Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[X]

/confirm

[X]

Vote: Wall-E

.

Delay of game. 1-vote penalty.

[X]

vote X

False start. 1 vote penalty.

Damnit. But I like your logic.

Does anyone have any idea much scum there are?

Generally between 2 and 4.

[X]

hey guys this is my first non-newbie game, can I just ask what kind of a set up we have?

Normal.

[X]

Eh, so what? And why not revote?

I don't see what purpose that would serve, really. The random voting stage is the most annoying part of this game. But if I must, then

vote Jase

It's a random vote, why should I bother coming up with a fake excuse? :)

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite.

Unvote: Wall-E

.

Vote: Idiotking

.

[X]

Somebody start questioning me already!

Guilty conscience, maybe?

I'm more interested in World1Noob, actually. L-2 (qwints) seems a bit far for RVS.

unvote qwints

Fos:Noob

Um, qwints had 2 votes. How did you think he was at L-2?

[X]

and because if I abstain from random voting I'll get called out on it.

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

[X]

Guilty conscience, HA! again. I HA! at you.

Considering how eager you were to start discussion, could you at least address the question when you're questioned? Not enough for a FoS, but that still seemed overly dramatic.

The question was rhetorical, and not meant seriously. Seriously, what are you doing?

Natural impulse is screaming for me to start calling X scum and say that he's trying to get me in trouble on baseless evidence.

Not really. More trying to start discussion. And I think I did.

Oh, and I lolled when X said "That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far." Of course it is, WE'RE ON PAGE THREE.

Glad you liked it.

Vote: X

stating that you don't like RVS and would for-go it if you reasonably could is not a scum tell.

That's not what I was accusing him of. Not liking it but going ahead with it to fit in was what I pointed out. And anyway, it's an infinitesimally minor point.

Also since abstaining from RVS would lead to suspicions all players are going to "go with the flow".

I don't understand this sentence.

OK, so. Try and understand this: I hate random voting. With an undying, ridiculously malevolent passion. I know I have to random vote, however. By not doing it, I cause a problem in that has to be resolved though logic when NO logic has any grounds yet. I.E. the creation of the problem itself is the only "act" to refer to, and as such, means unless the problem is removed, leads to a lot of aimless discussion that causes even more problems.

Could you at least explain why you hate it?

Do you really think this is going to get us anywhere?

[X]

wow, this is confusing. there are like multiple cases going on independent of each other.

Can we get a vote count

so it's clear who are the targets, please?

Is this your first mafia game?

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.

Yes, but he didn't do either. So I'm gonna ignore that and chalk it up to Hanlon's Razor. Why are you making a big deal out of this?

And having seen the vote count and having some reason to do this

unvote

What reason did you have to do this?

Unvote: Idiotking

,

Vote: burfy

.

[X]

Do you really think this is going to get us anywhere?

Who knows?

Bad answer. You should be trying to find scum.

FoS: Lleu

.

Next, the reason i unvoted i thought was fairly obvious. My standing vote was random, the reason was because his name was too long(???). Clearly an insignificant random vote. However, we were heading out of the random stage and i had some suspicions of someone for a genuine reason, hence i acted on that. If i had been convinced of Wall-E's guilt, i would have voted but i wasn't certain and wanted to give him time to answer, so i simply unvoted to show i was taking my voting more seriously now.

I didn't think the reason you unvoted was obvious. I could tell that it was a random vote, but you said you were unvoting because of the vote count. W1N had two votes, though - hardly a reason to unvote. Combined with how you wanted to see who the "targets" were, that makes me think you were looking to get on a wagon inconspicuously. Having seen no real wagon, you unvoted without revoting, so that you'd be uncommitted to any position when opportunity (a townie wagon) arose. That's how I thought it was suspicious. Your explanation is possible, but I'm still somewhat suspicious.

My only assumption is that you were concerned about my stance against WallE.

That's a bad assumption. The things that I voted you for, I quoted. I thought that the Wall-E thing was not really a valid point. Now that he's lurking again, I can see that there's something to it. But no, it had nothing to do with your position on Wall-E.

Cubarey, I agrey with Idiotking, Kreriov, and YB.

It's day 1, X, it's not like we have much material gathered go on about. The nature of the game in the beginning is to pick up nuances and be vocal about them to get reactions. I see you have done the same to other messages in this game.
Anyway, I dislike like the silence.

Yes, I agree that it's worth getting reactions. It just looked like you were trying to make a serious accusation. By now, there's enough evidence to say that you might be onto something, though.

[X]

2) Why claim right there? You were at L-3.

Good question. And for YB's benefit, I have the same reason to ask the question as Kreriov:

It is the fact that the very first thing he does is claim, wether VT, Doc, Cop or whatever, that just throws up flags. There is really nothing much to go on when deciding the first lynch other than odd behavior. Claiming simply because a few people have voted for you and SAID the only reason they were voting for you is because you have not been participating is decidely odd.

I also really don't like how he didn't make an attempt to scumhunt.

FoS: Wall-E

.

Or X, who seems to be jumping around a bit.

Guilty as charged. As I see it, you have to have a very open mind on D1.

I definitely want to hear more from Cubarey, Lleu, W1N, and Wall-E.

[X]

I also really don't like how he didn't make an attempt to scumhunt.

FoS: Wall-E

.

You (qwints and Ojanen) unvote because he restates his reasons again without scumhunting? Then I'll take your place voting for him.

Unvote: burfy

,

Vote: Wall-E

.

[X]

acutally, you made me go check, and it does

it's one word and kinda small though

Still waiting on that whole content thing from you.

I meant paranoid in RL. Person asks for an explaination and he gets My "Natural Response" is to call you scum. Its more then a little over the top. Thus I felt that the reaction was do to his possibly being Mafia. Now, am I certain, of course not, but on the first day you never have hard evidence all you can go by is what your gut tells you from a few posts. And reacting like Idiotking did is not normal. Why not just answer the question and leave it at that?

Why do you think Idiotking's reaction wasn't normal? I certainly thought it was - OMGUS is a natural, gut response. Simple logic tempers it out, and Idiotking said that his logic was preventing him from thinking that I actually was scum because of it.

I do not post much at the beginning of a game because its mostly a waste of time. I'll make comments only when posts seem odd to me and indicate that something is fishy.

Don't lurk.

I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast

Do you think one of us should be at the other's throat? Which one of us was in the wrong?

I think that Ojanen and Wall-e unintentionally gave us a clue about their alignments. We now know two things:

1.) Ojanen and Wall-e are NOT partner roles. We know this because if they were they would have the exact same PMs, and Ojanen would have realized that and thus never asked the question

and

2.) Ojanen and Wall-e are both not scum-aligned (although one or the other may be). There is no way Ojanen would have called out Wall-e on such a subtle point if they were both scum.

Unfortunately, we do not know if they are both town-aligned, or that only one of them are...only that they are not both scum. But to me, aside my own PM...this is the only thing I feel I know for sure about.

If there is some flaw in my logic...please someone point it out...its been a SUPER LONG DAY but to my exhaustion addled mind this seems like the most interesting thing which has happened all game, by far.

Your conclusion is basically that they didn't know each other's alignment? Then your logic is flawed. Because you're assuming they're not being deceitful.

[X]

I meant quote]Why do you think Idiotking's reaction wasn't normal? I certainly thought it was - OMGUS is a natural, gut response. Simple logic tempers it out, and Idiotking said that his logic was preventing him from thinking that I actually was scum because of it.

Calling someone scum because they asked you a question is not a "natural response".

If it's a loaded question, yes it is.

I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast

Do you think one of us should be at the other's throat? Which one of us was in the wrong?

You (X) really seem to be twisting things that Noob said here.

As you can see by W1N's response, this was a logical conclusion from his suspicion. I don't hold that same suspicion, though.

burfy is scummy for trying to identify targets. Furthermore, he unvoted because of the vote count.
Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted

a finger

to find scum.

Kreriov, I’ve liked some of the things he’s said, and disliked others. I wholeheartedly agree with the reaction to Wall-E’s claim. However, post 110 was very vague – he stated things that he might want to explore, but didn’t actually put forth the effort to explore them.
W1N, I don’t see either way. I don’t see his reaction to my episode with Idiotking as logical, but that’s about it.
yellowbunny looks fairly good, but I don’t quite see his reasoning about why I’m scummy.

CUBAREY is not scummy, just confused, I think. He doesn’t get that the natural gut reaction to a loaded question is to think that your inquisitor is scum.
Idiotking is not scummy. He reacted well under pressure.
Ojanen is not scummy. He’s scumhunting analytically.

Jase, Lleu, and qwints haven’t said enough for me to be able to evaluate. Post more, you three.

[X]

I don't forsee a lot of time for me to post in the next few days (Thursday should be fine). I'm giving my modded game priority.

[X]

I'm back - for about a week. I'll be visiting colleges from next Wednesday to Saturday (4/15-18), but I hopefully will be able to get to a computer and post. Sorry for the inconvenience.

