Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

[Luther Lansfeld]

Nine and a half hours have passed, and no votes.

[superaielman]

If LD's scum, Andrew being scum would make the most sense I'd think. Hence the speculation and my mind wandering there.

You're basically saying "we gotta hope she's town, 'cause if she isn't, we're screwed already!" which is a godawful attitude to take, especially when the game's at high stakes, which it is right now.  More faulty assumptions for no real reason, and I'm really curious to hear how you're so sure that if LD's scum, she's buddies with Andy and was protecting him.  Looks a lot like an attempt to conflate the two so that if one gets lynched, the other goes too, and we all know how scummy and baseless those arguments are.

And was I wrong at that at all? There was so little activity in day one that if she was scum, said scum were controlling the game to a near complete degree. We not have two confirmed townies. I'm not trying to conflate anything. It just would make some sense if it was true, not outlining some kind of plan of action.

Thankfully there's more talking today, which is a good thing.

First you say you had to hammer Tom to avoid the possibility of no-lynch, and also because he wasn't defending himself at all.  I'm -with- you here, this is what I was going to do if you hadn't beaten me to it.  Next, though, you say... you could have sat back if you'd been a scum playing defensively and let someone else lynch him quietly?  And not used your vote at all?  Why'd you change your mind about the possibility of a no-lynch?  One second it's a real threat you had to avoid by voting, the next you're saying you could have let someone else do it really.  Also, hammering Tom there would be the best defensive play if you were scum; not using your vote when you were clearly around and allowing a no-lynch to happen would make you pretty conspicuous in the following round.  I'm not saying it wasn't also a fine town move -- it was!  But saying a defensive scum would have done differently is, uh, not really true.

If I had been a scum, why would have I spoken up at all yesterday? Tom made himself a perfect pasty there, and a good defensive scum could have passively sat back and done nothing. A lot of my vote switch last night was out of raw frustration with the complete lack of participation by town.

Tom hung NOT because there was a great argument on him (note how the best case against him was Andy's him or me vote) but because no one ever gave an argument as to why he wasn't scum.  He was never defended, and that killed him.

Not posting at all and basically coming in near the end and saying "I give up, I won't argue" Isn't a good argument to not lynch? Uh... huh. He basically hung himself. Everyone was reluctant but what can you do there?

Re: The speculation Otter mentioned at the top. That I have no defense for. Shouldn't be thinking out loud like that in the topic.

[Lady Door]

Alrighty then. Back long enough to do this before dinner. Will also make another visit tonight before bed, hopefully.

Excal: Yes, I would still like you to answer those questions I posed yesterday. They aren't relevant to the lynch table as they were then, but I still think they're fundamental things worth getting an answer on. So please do:

Why is Tom overreacting a thing to give him a pass for? and What did you mean by "I cannot help but feel that the argument being made here is not only poor, but is encouraging people to ignore behaviour that does not help town, and that, in and of itself, is questionable." What behavior was he encouraging people to ignore?

Re: the metagaming arguments: I am always going to lose track of these. I'm horrible at them. The main reason for this is that I'm shakey on game theory and issue of balance, but I also generally dislike the idea that there's a way to win the game that doesn't involve playing the game. It's like speedrunning Castlevania: Circle of the Moon -- yes, you CAN exploit the glitch to finish in 5 minutes instead of 5 hours, but c'mon. Besides which, there are two perfectly viable scenarios even if we did want to pursue this angle, and there's no way to realiably differentiate between them with the info we have now. Basically, feel free to keep it in mind, but it's not going to be very effective if it's all you're going off of.

Otter: I mentioned ... okay. Last night, I was typing up a post with a reiteration of my reasons for voting Tom and a few more pokes at why I was now thinking his unwillingness to do anything in the face of a lynch was more scum-laying-down-to-prevent-too-much-collateral-damage than frustrated townie, and also encouraging super to hold off on the hammer just a little while longer because there was at least one person due to make an appearance in the next hour who we really needed to hear SOMETHING from (this would be Otter)... and then he hammered. You notice how the entreaty to super was at the end of that long mess of a sentence? Yeah. Lesson learned about posting things of that nature.

I've got nothing to say against him except for that protracted and unfortunately timed absence. I agree and have already mentioned that Andrew's sticking point against Otter is weird; the miller claim does very little good and actually more harm (and I was having the exact same thoughts about the insurance policy it provides); and I wasn't terribly fond of super's roleclaim fishing and reactionary play.

At the moment? He looks okay to me.

super: There is a difference between doggedly pursuing an argument (*cough*Andrew*cough*) and trying to get an answer. I was doing the latter because it took those different iterations of the question to actually get it. I was thinking about dropping the point because it was indeed getting blown way past its proportions, but then I thought about how uncool it was to play that game of deliberately (or accidentally) not answering things and making me look bad for wanting answers.

Is the "Andrew thing" you're talking about how I pursued Andrew and then voted for Tom? If it is, I'd like to hear what you think about this point with regards to my explanation above, which doesn't seem to factor into your post. If it doesn't, please explain.

