and want us to read his cases harder (presumably to see a lack of substance?), but that alone doesn't make the repeated use of plurals make sense, nor why if it was just Dick why they couldn't have said that rather than being quite so cryptic about it.

So thanks, but if I'm looking into this any further it'll involve reading everything to work out who else you're referring to, so it's going to have to wait.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Oh no point-by-point debate.

They've come into this day and used a single point to justify completely dropping all other lines of investigation.

I'm not even sure what this means. It just looks like some sensationalist headline used to paint me as bad. Can someone explain it?

Not only have they stubbornly stuck to what is blatantly a matter of opinion, they haven't tried to find any other reason with which to vote me for, nor actually tried to convince anyone of this position.

I've already said why I'm voting for you. My case is out there for people to see and make their own judgments on. I don't like repeating myself and I don't like trying to sell my cases because everyone else in the game is theoretically smart enough to see whatever merits it has themselves. The only arguing I would do to convince people to switch to you is an argument about how flips are the most solid pieces of evidence we have and thus should be top priority when founding a case on someone but that's a post-game discussion (and it's self-evident anyway). If you really want it that badly, though, I can give it to you again.

You are scummy for changing your vote from someone despite them not giving you reason to onto a townie. The only times changing a vote like that is remotely excusable are early Day 1, and the end of the day when time is very short, or in the face of an outside cop claim or other bizarre role circumstances. If we gave everyone a free pass to change their mind willy-nilly scum would be impossible to find.

And yes, the jump off Tony does suggest Smithers/Tony, and the Day 1 spat between the two of you could conceivably have been a distancing tactic. I'm not saying it's 100% you two but it looks very possible to me.

Not only that, but they've already set up a huge escape route to vote for practically anyone else (#146),

He's just sitting there and basically now waiting for his moment to go 'oh, it can't be helped, time to swap to this train that I don't like so much'.

Putting these together since they're essentially the same thing, and the second one is pretty hilarious. You say this like I would not have switched off you anyway if still no one had joined me while time was running down, and you say it like it's a bad thing. I would say this is badpainting but I'm biased so I'll let others make the call there.

but with the added fun that the only people they're not open to lynching (Guildenstern, Gumshoe and Whim, reconfirmed at #158) are ones rather likely to be trains

I don't see how their train potential is relevant at all to my assessments of them, and I don't see how Gilgamesh and the Weasels are not equally valid potential trains.

and even more fun bonus points for just kind of sitting there and either ignoring my points against them or actively agreeing with them

Near as I could tell, your vote for me was OMGUS, and the only real defense I have for that is pointing out it's OMGUS, but, again, biased, letting others make the call. If it's not OMGUS, then what exactly should I be defending against here? Raising your issue above all others? Sure, I think it's the scummiest thing on the board, don't see why holding onto it is bad. Disregarding previous...threads? Threads like topics or threads like Day 1 discussion? I would like to think I'm not ignoring discussion of other users given I have weighed in with opinions on many other users (in fact, I've said a little bit about everyone!) so I dunno what you're going for here.

and for the deliciously cold irony that the point they have against me is for not pressing my point hard or long enough when this is what they're doing and set themselves up to do, but far worse.

Uh no that's not why my vote's on your but thanks for the misrep again!

[Tanaka]

It's game meta that is simple and boring. I can't understand why you're basing your case on things like this.

*Gumshoe slams his head against the computer table repeatedly*
Seriously, pal?! I repeat: READ THE TOPIC. This started with the Guildenstern "Oddjob/Weasels" theory, which I agreed was stupid. I then pointed out that what you said on the matter was pure WIFOM. (And if you doubt that, you need help, pal. To prove it, how do we know you're not scum and just knew you could use that argument to escape? We don't, it's WIFOM, end of.)
As for my case, it is based on nothing of this, although you using WIFOM is undoubtedly bad. My case has been presented several times and you've insisted on ruling it off as opinions, before electing to excuse the Axems' behaviour due to liking their playstyle. ARGH.
--
Hunh. Forgot to post this before goin' for some instant noodles. Whoops. In that time, Jammin' Axem Ninja swoops in with an attack on the Smithers Samurai! I'm... really not seeing the case on Smithers, pal, and constantly pushing that alongside questionable logic isn't doing your reputation any favours. For said logic, the main one that stands out:

Not only that, but they've already set up a huge escape route to vote for practically anyone else (#146),

Putting these together since they're essentially the same thing, and the second one is pretty hilarious. You say this like I would not have switched off you anyway if still no one had joined me while time was running down, and you say it like it's a bad thing. I would say this is badpainting but I'm biased so I'll let others make the call there.

The problem isn't with you changing votes, pal. It's the fact that you suggest almost anyone as a viable target, meaning you can switch to whichever train you need to. Thought that was pretty obvious, and the constant response of scumpainting against some decent arguments is making you seem more scummy to me, pal.
Moving up in suspicions, but there are still more than enough other cases ahead at the moment. Oddjob/Whim/Weasels still stay ahead in my eyes, and Oddjob's recent actions are questionable at best, and scummy at worst.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Except I can't switch to "whichever train I need to", as not only have I ruled out three people I could have voted for had I kept my mouth shut, but I've also provided a preference order, and if I were to break that for any reason I'd have to do some fancy explaining as to why.

Is saying "I'd vote for these people and not for these people" really worse than saying nothing, where I could conceivably come out of the blue and vote for literally anyone I "need" to? If yes I'd like an explanation as to why.