As for why I find you somewhat scummy...honestly, its just a gut feeling I am getting from your posts. I'm left with a general unease about you - that something isn't quite right - but I have nothing in particular which I can point to atm and say "Ah-ha! Scum! Answer for <insert scummy thing here>, X!!!" I realize its not horribly logical, but that is the reason. The caveat here is this is my first non-noob game, so its quite possible that I'm just unfamiliar with your style of play and that is why its striking me as off.

Whatever. I'm a very analytical guy, so I can't see your standpoint (getting vibes), but I understand where you're coming from.

Can you please elaborate on why you find Burfy scummy?

Sure. Burfy asked for a vote count early on to "see who the targets were." That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Also, I find that Lleu's posts are largely unsubstantial and tend to sit on the fence. That does not strike you as odd?

No more odd than Jase and qwints, although they should all post more.

I don't really understand post 150.

W1N, I don’t see either way. I don’t see his reaction to my episode with Idiotking as logical, but that’s about it.

Well, what flaws do you see in my reasoning?

First of all, I believe your reasoning was this:

but just from memory I generally don't buy "O I was just trying to start discussion" it's way too convenient of a way to back of an attempt to put a false case on a townie that didn't work. If I was Idiotking and you voted for me with a completely bs case I'd be at your throat with a knife.

Starting discussion is necessary to begin a game. Otherwise it's just a bunch of random lynches. And while I agree that a bs case is bad in general, the early votes are all bs cases anyway - like having a particular username, or double posting, or random voting and saying that you don't like random voting.

I like post 156.

Hi X.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

You're baiting X just as much as he's baiting you. So I think everything you said about him in this quote applies equally to you.

I think most of us are trying to be fair and not hold your inactivity against you (at least too much), but you don't seem overly interested in scum hunting. More people than just X have commented on this. Can you please post YOUR list of impressions of everyone in the game?

QFT.

I'd also like to say we shouldn't make a complete list of who we think is scum and who we think is innocent. Sure the scum should be brought up, but I've been told (and I think it makes perfect sense) that have complete lists help scum to perform their night kill as they'll obviously kill off the person everyone thinks is townie.

QFT.

CUBAREY, I understand your post 175. I thought that way too when I first started playing. But it's overly paranoid. You have to listen to other people's logic - not take it as truth, but consider it.

Wall-E, if you had done these attacks in Mini 761, you would have been modkilled. Just so you know.

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Wait, what? Ok, so why are you voting for me, in your own words? Have absolutely NONE of the developments since post 56 mattered to you?

QFT. My vote stays on Wall-E.

[X]

Those do not necessarily contradict each other. You could be scum looking for a wagon to join...but want to avoid starting a wagon yourself. So that way, if you joined a wagon, you could distance yourself from it by saying "oh, so-and-so started this wagon". And as scum, you def. wouldn't want to be viewed as the person who started that wagon.

This.

Burfy, I can now understand your explanation. And although it's possible, I think it's more likely that you're scum making up an explanation retroactively.

In the first, you claim to be less feely-gamer and more logic-gamer. In the second, you claim to be judging reactions. Which would you say you are?

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

I know and it is a concern. Since we do not have a deadline as yet and no one is in danger of getting lynched, I am willing to take my time. Documenting it and remembering it via these posts seems sufficient to me.

I think you missed the point of YB's question. Why are you singling out one lurker?

[X]

Oh, well, because there is actual actions other than lurking to discuss when it comes to Cubarey.

I generally do not consider lurking in and off itself scummy, especially day 1.

Also, given that I cannot vote for more than one person, about the only real pressure you can put on a lurker is actually pointing out the lurking.

Bolded is wrong, very wrong. Lurking lets scum make fewer contributions and ultimately giving the town less information.

[X]

EBWOP: giving => gives

[X]

Wow, I just went over 2 days without posting. And that's because I have nothing to add/respond to.

That shouldn't happen, unless everyone has stated V/LA

.

Mod, please prod: qwints, Ojanen, CUBAREY, Jase, and Idiotking.

[X]

@Ojaned- post 73, although that is a reasonable assumption I doubt someone like Walle who plays multiples would not post in thread simply because he was night talking. You assume to much about peoples free time. Sure some have some here and there but some have large blocks of free time followed by large blocks of being busy.

What does "who plays multiples" mean? And I don't get what you mean about Wall-E's free time.

@Walle- post 103, fail? You claim VT.
if your scum- That was such a bad way to cover up and your cracking under pressure this early?
if your town- you just failed town as any PRs just got upped in chance to be killed ><

There was not enough pressure on you at this point to claim. Period.

Alright, this is pretty much obvious.

@131- I agree with everything in this post of yellowbunny's, besides the obvious misread

YB says there that she sees a CUBAREY - Noob pairing likely. I can see CUBAREY, but Noob? I'm not so sure. Elaborate, please.

@173-Kreriov- Semi agree. I see walle's large increase in participation as scummy because it strikes me as trying to be under the radar, and then realizing your in danger, and desperately clinging to a rope, spamming posts to survive.

I think we agree on this point, but you're a little obscure. You're saying he's spamming, but I can't really term it that. If it was spam it would be purely jokes that have nothing to do with the game. He was mostly defending himself, which is not spam, but scummy, in that there was no scumhunting.

I'm too close to the action in this game to be unbiased. I'm hoping someone else makes a strong case for me to analyze. I think that for today that might be all I can manage.

represents a final abdication of a desire to produce content

That's a good point, there.

I still don't think idiotking has really redeemed himself from his early scummy posts (see 53,59 and 84). He has also has a lot of hedging in his posts: [I'll meta this when I have the time]

What's hedging, and why is it scummy?

Next on the list is Jase, solely because of this post:
Post 101

The vote was because he was the focus of my suspicion. Also I changed my vote from a random one so it isn't as though I was trying to jump off a dead wagon or something like that.

I think that the discussion about wall-e is pointless until he's prodded. If he IS in fact lurking that might merit some discussion, but I'm beginning to suspect that he just flaked.

I'm also not liking the way Cubarey is looking. Though I did find IKs response a bit over-defensive it seems like Cub is trying to make it seem like much more than that. As a matter of fact...he contradicts himself saying that Xs question was not serious but meant to see how IK would react, then later he says that Xs remark was a simple request for information, and any townie would have taken it as such.

Seeing this now I'll change my vote once more.

Unvote

Vote: CUBAREY

Note how he dismisses the legitimate attacks on IK and wall-e.

In the context of post 101, how were the attacks on Wall-E and IK legitimate?

[X]

Anyway, to respond to your statement back when and because it seems pertinent now, just because I do not think lurking in and of itself is scummy do not think I do not notice or want to do something about it.

When someone has less access, that's one thing. When someone's lurking, it's another. Lurking is scummy.

@X, hedging just means saying that you could be wrong.

e.g. wall-e's lurking is scummy BUT he might just be lazy.

It's not necessarily a scum tell, but scum can use it so that they can point back and say they were suspicious of their partners.

I see. And there is a lot of hedging in Idiotking's posts.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

@X

And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

So, in this game, would you say your intention/method has been to attack indiscriminately, shooting (mostly loaded) questions whenever you see something about which reactions could be gotten out of?
(not suggesting this would be a bad thing in itself)

Not exactly. I'd say that that

was

my method at the beginning of the game. Now there are actual conversations going, so I don't have to provoke anything.

[X]

Sorry for the double-post.

V/LA until Sunday.

College visits.

[X]

Anyway, to respond to your statement back when and because it seems pertinent now, just because I do not think lurking in and of itself is scummy do not think I do not notice or want to do something about it.

When someone has less access, that's one thing. When someone's lurking, it's another. Lurking is scummy.

@X, hedging just means saying that you could be wrong.

e.g. wall-e's lurking is scummy BUT he might just be lazy.

It's not necessarily a scum tell, but scum can use it so that they can point back and say they were suspicious of their partners.

I see. And there is a lot of hedging in Idiotking's posts.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

Please name what you think we should be discussing, X?

Looks like you guys found enough to talk about.

Still, your next message is the one (144) were you post your impressions on people. On the "townish" section are:

CUBAREY is not scummy, just confused, I think. He doesn’t get that the natural gut reaction to a loaded question is to think that your inquisitor is scum.
Idiotking is not scummy. He reacted well under pressure.
Ojanen is not scummy. He’s scumhunting analytically.

Sooo, CUBAREY votes for you. No explanation, but you've been badgering him recently before his vote (to be fair, several people have, but you're the loaded question guy). If he doesn't understand that natural gut reaction is to think that your inquisitor is scum, doesn't that kind of contradict the apparent reason of his vote? If his reason is something else totally unknown, why are you putting him to your townish-list without hearing explanation?

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't follow. I'm saying that he doesn't understand the concept. However, the idea still holds true for him, even though he doesn't realize it. Plus, I recognize that kind of confusion as my thought process in my first game on the site.

ISO 1: He random-votes me. I'm always suspicious when someone random-votes a player and then conveniently that person becomes their #1 scum suspect. It's a big coincidence pill to swallow. (smallville rocks)

ISO 9: Mentions me again, now taking a fence-sitty position on me.