The main thing I have to say here is: stop relying on metagame so heavily. Your roleclaim explanation doesn't fly with me because that is a VERY dangerous and arbitrary thing to make the basis of your vote on. As has been established, no one in this game is terribly familiar with the flavor. Because it is forbidden to directly quote PMs, what if there was something in the paraphrase that sounded off? It could just as easily sound off because there was something the person was missing regarding the source material (as far as what's important, etc.) as it could be because it's scum trying to make up a good cover story. Likewise, trying to figure out who is and isn't in the game is well and good, but drawing conclusions that exclude the possibilities when you have no reason to think this is true other than your knowledge of game theory is dangerous.

Setting yourself up against these ideals -- that is, the game theory and flavor knowledge and "what I would have done if I were scum" -- does not put you in a good place. It puts you in the defensive, it puts you leaping at flimsy bridges, and it has the nasty habit of backfiring spectacularly. I've had discussions with Excal particularly about that last point; trying to make those arguments is 1) making the argument for scum if you are town; 2) an ineffective attempt to misdirect by minimizing. It makes it look as if you're trying to say "Only X is possible and I didn't do X therefore I am not scum" which is not a sound argument.

NEW STUFF:

I'm inclined to look at Andrew again because he was tied for #1 in my choice of lynch yesterday. I will have to see what he says in response to things that have already been brought up, though. Suffice to say he's not looking too good to me right now, between ignoring my questions for him yesterday, the things I had asked about which he never really gave a good explanation for (see that Otter, too, is also trying to figure this point out), and the fact that his end argument from the day before was "ignore that I'm making all these mistakes, just because I'm doing that doesn't mean I don't have good points!" which is true, but uh... for someone repeatedly calling someone else out for a SINGLE mistake, I gotta wonder.

[Excal]

Alright, Lady Door.  I owe you some answers, and here they are.

First off, why did I not think Tom was scum?  I don't have a hard and fast answer there, but the simple fact of the matter is, he's an excitable guy.  He is always over reacting to everything such that if you use that as your sole basis then you will always lynch him.  I dislike the way he throws me off, but I do try and look for other tells with him seeing as that one is regrettably useless, and they were mostly leaning towards his being harmless.  Is that answer vague?  Most likely, I can't give you anything better though.  Tom simply wasn't ringing any bells as a potential scum, though I could never point to exactly what it was that led to that reaction in me.

As for your second, the argument I read Andy as furthering at that time was that his vote on Otter was due in part to Otter's hypocracy in voting for a lurker while lurking himself.  And, the anti-town stance is his argument, furthered by the vote, that one should not go after anti-town positions even if one is also exhibiting them, as well as limiting the means by which a lurker can attempt to right his wrongs.

[AndrewRogue]

Okay. Goodie. Answers to my questions make me happy.

Excal, your answers do bother me quite a bit. I see where you were coming from in that post at least, but this does leave the fact that you brought up some odd cases that make me distinctly uncomfortable, especially when combined with your move into quietness. I do think you raise an excellent point about Super that was, perhaps, nagging at the back of my mind.

LadyDoor, your explanations are satisfactory and make perfect sense. Thank you kindly.

Super, your approach to the two scum thing is making me a bit nervous, especially because I don't think your conclusion is really logical from a townie prespective.

Otter, simply put, as someone who personally misspeaks a lot, there are certain circumstances under which I would consider that particular mistake more excusable. Since you don't have a further answer for me, I was curious if, at the time you were posting, if you were talking to/about Carthrat. i know that I sometimes can start writing about things I'm also thinking/talking about that aren't relevant, and it blends straight into my writing. It isn't much, but it would have appeared as a vast improvement over "just messed it up."

On the subject of my roleclaim, I don't think I agree with you. While I was only at two votes, I was also in a position where I was one of the top candidates. Furthermore, game was running short on time, which left me in a position where  I figured just getting the claim out in the open would be best. Furthermore, there is the point to consider that, if I didn't come out with or refused, trying to claim say, today after a potential cop investigation? Would not put me in a good position at all. Being a miller and a top candidate isn't a really good position.

I will point out that you are putting words in my mouth, however. I did not say it wouldn't help scum. I said, in response to Super's statement that I could keep it close, that hiding it was pointless and useless.  I will, however, admit that it had not occurred to me about the narrowing of the field and that was a mistake that I'll keep in mind in future games. I will also stand by my belief that not claiming at that point would have potentially put me in a very bad place as well though.

I do share your sentiment about the sudden influx of belief about two scum, though.

Super... well. This bothers me at levels I can't begin to describe. You claim I was scummier looking than Tom, had a gut feeling about his rolling over and... still voted him over me? You really did have a pretty decent gap of time to get me lynched (LadyDoor was leaning me as well), and all that needed to happen was for one of you to move your vote. There really wasn't a risk of no lynch in trying to get LadyDoor to swing on me. Your statement about defending Tom also feels off to me. Mrmph. I also REALLY dislike your current stance on LadyDoor. Those off-hand "if she's scum" comments are bothersome.

Ninja'd Edit: Ninja'd by votecount and three posts. I want to go get dinner though, so I'll jump back on those when I get back.

[Excal]

Andy, I'll start off by pointing out that anything that strikes us as odd should be followed up on.  Ignoring things doesn't get us anywhere.  Unless you're suggesting that my points, which I generally bring up once and then drop after acknowledging the answer, are horribly distracting.  Next up, I'll admit to being curious as to whether it's just that random post I levelled at Corwin in the middle of Day 1 that's gnawing at you, or if it's something else.

And, on a side note.  I'm going to have very limited time to post after I go to bed tonight.  As in, I will effectively not have internet time tomorrow, period (though with the start this morning, I will be back before deadline) and will then have another full day of work the morning after that.  So, just giving you all a heads up on my lack of presence.

[AndrewRogue]

It is a combination of factors that are nagging at me, really. Those early posts (notably the Cowin) felt like you were just trying to generate suspicion, not so much find scum. The problem I'm having is I'm torn between seeing it as a scum tell, or just struggling to get conversation going on day one.

As far as the posts I previously missed...

Super remains a little discomforting. Speculation like "if I were scum, I would have sat back and let that ride" concerns me because, well, it is something I've done quite a few times before. Generally speaking, scum has a lot more to gain by looking town aligned and active, rather than sitting back and letting it ride.

Not much to add to LadyDoor there at the moment. Bleh. I'm horrendously sleepy.

[superaielman]

Is the "Andrew thing" you're talking about how I pursued Andrew and then voted for Tom? If it is, I'd like to hear what you think about this point with regards to my explanation above, which doesn't seem to factor into your post. If it doesn't, please explain.

Your explaination seems fine. It was just something interesting for me to chew on. Like I said later in the post, I'm pretty sure you are town and that Otter is as well.

Fair enough on the metagame stuff. I thought it could help me and the town which is why I asked.

Re: Tom stuff.

Rereading it, I fucked things up bad. Maybe Lady Door would have rolled on Andrew given the time and.. bah. I should have held to my vote. I just really, really hate leaving a game like that when it's going to resolve in the middle of the night with a possiblity of no lynch, though I miscaluclated badly and Otter was apparently around anyway.

Super remains a little discomforting. Speculation like "if I were scum, I would have sat back and let that ride" concerns me because, well, it is something I've done quite a few times before. Generally speaking, scum has a lot more to gain by looking town aligned and active, rather than sitting back and letting it ride.

Except I didn't end up looking town aligned here, I'm getting a hell of a lot of heat for my activity late in the day. If I had stuck with a vote and left it there I wouldn't have most of the game rightly breathing down my neck for some of the mistakes I made yesterday and earlier today. This is not a long term game regardless of how many scum are in it. Doing anything other than a token effort on day one wasn't needed, but I tried anyway.


I think you're setting up a vote on me to save your neck..w hich is fine, if I think you're town who's geniunally concerned about mistakes. But everything I've seen from you in the past few days has pointed to either low content posts or echoing. It's something I've been guilty of as well but I *do* know my own alignment.

Every single potential setup I can think of keeps coming back to you. With the way you've played and the flips we have along with the risky roleciam..e h. I just can't imagine you to be town, and I'd rather place my vote now before we get close to deadline. Also I have the DL update to do today and work so my avaiablity will be limited, so I definitely want to put this down before anything else.

Does anyone have a good reason why I shouldn't lay down a vote on Andrew now?

[Luther Lansfeld]

26 hours have past and no votes.

[AndrewRogue]

Posting from work.

I have at least one good reasons why you shouldn't vote me. :p

I'm actually curious though. You set it up and say that all the evidence points to me. That you keep coming back to me.

So explain your stance. How does my play point to me being scum? How do the flips point to me being scum? I'd also like to hear how I haven't been active and participating on day two.

[Otter]

Andrew still hasn't adequately explained his bad roleclaim to me.

On the subject of my roleclaim, I don't think I agree with you. While I was only at two votes, I was also in a position where I was one of the top candidates. Furthermore, game was running short on time, which left me in a position where  I figured just getting the claim out in the open would be best. Furthermore, there is the point to consider that, if I didn't come out with or refused, trying to claim say, today after a potential cop investigation? Would not put me in a good position at all. Being a miller and a top candidate isn't a really good position.

You were at two votes, I was at two votes, and Tom was at two votes.  Yes, you were one of the top three candidates in a game with seven people, but you were hardly under enough pressure for a claim to seem natural, unless you wanted to make one anyway.  So you were worried that things might swing your way?  Well, that makes no sense; you must have known that claiming miller is bad for your case, because it is!  You even say so: "Being a miller and a top candidate isn't a really good position."  We only went after Tom after that because he clearly wasn't even trying to defend himself, and that's basically an automatic lynch.

Super's request for a claim came out of nowhere and refusing it would have been the right move, because acquiescing made you look worse not just for making the miller claim (which looks like insurance in case you'd attracted the attention of the cop), but also for your strange cooperation with a claim request that didn't really make sense.  You even say it'd look worse if you claimed miller after getting investigated; apparently your plan was to preempt that!  Unfortunately, that changes nothing; instead of a scum, you look like a scum who planned ahead a little.