ISO 12: Claims I'm adding no content despite the fact that I am.

ISO 13:

Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted a finger to find scum.

I dislike 13 because of the word, "Plus." A psychologist once told me that if I wanted to lie effectively I should give only one excuse when making an excuse for something, because the tendancy is for people to give two or more reasons, stringing them together with 'alsos' and 'besides.' X here looks like he's excusing himself from future attacks, and he gives two reasons. Minorest of minor points here, since I try to steer away from trying to find scum by reactions. This one popped out at me though.

ISO 15: He quotes someone else's defense of him in response to my "baiting" post and then goes on to vaguely respond to it. He follows that up with an appeal to emotion: "Wall-E, if you had done any of those attacks in 761 you would have been modkilled."

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

The contradiction here is telling, imo. Do you look for reactions (or "vibes" as some call them) or do you analyze plays?

ISO 20 and 21: He revisits IK and seems overly interested in IK's status. I think X is IK's partner, but I'm only about 20% sure.

Okay, I'll take this bit by bit. First, I can't see how it's tunneling to mention you in my first post and then not until my 9th. Second, my random vote turning into my prime suspect is coincidence, and not a very big coincidence. Third, I still think that you haven't scumhunted much, although it's certainly improving. And certainly you hadn't scumhunted up to post 135 (my ISO 12). Fourth, I can't see that my vocab is a scumtell. Fifth, in my "appeal to emotion," what was I trying to convince who of? Sixth, "vibes" are not the same thing as "reactions" for me. "Reply" + "action" = "reaction". "Vibes" are like stepping outside and, although there are clear skies and a sunny day, predicting there's gonna be a storm soon. Metaphysical kind of things. And lastly, I don't see how mentioning IK makes me IK's partner.

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

Gotcha.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts anywhere in this game).

Your parenthetical note is wrong.

That said, has anyone else done any meta on Wall-e? I've mentioned before that his behavior now seems fairly consistent with how he ALWAYS plays. So while he continues to be the most obviuous scum target in game, I cannot help but wonder if that is because he always (or almost always) reads scummy. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? This is especially important cuz I think Wall-e is at L-2 (if I can count correctly...and considering how little coffee I have in me atm, I have serious doubts about my number-skillz atm )

When I get the time, I'll try to. I have one game of knowledge already (I'm mod), but it's ongoing.

Just for the record, I disagree with you on RVS, Sajin. I think it leads to information, but I don't think it leads to more information if more people random vote (assuming people still post).

I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).

Saying this is as scummy as voting without a reason. Can you tell me what reasons those who are on my wagon have given that you consider weak? Otherwise you're scum who knows I'm town and you're engaging in villagery.

QFT.

makes

me

the most obvious scum target atm. So Vote: CUBAREY

Unvote: Vote: Hero

A slip, a joking confession, and bussing IK.

Um, no. When people didn't buy your case on me, you decide to find another target on flimsy reasons?

Jase needs to talk more. A lot more. And I don't get the Hero/YB interaction. What are the cases, again?

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Wall-E, this is an example of vibe

. I think it's null.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell.

Depends on the person. I've joke-confessed as town. Natirasha confesses to be SK every game. If, say, Thestatusquo or SensFan did it, I might think otherwise. Or that someone hacked their account...

There are almost definitely things that I've missed. Let me know.

[X]

My case in a nutshell was that I thought that Hero's opinions too closely mirrored Jase's opinions, both in who he suspected, and how strongly he suspected them.

Ah, that's where I got confused. Jase has barely articulated his suspicions.

And this progression, IMO, is hilarious:

@Wall-e: You completely did not respond to my post 410. Me pointing out that you MADE UP A VOTE isn't something you should ignore. I do not know if you made it up on purpose or on accident, and I also realize that even if you did it on purpose you would say its on accident so you don't have to point that out. However, some sort of response is appropriate. Also I am waiting for your response to my tunneling question.

Your imaginary vote post makes me want to vote for you again, and the ***ONLY*** thing keeping me from doing so is that you are so close to a lynch.

Are you denying early-game suspicion on IK on your part?

As his only response to YB, and then follows it with:

IK remains dismissive. His anger grants him some town points, but not enough for me to pull my vote off him.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now, he's incontrovertibly misrepresenting the facts

twice

here, which is pretty often compared to normal D1 discussion. I can't be certain that this is not an honest mistake, but it bothers me. And he still hasn't responded to my whole counterargument to his case against me. I really hope that your next post addresses this.

[X]

And this progression, IMO, is hilarious:

Hilarious? How so?

Because it shows an utter disregard for facts, twice.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia. I also don't like his claim that tunneling = scum in 396.

Lying about outside conditions is just plain wrong. I don't think anyone on the forum would lie about that.

Let me know if anyone wants me to claim.

You already claimed VT.

Not to mention, the only other game I've seen you play, you were scum and lurked like crazy. Just like now, really.

QFT.

Alright, so most seem to agree that a Wall-E lynch would be good. I've already explained my reasons for suspecting him. I've got no problem putting down the hammer. My question to you is: Do you think we're at a good time to end Day 1?

What what what??? I mean, 20 pages is a bit long for D1, but I still think it's a little early, because some people have lurked for most of the day, and we're still waiting on a replacement...oh, my...

FoS: Hero764

.

Is that what WIFOM is?

Indeed. Now all we have to do is figure out if Jase is the type of man who would poison his own wine, or his enemy's wine.

But it's so simple.

First, outline your own perspective of the events in the thread in such a way as to explain away my points against you. When you've done that, find every question you claim I have not answered and put them into a single post to back your claim that I have not been answering questions to a degree deserving of a vote. When you've done that, I'll know you deserve what you've been screaming for for the last three pages and I will answer every single one of said questions (presuming none of them are rhetorical or unhelpful in other ways, such as someone asking me who I think looks most town).

Do you think you're in the position to barter right now? You answer the questions that YB and I have been badgering you about first.

[X]

“In detail” ≠ “At-a-glance”

In other news, due to chemical contamination, Bill Nye was found immune to the effects of iocaine powder. More news at 11.

This is fantastic.

Jase, you have been less active than many of the people here. That's why we're asking you for more detail. And IK should respond to the questions he's asked, but Wall-E's request is excessive. And I didn't realize until after I posted that IK had collected the questions.

Wall-E, please answer IK's, YB's, and my questions as soon as you can.

[X]

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

Um, not true. You claimed to quickly. You ignore questions. You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you. You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you. You misrepresent facts.

QFT.

Hero: I meant you'd be hurting the town by cutting off discussion. I'm not going to claim that lynching me would hurt the town, because such a claim would be penultimate WIFOM. For the record, it would.

It doesn't cut off discussion though(except the 72 hour period). IT picks right back up on D2. Am I missing something here?

Yes. There's one (or more) NKs each Night. We don't want to let scum eliminate town minds from the discussion, or from the game. That said, I think it's about time for a lynch. We should definitely wait for CUBAREY's replacement, though.

Why should I answer your questions when you don't like answering mine???

Bad attitude is noted.

Like it matters.

[X]

Rhetoric is repeating the talking-points of others without offering supporting evidence.

False. "Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade." - Wikipedia. So most of playing mafia (actively) is rhetoric. But if the definition that you just gave is what you mean by rhetoric, I gotta re-read a few of your posts.

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

I rarely react to anything. It's a difference between me and other people. If you have questions, I will answer them.

I had to read this a couple times, because I couldn't believe that I'm reading this. That's one of the conditions of life: grow, develop, respond to stimuli, reproduce...

Stand by while I explain (most, if not all of) Kreriov's points.

[X]

Rhetoric does not preclude argumentation. And I know you didn't say never, but I'm still amazed that you don't respond to things.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Evidence from thread:

From IK: "WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??" was ignored for a while. Also posts 426 & 427 certainly warranted a response from you. Your response to 491 was mostly, "I'm not gonna respond to this." You have not responded to 532. Ojanen's post 271 was completely ignored, as well as the questions at the bottom of 331, until 390. Your post 170 does not really answer YB's questions, and she asks more that you ignore in post 193. Then you ignore YB's 208. And later 410. And then 484. And as for me, you didn't really respond to the questions or assertions I made in 420.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

X's Modification:

You seem to attack whomever you can with whatever reasoning you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Evidence from thread:

Your post 191, voting for IK was very late. Then 252 is the same thing. 266, you vote for me, on what I have outlined as a very flimsy case. And then vote IK again in the same post. 311 you vote for Hero for joking and "bussing IK". Later you say, "Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim." and follow it with, "

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him."

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Evidence from thread:

Basically just the evidence from Point 3 concerning Hero. This point is really weak, IMO.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Evidence from thread:

Post 409, you say that YB voted for IK as a distancing tactic. However, YB has only voted for Lleu (Sajin), Hero, and you. Post 425, you say you won't pull your vote off of IK when your vote is on Hero.

[X]

Oh, wow, I just noticed that my last post is a vote for IK. Should have stuck with the quote function.

Unvote: Vote: Wall-E

.