I will, however, admit that it had not occurred to me about the narrowing of the field and that was a mistake that I'll keep in mind in future games. I will also stand by my belief that not claiming at that point would have potentially put me in a very bad place as well though.

I don't buy this either.  It didn't occur to you that claiming gives scum info?  Dude, that's why we don't mass roleclaim right off the bat.  It's an absolutely critical part of the game, which I know you've played plenty of.  The whole reason for your preemptive miller claim wasn't to make yourself look better at the time (we both know it didn't), but because you seriously suspected you'd be investigated that night, and wanted to have your miller claim on the table before some cop came out and said you'd returned as Guilty.  Who thinks this defensively, especially when they're a candidate on the first day?  Scum, because they're being witch-hunted by town if town's doing things right, and also because they may have a teammate to help guarantee they don't eat the day 1 lynch.

Well, this is dragging on, we've got less than a day remaining, and I don't want all the votes to start coming in right at the end because timezones make that a problem.  I'm going to put my vote down now on the player who deserves it most.

##VOTE: Andrew

[Lady Door]

Reading, reviewing and analyzing.

A few quick things:

Thank you, Excal.

Near as I can tell, people stand as such: I was reviewing my case on Andrew, super was on Andrew, Excal was prodding at super, Otter was prodding at super (though the last vote language said that Andrew was his top choice) (EDIT: And now he's voted for Andrew), and Andrew ... um... I think he's on super's case, but it's beginning to look more defensive than offensive (which I think more of you would call "reactionary").

With no idea whether we're in LYLO and 5 people remaining, we very well could be banking the game on who we lynch today. The absolute last thing we want is to drag this into the figurative 11th hour and rush a lynch train.

EDIT: ... and now there's a vote on the table and I'm not entirely sure what to do. I'm still keen on lynching Andrew, he's still my top choice, but 1 vote down in potential LYLO makes me veeeeeeeeeeeeery nervous. Back to that analysis.

[Lady Door]

So.

The general "feel" I'm getting from Andrew's posts is that he's minimizing his presence as best he can. He was low presence for the majority of Day 1, and when he was around he pursued the prodding of Otter about his naming slip. Here, it serves to give him presence without substance -- notice how many posts there are covering this issue. There's this one and this one and most of this one and a good part of this one and this one and most of this one and yet again at the beginning of Day 2 then bringing it up yet again here and then it's gone suddenly. For those who have trouble seeing links, that's 8 separate posts where a significant chunk of, if not all of, the text is devoted to this question of Otter and his having said "Rat" instead of "Corwin."  His posts today have consisted of asking questions and making noises of discontent at people. Can you give us something more concrete here, Andrew? I know you're waiting for super, but the majority of that seems to be regarding why he wants to vote you, not why you want to vote him. Who would you vote for right now?

I still don't like the way Andrew has been behaving, and I'm particularly rankled by the end of Day 1: that he ignored my direct questions, answered them in passing after I prompted him again, and then just claimed "bad play/busy" as an excuse for why it was a dissatisfactory response. Why is that supposed to be a good shield? I don't think it should be. Scum can have bad play as much as town can. It works in scum's favor either way, and that makes you at least a liability.

I didn't get why super asked for a roleclaim and I didn't get why you felt the need to divulge your role when there was no reason to. Knowing that you're Miller did far more damage than it did good in giving scum more information, making it look like you're scum covering your tracks, and being quick to respond to a question that should never have been asked and, as Otter says, you would have had every right to refuse to answer. I realize that you felt like you were in the hot spot, but ... well, my main problem with that exchange is with super, not you. I just don't know why you would choose full disclosure when you didn't have to and had several reasons (and excuses) not to.

On the re-read, I am more bothered by super than I was before. I generally like his style of play because it's very open and I don't have to worry about making the distinction between a cagey townie playing coy or scum playing close to the vest -- it's honest. It is, however, much more prone to mistakes, which is where my like of this style stops. The development of this game is as important as the posts within them, and after Day 1 consistency becomes a big part of the analysis. super is ... anything but consistent. He seems to be pretty easily swayed on points of argument. The most obvious case of this is in this post,

Lady Door: Think she's town. If she's scum.. well.. they're controlling the game in that case and we're in deep shit.. What strikes me as odd is how doggedly she went after me for one line, which did seem off. Otherwise, I'm not sure what else to take that's bad- high content posts and a lot of them, and she pushed Andrew hard for information during the last few hours of day one. Pretty much sure she's town. EDIT: I didn't even notice the Andrew thing before. Mmm, something to chew on.

He goes from really considering strongly that I'm town to editing (in response to what? I'm thinking he's responding to Excal's post, but he posted a couple times in between there, so "edit" sounds weird) that there was something to consider about why I might not be. I think what I'm mostly thrown by there is the edit.