[X]

As to other concerns, I think that IK is probably not scum

I urge you that he is the mafia, I am 65% certain.

I guess you guys missed this. These were

consecutive posts

.

I will be happy to post more content if people ask me questions or on day 2 whichever happens first.

This sort of posting is worse than what Wall-e is doing. Wall-e isn't being the most cooperative about answering questions -- this is true. But at least he's atte ltj g to participating.

Not quite worse, but very bad.

It may just be impatience but hero seems to be trying to rush the lynch, and I do not like it.

@Sajin:
Would you kindly state your thoughts of YB.

@qwints:
I'd appreciate it if you'd tell us what you think of kreriov.

Jase, I would like your opinions of 3 people. Any three people, as long as they're detailed.

Hero, your 594 is contradictory.

I have a long post ready for day2. The reason I have not posted said list is because we have a decent day 1 lynch for varying but somewhat agreed upon reasons. I dislike lining up lynches.

Um, any and all suspicions are best aired. While lining up lynches is one story, finding multiple scum is good. I would ask you to post it, but wait until after we get replacements.

I think people should refrain from posting much and often. We're trying to

encourage

people to replace in. We definitely shouldn't end the day before the replacements get here and read.

tl;dr: Basically, read more & post less for now.

[X]

Hero, your 594 is contradictory.

"Oh hey, I'm Mr. X and I like to be obscure as fuck in my posts."

1. If I've been obscure consistently, point it out and I'll try to clarify.
2. Saying end of Day is good is trying to persuade people to end the Day, especially in the charged way that you said it.

I find it contradictory that you would post that you want less posting, and in the same post make a comment that I HAVE TO make a post responding to.

You're misrepresenting my position. I think we should post less to make it easy on the replacements. However that doesn't mean don't post.

I am not so sure Sajin is correct in that we have to lynch him. If we have a cop, Wall-E is a prime candidate for an investigation.

We don't really have to do anything. I'd prefer not to speculate on the setup. And I think we

should

lynch Wall-E, in the likelihood that we

have

to lynch him to win.

[X]

Hero, your 594 is contradictory.

"Oh hey, I'm Mr. X and I like to be obscure as fuck in my posts."

1. If I've been obscure consistently, point it out and I'll try to clarify.
2. Saying end of Day is good is trying to persuade people to end the Day, especially in the charged way that you said it.

1. It wasn't meant like that. I'm sure if I looked I could some posts but I really don't think it would impact the game that much.
2. Charged way? Explain.

"Hey guess what?" is sort of a humiliating sentence, trying to make Wall-E look stupid. Furthermore, the use of "shitload" is an exaggeration. Both are (confrontational) ways of trying to persuade. You use them here:

Why would you want to cut off discussion like that Hero?

Hey guess what? Discussion usually picks right back up on Day 2, only difference is we have a shitload more to go on.

qwints' first post is quite illuminating, and I like his points. His second starts slow, with really weak town tells on Kreriov, which I don't think are valid, but continues to show some very good analysis. Kreriov I'm seeing as pro-town now, and I actually think I can understand his POV in 21 - he's reserving judgment, giving Wall-E a chance.

Not rolefishing at all. It's actually the opposite of that; I'm saying there's no way we could EVER know Wall-E's real role until he's dead, so we shouldn't try to figure it out unless Wall-E suddenly becomes very, very cooperative.

Once you start talking about roles other than Town v. Scum, it can be rolefishing, or at least speculating. You were definitely speculating on Wall-E being a PR.

My plan hurts scum worse then it hurts town.

Wait, you really think we should not talk about anything other than Wall-E right now?

FoS: Sajin

.

I made no such assumption. I said 1) asking for permission to hammer is a mild scum tell and 2) that IF you were scum, then your play would be more consistent with Wall-E being town. I do admit, however, that the conclusion is flawed. The conclusion should be IF hero is scum, Wall-E is more likely to be true.

The statement that IF Wall-E is town, THEN Hero is more likely to be scum is the converse of the proper conclusion and not necessarily true.

The statement that is implied is that if Wall-E is not town, THEN Hero is more likely to be not scum. I'm not sure how I feel about that conclusion, even though it seems to follow from my initial premise.

No, I thought that

Wall-E

==>

Hero764[/b]

made sense, because scum are more likely to ask permission to hammer townies - not just more likely than scum hammering scum, but than town hammering anyone. Still, the whole thing (asking to hammer) is only a minute tell.

Sorry, this should be my last college visit.

V/LA until Tuesday.

I'll try to get to a computer, this game is second in precedence right now (after finding a replacement for Mini 761).

[X]

Woohoo! Good news! Found a replacement (pre-empting the offers I would have received).

[X]

Hero's first response satisfies me. As for his last response, hammering is not a scum tell. Worrying about looking scummy due to hammering is a scumtell - because if town is considering hammering, they will think the person is scum, and if the scum is considering hammering (unless they are forced to bus), then they will know that the person is town. And yes, quick hammers are scummy. Now would not be a quick hammer, but still bad because replacements are to be found.

Townies can lie. To say they can't is folly. Do you know what a gambit is? Sometimes they require lies. Lynch all liars is a good guideline to follow, but it's not absolute law to me. So I guess it's not lynch ALL liars as opposed to lynch MOST liars with the exception of gambits from townies. The trouble is isolating the gambits from the scum lies.

Gambits should be used extremely sparingly - as in, only when the potential gain is large and extremely likely. When someone is forced to roleclaim and they claim VT, I assume they're telling the truth until I get a really good reason otherwise. So the only exception I see to LAL is when the person contradicts themself, they explain why they lied in the first place (ie, Lepton's Gambit).

[X]

@670, I <3 qwints.

familiar faces-uh, avatars...

Hello, God! I mean...

look who got caught in a slip

I don't understand this.

And guys, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but Wall-E should not be lynched based on claiming Vanilla. Claiming so early is a tell, and there are other reasons that I've enumerated (and he is still ignoring).

[X]

I think the statistic reasons to lynch Vanilla Today are infinitesimal in comparison to the content reasons. And the numbers are slightly in favor of lynching a claimed Vanilla, but it's such a minor reason that it doesn't deserve being talked about.

If this is the FoS part, I agree with it.

IMO IK just wants to pressure other people to get PRs to claim.

[X]

You favor lynching Wall-E, right?
You're only saying that his claim is not sufficient warrant on its own?

Yes to both. Sorry if I was unclear.

Wall-E isn't going to comply with anything you ask. He still hasn't even mentioned my post 552.

Metababble (I like that word) is not a scumtell. And I can't see how you can argue that what happened in the random stage makes it very likely that qwints and I are linked. Wall-E, in your post 718, I don't even see qwints mentioned.

In other news,

we need replacements/prods for Burfy and Ojanen. Your call, mod.

[X]

#552 X: Where's Point 1?

They're all outlined in #542, originally written by Kreriov, paraphrased by Wall-E, quoted by IK, and then proven by me. I thought point 1 was already basically proven - almost everyone has expressed that sentiment, and supported it in some form.

@Wall-E

Point 1: You claimed to quickly.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

I'm disappointed that Sajin ignored my post 723. Were you softclaiming, Sajin?

I'm disappointed that Wall-E ignored my post 552. But that's to be expected. Oh, well.

unvote vote sajin

Don't take it personal, but i think you're scum

You gonna support your vote, or what?

Does anyone else realize that Wall-E only has 4 out of 7 votes? That needs to change soon after SC and Looker finish reading.

[X]

Okay, but i still think that there's a possibility sajin could be just as scummy as wall-e is believed to be. So rather than hopping on wall-e's wagon, I placed a vote on sajin. You think i'm scum or do you just not like the way i placed a vote with no reasoning? are you refuting my townieness or my playstyle?

Are you saying that it was a playstyle choice to not give reasons for what you vote? Because that playstyle is very good for scum and very bad for town.

HoS: Looker

. Basically, I think it was a scummy action, not a stylistic choice.

well lets get some more events happening so we have more to talk about.

vote: Wall-e

/mod: prod cubarey

im voting you because i can't find where you stated your reason for this and then got mad at jase because he did the same thing. inconsistency, that's all.

So you would be fine if he voted without reasons? And I think he did give reasons for that vote, in his first (content) post, 243.

Coming soon:

Response to Wall-E.

[X]

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Evidence from thread:

From IK: "WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??" was ignored for a while.

Rhetoric. He set up a strawman, saying that I felt nobody else was scummy and then attacked that. Care to restate yourself?

But the case that you were arguing was a page 3 (IK's mistake) viewpoint. I was getting the impression that you were ignoring what had happened more recently, except post 311 (which also assumed that your case on IK was accurate).

Also posts 426 & 427 certainly warranted a response from you.

I disagree, but let's look them over, shall we?

I wouldn't be so dismissive if you'd actually come up with some semblance of a decent case against me.

Instead of refuting my supporting evidence he continues to dismiss the case.

Your supporting evidence boiled down to two things, neither of which are truly scumtells: flipping out and not liking RVS. I can't identify much of a case beyond that, and from what IK wrote, neither could he. Don't say I'm dismissing your case - dismissing it requires acknowledging that the argument existed in the first place.