The whole retroactive explanation of his behavior regarding the roleclaim is just not sitting well with me. I see that he was looking for flavor and he wanted to cross-check it with his knowledge of the flavor, but -- all metagame arguments aside -- that seems like a fairly desperate move. He asked for roleclaims when votes were tied across the boards and it would've required his vote AND someone else's to lynch, which is just .... Roleclaims are supposed to be a last ditch effort for townies (and scum posing as townie) to save themselves, no? Asking for it before it is truly a matter of life or death is fishing for information that need not be revealed, and that is only helping scum because if that person isn't lynched we still can't confirm anything.

I find myself torn, yet again, between two choices. super's behavior at the end of Day 1 was odd, and his response to questions about it Day 2 haven't done more than make it look worse. Andrew's behavior has been much more passive than I like and than it appears at first blush, and his attempts at being aggressive look like misdirection,  and his answers to questions have been unsatisfactory and often involve qualifiers meant to dismiss that ("I admit it hadn't occurred to me, I'll remember it for next time" and "my play is a bit sloppy" and that he's been working on papers, etc.).

I'm leaning toward Andrew. I do not want to put a vote down on him just yet. The fact that Otter's vote -- placed over an hour ago -- hasn't been responded to yet can mean a number of things both good and bad, but the reason for my hesitation is that some of those possibilities involve a scum set up.

I want to hear what Andrew has to say now. And I'd like to hear from super, too. I would like to hear what Excal thinks about all of it, but I know he won't be back until real close to the deadline.

[Tonfa]

Exciting and Dynamic! Possibly also a Votecount.

AndrewRogue(1): Otter

14 and a half hours remain in Day 2. With 5 alive, it takes 3 votes to lynch.

[Otter]

Good to see Door's analysis lining up with mine; it means I can't just be seeing things in thin air.

I'm nervous about putting down a vote in possible-LYLO, too.  However, we've got like, what, fifteen hours left?  Less?  I wanted there to be enough time for everyone to weigh in, because a forced, rush-job train right at the end of the day with a limited number of people around favors scum; that's how I pushed a flimsy train on Ciato in a recent game, and it worked because townies would rather lynch someone than no one at all, so they don't see that they have a choice but to jump onboard.  I'm removing that variable.  If you think there's a better option, say so -- the day's not over yet.  However, it is important that we decide, because if we really are in LYLO, that means there's two scum.  Not to scare anyone, but that means a no-lynch loses the game for us, since we'll enter day 3 with 4 players and scum will have attained majority.

I can't guarantee I'm going to be around in 15 hours, and I'd hate to see us going down to the wire and have everyone feel like we must lynch whoever's got the most votes because if we don't, we might wind up at a fatal no-lynch at any second.  It'd be far preferable to get things dealt with tonight, and that wasn't going to happen by waiting for scum to start something, because that's exactly what they don't want to do here.  They'd love to wait till most others aren't around, lay their votes down on a townie, and then vanish so they aren't around to change their votes; the next morning, some townie signs on and sees a guy who's one vote away from lynching, and there's only an hour before deadline!  None of the other options are within a single vote, and he can't guarantee anyone will wake up and see this!  So, he's forced to help make the lynch happen (since he knows no-lynch is fatal), and that's exactly how scum trains can pass so easily.  I'd -really- like to see some people commit sooner than later to avoid this situation.

Door, I understand very well the reason for your hesitation and your fears for a possible setup, but I urge you not to be paralyzed.  Inaction killed town in the last game I played in.  I too would like to see more responses, but I know that if I waited for those before voting, I'd be waiting forever.

[Lady Door]

Nah, I hear you. I don't intend to let it go through the night (my night, PST) without my vote. I will be leaving shortly to go see a play with the Classics department, and when I get back I will more than likely be placing it. Nothing frustrates me more than a rushed lynch or a last minute lynch train swap. I just assume that it's better to have a VERY solid consensus of who you're going to lynch before you put down the vote when you're in possible-LYLO. One mistake and scum could hop on it and end the game. Because no one has, yet, I both hope that Andrew is indeed the scum I think he is and worry that YOU'RE scum trying to set up the winning condition.

In either case, I would much prefer to hear from the others before making my decision.

[AndrewRogue]

Otter: Ho'kay.

You were at two votes, I was at two votes, and Tom was at two votes.  Yes, you were one of the top three candidates in a game with seven people, but you were hardly under enough pressure for a claim to seem natural, unless you wanted to make one anyway.  So you were worried that things might swing your way?  Well, that makes no sense; you must have known that claiming miller is bad for your case, because it is!  You even say so: "Being a miller and a top candidate isn't a really good position."  We only went after Tom after that because he clearly wasn't even trying to defend himself, and that's basically an automatic lynch.

I'd argue this point, actually. We were all at two votes, yes. You weren't actually in any particular danger of getting lynched though. The two votes on you were from me and Tom, and most eyes were directed our way. You had two votes, but you were not a quote-unquote top candidate. In fact, I'd say the odds of the lynch swinging your way was pretty pitiful.

More to the point, though. You know what is worse for my case than claiming miller? Refusing to claim or the like, getting investigated and THEN claiming Miller.