But instead of that you've noticed "connections" between me, CUBAREY, X, yellowbunny, and Hero. Yes, we're ALL one big scum family, aren't we?

Rhetorical and irrelevant. I don't catch scum by looking at connections. I catch scum and then I look FOR connections.

Okay, that sort of makes sense, but it could have looked like you were trying to use very weak connections to catch scum. Now I see that you think you've caught IK this whole time.

This whole voting for each other thing must just be one hugely elaborate bussing scheme, eh?

I'm not a sneaky snake like you.

This is rhetoric, dismissive, and begging the question.

You don't seem to understand that every interaction someone has with another player doesn't mean there's a connection between them.

Strawman.

Agreed.

It could just be an interaction, nothing more, nothing less.

This is the only bit of actual refutation he gives, and it's WIFOM.

Then you could have said that it was WIFOM.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now I am

But right after this post, you backed off, and didn't even vote him. I couldn't tell whether you missed the comment or not.

Your response to 491 was mostly, "I'm not gonna respond to this."

No, it wasn't. I didn't say that at all.

You didn't say it, but you did say the following similar statements:

...
Already answered.
...
I don't see much to comment on here.
...
I see no question here.
...
I see no question here
...
I see no questions here.

So although you did answer a few of the questions, you didn't respond to the vast majority of the post.

You have not responded to 532.

All right. I'll do this. Fine.

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy.

I don't recall doubting my scumhunting, if that's what you're implicating.

I'm certain that that's not what he's implicating. He meant to say that "you ask why

we think/say/know

the evidence you have presented is crappy."

That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late.

Apparently not to my prior satisfaction. Information does not go out of style like pants.

Information does not go out of style, but there are small tells that can be easily explained away and should be forgotten, in order to focus on the more pressing matters.

Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS?

Strawman.

As I see it, you have that reason, and the circular reasoning (IK, therefore someone else, therefore IK), and the flipouts.

Is that REALLY the only reason you have?

No. Read my posts again please. Specifically the huge case I posted against you.

I might have missed something, but I think I covered the three main things, while he only covered one.

I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this.

Rhetoric, unnecessary to respond to.

In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum.

More rhetoric.

Well, he's explaining his position, not his evidence. That does deserve mentioning now and then.

Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Appeal to emotion-y.

Huh? It doesn't match what I learned appeal to emotion as. Please elaborate (if for nothing else, for my own edification).

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Ok... so where is the logical fallacy here? What exactly are you referring to?

The logical fallacy is attacking my ethics instead of addressing my case. The proper method of refutation is to make counter-points that can explain away facts presented by the other party. What you have done is instead told everyone, LOL, WALL-E SUCKS AT MAFIA SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. This is called ad hominem.

I probably am reading this all wrong, because I think you're treating the word "ethics" in a way that I'm not thinking of it. Could you explain what you mean by "ethics?"

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates.

That's not true, but it's also irrelevant.

You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout.

Yes I have.

I don't believe you have. I just searched through your posts for "flipout" and "flip-out" and couldn't find an explanation. Please show me.

Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am?

I don't know you and must predicate all my decisions in this game on a clean-slate basis.

Do meta work. Which reminds me, I need to do some meta work on you when I get the time.

Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Rhetoric in light of my lack of knowledge of your meta.

Still deserves a response of yes or no.

Another thing. About the RVS thing. Do you NOT acknowledge that it got conversation going?

This may be the only true defense I've seen from IK. It's part of the reason I doubted myself

I believe this is valid, but I don't think its his only defense (as I've been explaining).

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

I've already said that the problem with this logic is that the scum aren't guaranteed to mess up, and in the meantime other players will be voting you for scummy plays. It's anti-town and I think you're doing it because you're scum.

I think this was in reference to a gambit. I agree with you, Wall-E, that town players shouldn't pull gambits unless they're extremely well planned.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

I can't defend against a vague claim of scummyness.

Understandable.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

You didn't place crap in my court.

I have.

It's been all over you since the beginning.

The burden of proof in this context has been lost to IK's quotechoppery. I'd go back and find it, but I have a lot of other things to comment on.

Yes, this whole argument is lost without the details.

Meta defense. Ok. I don't even know what meta is to the extent you people on this site have taken it.

Meta is explained in the wiki.

You should have told him that, rather than expected him to figure it out.

I do what I do as experimentation.

Do you see the problem with this defense? It goes back to being anti-town. I'm not saying don't experiment, but what does experimentation have to do with the fact that you have dismissed my points against you by claiming that you, "Always do stuff like that." That's a meta-defense.

Agreed.

Didn't you want to know the reasoning for why I do things?

Always.

If you didn't, why did you even bother asking?

What?

Was it a rhetorical question?

I've lost you.

Or did you not quote the question?

Still lost.

Your quizzical answers to the remaining questions are because you answered "yes" when he was expecting "no," which was actually a rhetorical question.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is still a good point.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc.

I'm with you up to here, because what you're talking about sounds fun and useful. Your words soothe me, and make me want to help you be random and destructive! That was heavily sarcastic.

Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why.

Like running in front of a shooting range to see who is a dirty cop. Obviously a clean cop would never shoot a moron.

If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

I have been chastized for previously referring to my meta as being a poor player. By you.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

This totally contradicts your prior assertion that you "like to experiment and set yourself up as a target to catch scum."

Here is the problem with what you are doing. (gosh I'm smart)

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't. (so smart)

My response here would be the exact same response as I had when I responded to this originally. You dismissed it (ironic, considering you called it dismissive).

Not true. You made a counter-argument and I let it lie for a while. Upon reviewing your counter-argument, I believe I've spotted all the holes.

But you didn't respond until practically forced to. If you were town and that was really your approach, you would say something along the lines of, "I think there's something wrong with your reasoning, but I can't put my finger on it. Give me a few days to digest it."

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

We've been over this in this post (again) already.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Yeah, I have. Recently. Look it up yourself. I've already done enough for you.

He still has not. He's being unhelpful merely because he is the target of my scumhunt, which is anti-town.

His uncooperative demeanor is noted. It is somewhat little anti-town, but not necessarily scummy.

---

That's about half. I don't know when I'll get to the other half, but I'll definitely aim for before deadline. Note also, so far, he hasn't combated the point that he ignores things, he just starts answering them. It's a start, but he still has been ignoring a lot when left to his own devices.

[X]

Are you kidding me?

1.) Who are the people you find most scummy?

1. Paying attention mostly to Wall-E (still don't understand his post 788, Idiotking (don't like his post 826 because it makes me think he's scum with wall-e), &

Looker (because, in his post 821, he referred to a post by yellowbunny and said it was sajin's. That and his general attitude of apathy as displayed in his post 823)

Okay, you haven't given us much information to go on, and you spend the same amount of time talking about how you're suspicious of yourself as of Wall-E and IK combined? There's a problem there.

[X]

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

I see. But he didn't use it to prove his point. His point was that scum or bad townies do XYZ, and you did XYZ.

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

In relation to why IK is scum? I haven't seen him use many logical fallacies to prove his points, including the ones that you have pointed out. As for a flip-out, I think that's his personality - being combative and using charged language is not a scumtell for many people.

Please re-word your third charge.

And what has IK dismissed?

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words.

1. I'm an authority?
2. An appeal to authority is like: "X said Wall-E is scum, therefore Wall-E is scum." It amounts to agreeing with someone without supportive reasoning.

I don't see what I said that IK is blindly agreeing with.

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

In short, Wall-E, IK was arguing that part of your case (which you identified as the things I agreed with) only concerned nulltells. His argument was his own, and not based on an appeal to any authority as far as I can tell.

@ qwints - that's not the case. words dont matter, votes do

Both matter. I am amazed at your single-mindedness toward voting.

I think Wall-E is scum, and Looker is a likely candidate. Let's get one of them on the gallows.

[X]

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

I see. But he didn't use it to prove his point. His point was that scum or bad townies do XYZ, and you did XYZ.

I'm town, so it's not a scumtell. I realize this is not an argument, but I've already explained myself in regards to XYZ.

He often replies to my points with laughter and meta-defense, which I don't accept as proper refutation because meta-behavior, to an extent, has to be ignored in the case of frequently anti-town players. The only proper response to an anti-town player is to correct them repeatedly by lynching. It's a long-term versus short-term gain issue, and that is where I stand on it.

So you think he's either scum or an anti-town player who has to be lynched in order to correct his anti-town ways? Being satisfied with the second possibility is not playing to win, assuming you're town.

Simply saying, "Person agrees with me" is not a valid argument because you are 1) not any kind of an expert on this subject (you supposedly know as much as I do if you're town) and 2) your opinion does not effect his alignment. Alternately, his alignment does not affect your perception of his win condition. That's an appeal to authority.

I agree with you up to this point.

He's establishing you as a viable reference based on nothing but the fact that you happen to agree with him (incorrectly).

No, he's establishing my post as a reference based on the fact that it exists. You also referred to it. It's not a viable reference.

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

You have personally agreed with many of my logical fallacy callouts.

Some, not many.

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

Please name the ones that aren't.

I can try to point out a few, but I certainly can't get to all of them, finish replying to the rest of your really long post on the previous page, do meta research on you, and do well on my AP tests before deadline. The one that we're currently talking about is a start.

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

As I've said, it's an appeal to authority.

No, no it's not. I definitely agreed with you about those things. And you definitely identified the things that I agreed with you on as points against IK. Referring to someone is not an appeal to authority, or a scumtell.

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

[/b]

I agree with you there, but an appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority no matter what goal the user intends. Strawman on your part. I don't think it was intentional as you seem unaware of the definition of appeal to authority as it refers to the logical fallacy. I'm going to rewrite what you just wrote to demonstrate that you actually agree with me: IK said that X agreed with things that had nothing to do with the case against himself in order to establish supporting evidence for his claim that X doesn't agree with the case against IK. We don't really need that evidence, and it's STILL an appeal to authority (you).

Don't tell me that I don't know that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I'm quite insulted, really.

Logical fallacies refer to the use of arguments that can prove false things.

An appeal to authority is fallacious because it presupposes that the authority is infallible. It consists of person A saying something, and person B arguing that it is true

because

person A said it.

IK took your label for some of your "evidence," which was "the things X agreed with in his latest post." Then he said that the "evidence," because it only talked about quoting skills and rage, was not real evidence.

He was not saying that I don't agree with the case on IK.

That is true, but he was not saying that.

He was saying that the case on him was flimsy.

That aside, you seem to be flip-flopping on the issue of my alignment, X.

Where did you get the impression that I saw you as town?

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Untrue. I point out the logical fallacies regardless of who makes them or the motive behind them. It keeps the information in the thread as clean as possible.

That's all fine and dandy that you point out logical fallacies. It's a good thing to do. I just think you misidentify a fair amount of them. That misidentification has clogged up this thread, IMO.

At the end of this day, you are all going to have to decide for yourselves who to believe. I had my moment of doubt about IK earlier, and I'm over it. I'm ready to sail this ship into the rocks, even if everyone else is boarding another boat while I do and firing cannons at me besides.

Nice analogy. I plan to keep firing away.

[X]

I'll try to avoid major quote pyramids here, so here goes:

• 1. Lynching someone because of something they always do is not finding scum. You seem to be fine with lynching IK because of something that he might always do (neither of us have checked yet).
  2. Referring to someone's opinion is not necessarily an appeal to authority, especially when it is used as a marker for which arguments are being discussed.
  3. Sorry.
  4. I would say it's significant enough to change. Just like the difference between "some" and "many" people voting for you can be difference between being alive and being lynched. So what I'm saying is that changing "many" to "some" weakens your point that I have agreed with your identifications of fallacies.
  5. My definition of fallacy was unintentionally slightly misleading, and you caught that. I meant that a logical fallacy is a method of reasoning that is able to prove something true that is not true. Fallacies can be and are employed about true and false statements.
  6. I am not softclaiming. However, my reasoning (as anyone else's) can be sound, and someone can agree with my sound reasoning without it being an appeal to authority. i.e., "We are playing a game of mafia. The game of mafia has an informed minority. Therefore, there is an informed minority in this game." If someone else hears this and says, "I know the first two statements are true, so the third is true," that is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy if someone else only hears the last sentence and decides, for no other reason than that I said it, that it is true.
  It would also be an appeal to authority if someone heard, "I did well in a Logic class first semester," and then assumed that, "Therefore he can tell what is a fallacy or not."
  7. I assert that your case is the best on the table, followed by Looker's who is pretty much not explaining himself, and Jase is really lurking hard, IMO.
  8. I am starting to get annoyed with these third-grade responses (I still deny that your definition of rhetoric is accurate). Offer you something more? In terms of what? My first instinct is that you're begging me to say or do something scummy so that hyposcum you can jump on
  hypo
  town me.

[X]

fos Sajin

for thinking it's scummy to list your opinions, based on his own opinion rather than what is actually scummy.

Quoted for truth. May I ask how posting a top three is lining up lynches, Sajin?

Further quoted for truth. I am not lining up lynches. I'm not saying we have to lynch these people, especially not if more leads come up. But airing suspicions is pro-town. Having only one suspect, except in a three-person endgame or very close to the RVS, is called tunneling, which can be a scumtell, but is certainly anti-town.

[X]

Lining up lynches is "lynch player X today and player Y tomorrow without regard for information gained in between".

This.

X et all- Please define the difference between making lists of how scummy people are and lining up lynches for me? This is especially true the way you presented it with orders in the list. I fail to see how one can be bad and one can be good in your eyes. At least I am consistent on my opinion in this matter.

I have seen sentiment against making scum lists on day 1 (especially late day 1), but that's because they essentially tell the Mafia who to keep around. Lining up lynches is "lynch player X today and player Y tomorrow without regard for information gained in between".

Exactly what I have been saying. I saw X's comment borderline lining up and also posting a scumlist. I disliked it on both counts.

Posting a scumlist makes it sound like I've figured it all out. I've posted my suspicions.

It is pro-town to have suspicions aired.

Why? Because if someone posts their "suspicions," then go back on those suspicions, then it's only a matter of seeing if they can cite a logical reason for the change of heart. If they can, then the whole thing is null, but if they can't, then that's 1 scum down.

Deadline's coming soon. Let's get a lynch. Preferably on Wall-E.

[X]

Okay, this time I'll take out the things that I don't think we're going to get any more information out of.

Wall-E. This entire case is insubstantial and quibbling over trivial issues that don't matter.

Dismissive ad hominem.

Not slips that people missed, not elaborate scumhunting. Trivial. Stuff. Doesn't. Matter.

Nuh uh! You are in third grade! (IK is not likely in third grade. I was responding to his ad hominem in kind)

I was honestly hoping you'd have something better for me, considering you've been harping on about you're "case" for days now. This is yet another disappointment.

At this point IK's attitude toward my scumhunt is waxing EXTREMELY dismissive and SUPREMELY ad hominal, to invent a word.

These are not ad hominems, including the one you said, Wall-E. That was an insult, not an ad hominem. I'll give you that it's dismissive, this time.

Ojanen's post 271 was completely ignored,

I could quibble here and point out that I did not ignore this post, only part of it, but we both know that would be silly to say, since the part you want me to comment on is the game-relevant information and not the metacognitive inquiries.

So you did partially ignore it. But I was wrong, I missed that you responded to part of it.

In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd.

I can agree to that. I find X's overall performance in this game to be satisfactory, if a bit rare.

You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.

This was an excellent point. Try doing things like this, IK. You are, of course, right, Ojanen. I was interpreting X's plays in the worst-possible light. So?

This sort of contradicts with the little that you did say in 273.

as well as the questions at the bottom of 331, until 390.

So they WERE answered. Ok, good.

I'm saying that you ignore questions until really pressured to answer them, which is scummy.

Your post 170 does not really answer YB's questions, and she asks more that you ignore in post 193.

I felt that entire discussion was adequately wrapped-up. If you have a question about this part still, X (as I have no idea what specifically you're looking for, necessitating nearly an hour of typing and research to try to prevent a mislynch) please quote and research yourself and I will address any concerns you have.

Then you ignore YB's 208. And later 410. And then 484.

If YB wishes, I will address these posts, but I feel YB is satisfied with me at the moment.

I think you're missing the point. Some of the answers eventually came out, but only after much prodding and being forced. That unwillingness to be forthcoming with information is anti-town.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

My jeans never go out of style, sir. I'm a trendsetter.

But you shouldn't keep wearing those jeans when you realize that there are better jeans that you already own.

Bottom part of 266. Excised for cumbersomeness.

Okay, I'll take this bit by bit. First, I can't see how it's tunneling to mention you in my first post and then not until my 9th.

Gods I wish you were IK. Point taken.

Second, my random vote turning into my prime suspect is coincidence, and not a very big coincidence.

Meh. Maybe.

Third, I still think that you haven't scumhunted much, although it's certainly improving.

Some games I have considerably more time to dedicate to and others I barely participate in. It's really dependant on the other players and how much of a scum read I get.

And certainly you hadn't scumhunted up to post 135 (my ISO 12).

I would go back and check if I have made ANY posts in this game that can be considered NOT scumhunting, but we both know I can argue that I haven't and you can find a way to argue that I have. Suffice to say, just because you don't agree with my scumhunting doesn't invalidate it.

Fourth, I can't see that my vocab is a scumtell.

I stand by that one.

Fifth, in my "appeal to emotion," what was I trying to convince who of?

Good point. Retracted.

Sixth, "vibes" are not the same thing as "reactions" for me. "Reply" + "action" = "reaction". "Vibes" are like stepping outside and, although there are clear skies and a sunny day, predicting there's gonna be a storm soon. Metaphysical kind of things.

Alright. Connotation FTW.

And lastly, I don't see how mentioning IK makes me IK's partner.