Super's request for a claim came out of nowhere and refusing it would have been the right move, because acquiescing made you look worse not just for making the miller claim (which looks like insurance in case you'd attracted the attention of the cop), but also for your strange cooperation with a claim request that didn't really make sense.  You even say it'd look worse if you claimed miller after getting investigated; apparently your plan was to preempt that!  Unfortunately, that changes nothing; instead of a scum, you look like a scum who planned ahead a little.

Actually, it didn't really come out of nowhere. I really am curious what I was supposed to do that would have been appropriate in that situation. You seem to fault me for two separate things: acquiescing to Super's demands AND claiming miller. I've explained the former, and I don't really know what you expect me to have done about the latter. Refuse to claim no matter what? Lie and make town waste a lynch if there was a cop and I got investigated?

I am a little distraught that you seem to be attacking me for thinking ahead, though. I'd like to hear exactly what I should have done in that situation, and what I would have done if I was summarily investigated.

LadyDoor: I pursued it because I wanted an answer to the bloody question.. I'd also point out part of the reason that there are several posts where I talk about it is, because, well... you guys attacked me on it and asked me questions about it. Thus, I ended up having to respond more about it. And why do people get it in their heads that I'm using busy/bad play as shields? I'm not. That's the real answer. I'm not shielding myself with it. I'm answering the question.

For the other question about my roleclaim, see my answer to Otter. I felt like I was in a particularly bad position. But I'll sum it up one more time. Tom and I were the likely lynch candidates. If I wasn't lynched right then, I was a likely investigation target. When I turned up guilty there, I wouldn't have a leg left to stand on after a refusal to claim. All things considered, that made a mislynch of me day two practically a sure thing.

At the moment, despite the way Otter's attack is coming off to me, Super's approach this game is coming off even worse. His commentary about the likliehood of two scum makes me particularly uncomfortable for a number of reasons (namely that it puts town really on edge and makes them push that deadline hard).

Blah. I just hit a real life deadline, so lemme sum this up right quick. Otter and Super are the two most likely candidates to me at this point. Both their current arguments are off, and their approaches are odd.

Be back.

NINJA: BE BACK LATER

[superaielman]

Reading, going to be a while before I respond to the topic though thanks to update night. Definitely going to vote for Andrew barring something really unforseen happening.

[superaielman]

The whole retroactive explanation of his behavior regarding the roleclaim is just not sitting well with me. I see that he was looking for flavor and he wanted to cross-check it with his knowledge of the flavor, but -- all metagame arguments aside -- that seems like a fairly desperate move. He asked for roleclaims when votes were tied across the boards and it would've required his vote AND someone else's to lynch, which is just .... Roleclaims are supposed to be a last ditch effort for townies (and scum posing as townie) to save themselves, no? Asking for it before it is truly a matter of life or death is fishing for information that need not be revealed, and that is only helping scum because if that person isn't lynched we still can't confirm anything.

Desperation? Mm, maybe. But I did want the information, not so much the role. That's what was odd about the Andrew thing though, as you so well outlined above. If I had known people would take so much exeception to asking about the flavor, I obviously wouldn't have done it.


And I'm not playing well in this game for reasons I'll talk about after it's over. That however is irrelevant, there's no excuses for the mistakes I've made.


He goes from really considering strongly that I'm town to editing (in response to what? I'm thinking he's responding to Excal's post, but he posted a couple times in between there, so "edit" sounds weird) that there was something to consider about why I might not be. I think what I'm mostly thrown by there is the edit.


The edit was in reference to to this:

Lady Door comes second.  I'll admit, her scattershot approach appeals to me, as she posts often and always leaves us something to pick through.  That said, there's some things she's done which seem questionable.  The first and foremost of these is picking Tom over Andy when they were both tied at one vote, and when you had finished speaking against Andy.  In fact, the only time you really say anything specific against Tom is at the beginning of Page 2.  After that you argue against Andy plenty, and mention Andy a lot, but all Tom gets is vague rumblings of discontent.  Why did you never level questions at him, or call him out for not responding to your initial points against him?

Blah blah wall of text, but mostly the vote stuff there. I'm partly at fault for not pressing harder at Andrew when I had the chance, but it definitely pinged as a possiblity there. I.. don't think so now, and I was mostly speculating out loud at the time. Being more careful and reading over my posts is something I have to improve on.

At the moment, despite the way Otter's attack is coming off to me, Super's approach this game is coming off even worse. His commentary about the likliehood of two scum makes me particularly uncomfortable for a number of reasons (namely that it puts town really on edge and makes them push that deadline hard).

What... what the fuck is this?  I can understand taking offense to my putting my foot in my mouth with an offhanded comment about the scum (Which is fine, whatever etc) but Otter has done nothing wrong. He strongly disliked the roleclaim from the start. The roleclaim is something LadyDoor and he both jumped on you for and something he's consistantly commented on as a bad thing. It's not the only thing the players are pressing you on, in fact you've ignored other questions and generally been evasive all game. See: Otter's comment about mass roleclaiming and LadyDoor's comments on why the roleclaim's a bad thing. Yes, I realize the irony of me saying this after I asked for it.

And why do people get it in their heads that I'm using busy/bad play as shields? I'm not. That's the real answer. I'm not shielding myself with it. I'm answering the question.

Checking in. A bit busy right this sec (need to beat Shadow of the Colossus again for class) but will check back in right quick.

Sorry if I came across as irritable. I'm a little more curt than normal, as I've been sick the last week+, had a lot of work and didn't sleep well. So! It wasn't intended as being rude/mean. It was just a little more curtness than I tend to deliver.

With Tom temporarily dealt with, real post and all (I recommend a "Typing a bigger reply, just checking in" notice if you do that in the future)...

I believe my tiredness is making me a bit inclined to poor phrasing.

Sorry, been working on homework.

And yes, my play is a bit sloppy currently. I also had a paper I scrambled on and was at work for a good chunk of the day, which has led to me making hasty posts and trying to glean what I can from quick reads.

Not lurking, I just really have nothing I can add. Tom's roleclaim is neutral and his defense is... well. Not there.

Calling bullshit on that one. That was all from day one. I'm skipping the 'running out of time, it's down to us to make the call on who gets lynched' stuff. You've been using being busy as an excuse all game. That's not a horrible thing persay, but you're now saying you didn't and it's just the other players trying to pin stuff on poor Andrew? That.. that sways my vote completely, I think. It comes off as a blatant lie. On top of the general unease your play's been giving me and the misrepresntation of other arguments against you makes me think you're scum caught in a bad place.  Time to put up or shut up, I suppose.

##vote:AndrewRouge

[Luther Lansfeld]

Votecount:

AndrewRogue(2): Otter, superaielman

11 hours remain in Day 2. With 5 alive, it takes 3 votes to lynch.

[AndrewRogue]

Catching up.

[Ranmilia]

---- OUT OF GAME BOARD MOD NOTE ---
This topic got locked somehow and there does not seem to be a reason.  I'm unlocking it for now, apologies for meddling if I am somehow mistaken.

[AndrewRogue]

Well. This kind of preempts anything I would have posted at the conclusion there.

Super! What bothers me here is you are... well. You're trying to have cake and eat it too, it really looks like.

Desperation? Mm, maybe. But I did want the information, not so much the role. That's what was odd about the Andrew thing though, as you so well outlined above. If I had known people would take so much exeception to asking about the flavor, I obviously wouldn't have done it.

You kind of initiate what looks like a cute little back-step here. You recenter your position to be that you JUST wanted the flavor when your original request, when that is not what you originally asked for.

Also: Andrew, roleclaim please? It could help sway things. Just flavor if you want to hold a power role close to your vest.

*IF you really want to.

So. You've set up an interesting spot here. "Yeah, I agree, Andrew's claim was really weird, I only wanted his flavor," when, in fact, your question pretty flat out asked me to claim unless I really wanted to keep it close to myself. Basically, you've kind of set up this cute little entrapment for me, where you pose that my response to it (claiming) looks odd, despite the fact that you asked it of me.

What... what the fuck is this?  I can understand taking offense to my putting my foot in my mouth with an offhanded comment about the scum (Which is fine, whatever etc) but Otter has done nothing wrong. He strongly disliked the roleclaim from the start. The roleclaim is something LadyDoor and he both jumped on you for and something he's consistantly commented on as a bad thing. It's not the only thing the players are pressing you on, in fact you've ignored other questions and generally been evasive all game. See: Otter's comment about mass roleclaiming and LadyDoor's comments on why the roleclaim's a bad thing. Yes, I realize the irony of me saying this after I asked for it.

The problem I have here is you seem to outright ignore my problems with Otter. If you recall, I have a lot of them at this point, and I've expressed them. My opinions about his behavior yesterday haven't really changed. Furthermore, I point out where my problems with his current argumentation lie, in that I feel he is misrepresenting me and also seems to be arguing for a weird position (the combination of him attacking me for playing with some defense in mind and the fact that he seems to be establishing a non-realistic position for me to have taken in that affair by separating his problems into me claiming miller AND me fulfilling your claim). So, this is far from a case where he has done nothing wrong.

[QUOTE[Calling bullshit on that one. That was all from day one. I'm skipping the 'running out of time, it's down to us to make the call on who gets lynched' stuff. You've been using being busy as an excuse all game. That's not a horrible thing persay, but you're now saying you didn't and it's just the other players trying to pin stuff on poor Andrew? That.. that sways my vote completely, I think. It comes off as a blatant lie. On top of the general unease your play's been giving me and the misrepresntation of other arguments against you makes me think you're scum caught in a bad place.  Time to put up or shut up, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Okay. Yeah. Here, you are just flat out misreading me, and I'm not sure if it is intentional or not. You're assigning a different stance to me than I took. I never claimed I didn't say those things. In fact, hell, I admitted I did say them. What I was objecting to in LadyDoor's statement was the shield part, which is what I specified. There is a difference, hence me bringing it up. I wanted to establish the difference between trying to shield myself with "I'm busy" posts and the fact that I'm explicitly stating my current condition.

I'm also bothered by the fact that a couple of the quoted segments have... nothing to do with your actual argument (apologizing to Tom, posting after Tom).