It doesn't. There is no situation in which you mentioning another player in a game will cause that person to retroactively become your partner. I don't understand this part and suddenly I'm sour on your 'I'm a logic-player' meta speech.

Okay, those positions make sense, more or less. (Notice that in here is another example of a fallacy that you detected and I disagreed with.)

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts anywhere in this game).

Your parenthetical note is wrong.

Howso?

I'll give you some numbers under 420, which was when I posted this: ISO (43-1, 35, 25-22, 17, 15, 4-0). Some of those are easily forgivable, because it was either a confirm or just a joke, but some are just empty.

---

I have from qwints' post on to respond to.

[X]

That said, has anyone else done any meta on Wall-e? I've mentioned before that his behavior now seems fairly consistent with how he ALWAYS plays. So while he continues to be the most obviuous scum target in game, I cannot help but wonder if that is because he always (or almost always) reads scummy. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? This is especially important cuz I think Wall-e is at L-2 (if I can count correctly...and considering how little coffee I have in me atm, I have serious doubts about my number-skillz atm )

When I get the time, I'll try to. I have one game of knowledge already (I'm mod), but it's ongoing.

What have you decided about my meta, X?

I haven't had time! I'm responding to all of this, and I still have AP tests to worry about.

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Wall-E, this is an example of vibe

. I think it's null.

Again, all I see is a contradiction or a potential semantics debate.

Defending yourself and being defensive are two slightly different things. "It looks a little scummy." The exact reasoning is lost - it's just a feeling; it's just a vibe.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell.

Depends on the person. I've joke-confessed as town. Natirasha confesses to be SK every game. If, say, Thestatusquo or SensFan did it, I might think otherwise. Or that someone hacked their account...

Regardless, having no idea how to separate those who are claiming scum as town from those who are claiming scum as scum, I must attack them all. Shouldn't you?

[/quote]No. If you can't separate scum claiming scum from town claiming scum

any better

than scum not claiming from town not claiming, then you shouldn't attack them for it.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

You seem to be made of jelly. I can't offer any evidence, but it seems it's true.

X's Modification:

You seem to attack whomever you can with whatever reasoning you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Evidence from thread:

Your post 191, voting for IK was very late. Then 252 is the same thing. 266, you vote for me, on what I have outlined as a very flimsy case. And then vote IK again in the same post. 311 you vote for Hero for joking and "bussing IK". Later you say, "Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim." and follow it with, "

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him."

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.

Actions speak louder than words. Your assurance isn't convincing me any. And isn't it a little bad to have "lynching IK" as more important than "winning the game?"

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Your opinion is noted, whomever you are X is quoting.

Evidence from thread:

Basically just the evidence from Point 3 concerning Hero. This point is really weak, IMO.

How weak is really weak? Will 'ignoring' it further get me killed? For the record, I am not ignoring anything. I have already stated my reasoning in each of my vote posts or subsequently, and so this argument is refuted already.

No, I don't fault you for it. And I think the points were originally Kreriov's.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Evidence from thread:

Post 409, you say that YB voted for IK as a distancing tactic. However, YB has only voted for Lleu (Sajin), Hero, and you.

This is me legitimately misrepresenting a fact. The fact remains, however, that it can be taken as distancing.

1. I cannot tell misrepresenting facts from legitimately misrepresenting facts, and scum are much more likely to manipulate the evidence to convince people.
2. What can be taken as distancing? The vote that you invented?

Post 425, you say you won't pull your vote off of IK when your vote is on Hero.

What about this is scummy?

You're lying. So you're either trying to jumble your objectives in your head (look like town, but campaign against the town) or you're just trying to make us forget where your vote is.

[X]

At this point, I'm willing to lynch Looker today. He came back and didn't add

anything

to the conversation, and I still have yet to do my meta work on Wall-E.

Unvote: Wall-E

,

Vote: Looker

.

Defending yourself is good. Being defensive is bad. It looks a little scummy.

Wall-E, this is an example of vibe

. I think it's null.

Again, all I see is a contradiction or a potential semantics debate.

Defending yourself and being defensive are two slightly different things. "It looks a little scummy." The exact reasoning is lost - it's just a feeling; it's just a vibe.

That makes no sense to me still.

All I was saying was that I don't think that way, which is what I identify as vibe. Vibe consists of things that are too subtle to be explicitly explained.

A confession, even a joking one, is a scumtell.

Depends on the person. I've joke-confessed as town. Natirasha confesses to be SK every game. If, say, Thestatusquo or SensFan did it, I might think otherwise. Or that someone hacked their account...

Regardless, having no idea how to separate those who are claiming scum as town from those who are claiming scum as scum, I must attack them all. Shouldn't you?

No. If you can't separate scum claiming scum from town claiming scum

any better

than scum not claiming from town not claiming, then you shouldn't attack them for it.

I never said the words, "I can't tell any better." Misrep. What I said was, "I can't tell between Group C and Group D.

Group A: Townies who have not claimed scum.
Group B: Scum who have not claimed scum.
Group C: Townies who have claimed scum.
Group D: Scum who have claimed scum.

What you just lied and claimed I said was, "I can't tell the difference between A and B any better than I can tell the difference between C and D." That's not true. What I said was, "No matter what you may really be, you claimed scum. That makes you more likely to actually BE scum."

I stand by this assertion.

If you start with, "No matter what you may really be," then you can't end with, "That makes you more likely to actually BE scum." I fail to see how scum claim scum more often than town do.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

You seem to be made of jelly. I can't offer any evidence, but it seems it's true.

X's Modification:

You seem to attack whomever you can with whatever reasoning you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Evidence from thread:

Your post 191, voting for IK was very late. Then 252 is the same thing. 266, you vote for me, on what I have outlined as a very flimsy case. And then vote IK again in the same post. 311 you vote for Hero for joking and "bussing IK". Later you say, "Meh, if nobody agrees with an IK vote I'll stop pushing it, but it's my best lead. Let me know if anyone wants me to claim." and follow it with, "

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

for reasons I've stated and which he CONTINUES to dismiss or pretend aren't valid rather than explaining WHY they are invalid and offering his own perception of the things I've said about him."

I assure you that preventing my own death is my third priority. My first is lynching IK and my second is winning the game.

Actions speak louder than words. Your assurance isn't convincing me any. And isn't it a little bad to have "lynching IK" as more important than "winning the game?"

Read more serious. I don't like to repeat myself, as you know.

Your "defense" is that I read wrong. Somehow, somewhere. I don't see where. You're not convincing me. Perhaps because it's a lie?

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Evidence from thread:

Post 409, you say that YB voted for IK as a distancing tactic. However, YB has only voted for Lleu (Sajin), Hero, and you.

This is me legitimately misrepresenting a fact. The fact remains, however, that it can be taken as distancing.

1. I cannot tell misrepresenting facts from legitimately misrepresenting facts, and scum are much more likely to manipulate the evidence to convince people.
2. What can be taken as distancing? The vote that you invented?

1) You have a good point, I can't refute that beyond to say that it was not intentional misrepresentation (I'm not that dumb)
2) YB's posts of the time referencing IK.

There's only evidence of suspicion in IK (rather than just probing for answers) in post 85, which is the same place where YB FoS's him. To get back to your original post, you wrote:

I had the thought that YB and IK could be scumbuddies. Upon reading through the thread with that assumption in mind, some things YB has done appear to line up with that theory:

He starts by distancing IK, but soon downgrades his vote on IK to an FoS. Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.

So with this new realization in mind, that YB only FoSes IK, and then tunnels on you, would that still mean (with only the knowledge that we had up to 409) that YB and IK were likely partners?

Post 425, you say you won't pull your vote off of IK when your vote is on Hero.

What about this is scummy?

You're lying. So you're either trying to jumble your objectives in your head (look like town, but campaign against the town) or you're just trying to make us forget where your vote is.

My votes don't mean as much as my words. To put that another way, my vote is like an afterthought, the sword in the fencer's hand. It's all the work I do with my elbow, wrist, arm, back, legs and feet that won the match: The sword (vote) is just what killed the opponent.

So basically, you're pleading ignorant to where your vote was, because it wasn't your focus at the time. Alright. Still a misrepresentation.

You still have 887 to respond to.

[X]

I'm slightly discouraged about Wall-E, after doing meta. Wall-E has done some of these things as town, but some he has not. Granted, I only looked at two games.

In one game he was town and posted the following after lurking through 11 pages:

I didn't push "Watch this topic for replies" last time. It happened three different games this month. I'm pretty busy at school, so I blame that. Sorry.

He calls out ZSW for a flip-out in that game, and votes him. But I didn't notice him throwing out Fallacy names like calling cards. He also treated meta as a valid tool in that game.

In Open 114, where he was scum, he lurked through the middle of D1, and called things out a lot as Fallacies, such as:

"If you're not a mime, you must be scum."

Absolutism is scummy and anti-town.

Also expressed his ignoring mantra:

PS Jazz: Responses to questions don't require responses. Only questions do.

Also attacks Empking for not using logic - looks similar to his attacks on IK.

So yeah. I'm prepared to believe YB, and this doesn't give me overwhelming evidence for hypotown Wall-E.