Furthermore, I notice you haven't answered any of my earlier questions. You've said an awful lot about me (all cases come back to me, the flips point to me, I'm misrepresenting people's arguments, I'm evading questions) and you do very little to actually... well... point out where I'm doing this. For example, I know I have missed questions before... and I also know I went back and answered them, and wasn't aware I'd missed more direct questions since. I'm also not aware of cases where I'm misrepresenting arguments. I certainly have no idea how you keep coming back to me earlier in the day as most likely scum, and I REALLY have no idea how the flips could possibly play into it.

Any chance of you actually explaining some of this?

##Vote: Super

Honestly, at this point, you're bothering me a lot worse than Otter. While I could at least sort of understand his position, yours is absolutely baffling. You carefully word your speech in a way where I look unquestionably scummy (see above regarding the roleclaim stuff), you are misrepresenting a statement I said and using it as justification to vote (see above regarding the shield/excuses things) and you are being relatively evasive and vague about several problems you have with me (see above regarding the unanswered questions).

[AndrewRogue]

Before I forget it.

And I'm not playing well in this game for reasons I'll talk about after it's over. That however is irrelevant, there's no excuses for the mistakes I've made.

This is particularly cute. You put it up here innocuously, which contrasts down below when you attack me on the shield comment. It practically screams, "I've made some mistakes due to RL stuff, but nope, I'm not gonna relate it here because that would be trying to use it as an excuse." It isn't necessarily a direct scum tell, but it is rather bothersome because you are directly establishing a "look at me, I'm a good townie compared to that scummy Andrew" in a rather off-handed fashion.

[Lady Door]

Being Miller sucks. It is not a town-friendly role. It makes a townie turn up looking like scum to the town-friendly investigator, distracting the cop and town from the real scum and taking away from the trust he can have in other investigations. I feel for anyone that gets stuck with it.

However, claiming Miller on a role-call like the one we had does not help us OR you if you are a townie -- it helps scum. If you are actually town, it tells scum what you are and what you are not. If you are town, you've instantly tainted yourself in the eyes of town and obscured the pool of candidates because: if you are scum, it is a ridiculously safe thing to claim. If you are in fact scum, a Miller claim is nigh unprovable and gives you the benefit of the doubt in town's eyes, even against the results of one of town's power roles.

Would I ask for a lie? Hell no. Lie = scummy, end of story. You have seen what happens when town lies about role claims. You did not have the binary you set up, though, and trying to make it sound like it was one is really pushing into "lie" territory -- it's certainly obscuring the point to dramatic effect. "Look at me, poor misaligned town, only this way or that way to go and me eaten alive in either direction!" (Dramatization for irony, yes.)

For a townie, it was not "refuse to claim or make a false claim" or "make a full honest claim." There were so many more shades of things you could have done if you were town -- claimed the flavor and left out the role (while mentioning to super that the exclusion he provided paints just as big a target on whoever does claim without role); asked why he was so keen on a claim when there still wasn't even a clear candidate, just a couple of options; refused to claim at all; claimed flavor and made a stronger case against the person you wanted to see lynched, and so on. You had options. The one you chose is extremely telling. It quite simply looks like scum getting backed into a corner and taking the quickest/"safest" route out at the first sign of an opportunity.

And despite bringing up your problem with Otter as "a fairly impressive mistake" and "a big mistake that implies a number of things" and "a seriously major screwup" and "a mistake of that magnitude" and ... I still have no idea how on earth typing the name of someone who's not in the game instead of the person who was is supposed to be this serious.

It is true that much of the time you brought it up you were responding to other people. However, there was no reason to inflate it to the importance you gave it, and no reason to devote entire posts to responding to it to the exclusion of anything else. It took you way too long to get to the point you were driving at about what you wanted. And what you wanted? Even you admit "it wasn't much." So why so much text devoted to it?

And... super pointed it out first, but:

You are seriously trying to claim that you have no idea why people say you're using busy/bad play as a shield?

... well. I certainly know where my vote is then.

EDIT: Andrew addressed this in his post, but I really don't know what that's supposed to mean. How are those things you said a simple statement of being? Let me quote this for you again:

"I believe my tiredness is making me a bit inclined to poor phrasing" sure sounds like you're trying to set up a 'reason' for phrasing people questioned you on. "And yes, my play is a bit sloppy currently" certainly seems to be making excuses for what you've been doing. You try to say you're "making hasty posts and trying to glean what I can from quick reads" which is basically excusing you from the little errors that pop up as a result of your apparent inability to pay enough attention/spend enough time to be sure about what you're saying.

Combine this with your long march against Otter because of ONE mistake he made which you attribute to his being inattentive/less-than-thorough, I just ... trying to pin it on someone else and then being all surprised when it comes back to you makes no sense. I encourage people to find mistakes and point them out, even if they've made the same kinds; pointing these things out is one of the only ways for town to smoke out scum. But to say you're excepted from it because your reasons for making them are real is just not how it works.

I would like to hammer Andrew. Any objections?

(( Having posting problems, but this seems to be tied to what Alex was talking about. Well then!