Unvote: Looker

.

Vote: Wall-E

.

[X]

It's wolfy of you to suddenly investigate my meta and find me town just before I'm mislynched.

FoS: X

But I didn't find you town. There were a few things that I thought were tells before doing meta that evidently aren't tells for you, but I still think you're scum.

[X]

I obviously have my suspicions, but I think it's best to let the new guy speak his mind to start things off. Thanks for joining, BTW, SerialClergyman!

Hm...I'm gonna have to think up abbreviations for SerialClergyman and StrangerCoug.

[X]

I had suspicions of Jase, and Cler hasn't changed anything. Your insights were really lacking, and the only new thing that you said was the speculation on why neither Looker or YB died. Then after Ojanen posts some content, then you echo it. Not a good start for you. May I ask what you mean by a "conditioning move?"

Looker, if you really are town, you would do well to actually contribute to the game. The only reason I think you are town is because I think YB is town. Which brings me to:

It is extremely unfortunate that we do not have a cop anymore. I figured it was very probable that we had a cop in the game (as its a common role)...so I fully anticipated either Looker or I to be investigated and confirmed town.

Without getting too much into WIFOM, I think town realizes its highly unlikely that I am lying. If I were scum, what I did would be beyond idiotic...mostly because I would have needed to get crazy lucky to pull it off.

Specifically, if I were scum, and attempted to pull off some sort of gambit to keep Looker alive, I would HAVE TO kill the cop. Consider as how my suspect pool would be EVERYONE minus scum & Wall-e...well, the odds are NOT in my favor.

Your logic throughout D1 kept making me think you were town, and I'm still leaning that way. But this quote sounds like bragging that by killing the Cop, you made your fakeclaim stronger. This quote is giving me pause in believing you.

I also think Sajin is somewhat scummy for a few things from D1: His repeated use of his statistics argument over scumminess, trying to call discussion "lining up lynches," and this quote which I noticed in my re-read:

Deadline is coming up

(when btw mod)

.

All of those things make me see him as anti-discussion, and thus anti-town.

[X]

YB, I didn't miss the point. I had figured that myself, that it wouldn't be a smart move to fakeclaim Mason in that position. Unless you had the Cop pegged. And your attitude in the post sounds like subtle bragging about the night results, which is a tell. I recognize that it's unlikely, but I'm certainly not ruling it out.

[X]

@X- What was the problem with the statistics argument? Guess what, we pressured another person and we outed a PR. Go figure. And we did this while already having a claim that would assure us no PR would be outed night 1.

While you have a point that it was not good to out Looker and YB as PRs, would it have been any better to wait until D2 to say that Looker was scummy and result in the same claim? In my mind, all your statistics argument does is predict that we're never going to get a better lynch than a claimed VT, and that we should basically end our scumhunting after we find a VT.

I had suspicions of Jase, and Cler hasn't changed anything. Your insights were really lacking, and the only new thing that you said was the speculation on why neither Looker or YB died. Then after Ojanen posts some content, then you echo it. Not a good start for you. May I ask what you mean by a "conditioning move?"

Hi X. I'm not quite sure what you expected of me. I read through the same game you did and in 38 pages there was a lot of talk without much real depth. I have my suspicions but I don't think a PBPA is necessarily a good idea with an unconfirmed mason claim dominating the landscape, especially now that we are missing a cop.

I'll give you a starting point, then. From the first 38 pages, do you see Looker as scummy? YB?

However I will say that your attack is a classic chainsaw defence of idiotking. My point was not simply 'echoing' Ojanen's post - I actually went and found two concrete examples of this behaviour from my notes and quoted them with post numbers. This shows that IK uses that particular turn of phrase often - it's a rhetorical device for him. I would suggest that that is a scummy thing to do. 'Conditioning move' means he's conditioning his responses - he wants to push an adgenda but he leaves himself an 'out' so no-one can tie him to the position if things turn sour.

So I make an evidence-backed post against someone and you straight away attack me offering little to no quotes, evidence or analysis for the point, while not even referencing the point I made at all. That's a textbook chainsaw defence and not convincing at all.

Could you please comment on whether you believe IK's habit of posting opposite thoughts directly after each other is scummy?

Maybe my semantics were off. You didn't just repeat what he said, you did elaborate on Ojanen's point. But you didn't do this until after your summary that didn't include IK at all. There's that dichotomy between saying nothing jumped out at you during your read and that a day or so later, something jumped out at you, but it was obviously because of someone else's point. Also, I've been getting the feeling that this is normal for IK, without yet doing meta. I think its style. He has opinions, but he's sure that they are opinions and rarely presents them as facts.

[X]

EBWOP: it's

[X]

@X- The statistics part applies even more. By outing two more non cops, by having the masons claim pre end of day 1, we increased the likelihood of a random cop death. Which did happen. Lets say there was 2 scum in our 12. With the lynch already happening that was a 1/9 chance of happening. By having the masons claim, assuming they are indeed town, that made it a 1/7 shot, plus if we have a doctor a less likely random protection. The claim happening pre-night is not statistically irrelevant.

Oh...now I feel stupid.

X - possibly I overreacted about your suggestion from me but I think what I'm feeling aobut this game is that there's a lot of dialog and waffle without much evidence or analysis. When you made a largely rhetorical case while ignoring the evidence I put forward, it triggered what I find suspect about this game as a whole.

This game as in Mini 765? Okay, well, I've put forth a lot of evidence and analysis, I thought. But I don't see how my stuff was just rhetorical...and please, let me know which definition of "rhetorical" you're using (because I disagree with Wall-E's definition).

I accept that if it's common via meta, then I guess it's not a scum tell, but it's a poor way of playing. I very much beleve in town players being firm on where they stand, because it forces scum to be firm and we can then tie them back to their decisions.

Certainty doesn't breed truth. Truth breeds certainty. Town players should only portray as much confidence in their opinions as they have.

It also goes to my other pet hate of qualifying everything with 'eveything is possible' type statements. (blah is townie but he COULD be scum pretending ot be townie) But I take your point and yellowbunny's (now who's echoing Very Happy) that we should check the meta.

I don't like the "everything is possible" statements. Exactly what meta are you talking about? IK's?

Also, X is the one that said Walle was the best case followed by looker and then Jace was looking lurky/scummy. I find statements like that scummy especially when made on day 1. I suppose its not lining up lynches in the direct sense; but all it does is allow for easier manipulation of lynches later. Notice his posts made this day? Who does he attack? People from his list. Awesome. I noticed he still questioned looker fairly hard even after the mason claim even. Any response to this?

What? I'm letting my opinion be known. You know what would have been scummy? Saying Looker was the second best case and not attacking him. I had serious suspicions...they've subsided mostly now.

I don't think I'm going too far by saying that if he thinks people are scummy on Day 1, and they haven't cleared themselves by Day 2 and the night actions don't help clear them, then going after them is not scummy, it's... well, it's exactly what you SHOULD do, really.

QFT!

SerialClergyman: Your case on IK is interesting, to say the least. It's not too cohesive, but many of your statements make sense. As for your summary, here are my responses:
1. This is a problem. I didn't realize it, but I'm really not sure what he thinks about each of the players.
2. As I see it, this is IK's personality, and not a scumtell.
3. I have noticed that I've agreed with IK or defended him a few times, but it's only because I agreed with the points or disagreed with the attacks.

[X]

Basically, it

was

distancing, but not in a scummy way.

Barring the fact that I know that we're not partners, this seems like semantics. Distancing, to me, is a scum/mason tactic, and nothing else.

STOP TUNNELING. But anyway, I was willing to end the day ASAP just because we were in information overload. Wall-E was still not fully cleared in my book.

Not

fully

cleared? If I interpret that correctly, it means that you thought he was likely town?

Look. Up. My. Meta. If. You're. Going. To. Try. To. Make. A. Case. Against. It.

Just a tip...this technique loses its effectiveness when carried over more than 7 words.

Ok, first thing I notice is that he has 48 posts total. In a game that has almost 40 pages and 984 posts, well, just the numbers scream lurking.

Excuse me, sir. How many posts do you have? Have you been lurking?
Seriously, you're making a case for Ojanen for lurking and tunneling on Wall-E?

Vote: Kreriov

.

[X]

In short, the number of posts by Ojanen might have been WHY I decided to do a PBPA on him. (And maybe as a bit of reaction to Serial suggesting such as well.) I did not consider him particularly suspicious at the time other than that I felt his participation was not as should be. It was the CONTENT of those posts that I found more suspicious.

What content did you find suspicious?

I do not find my analysis of Ojanen to be hypocrytical at all, so please do not take an entire post and try to strawman me X. At best, the fact we have a similar number of posts is coincidence.

Okay, I see why it's a strawman, but it certainly was hypocritical to say:

Ok, first thing I notice is that he has 48 posts total. In a game that has almost 40 pages and 984 posts, well, just the numbers scream lurking.

But I guess I don't understand what your case is based around if it's not lurking.

I think this game deserves a re-read from me this weekend.

[X]

But do not try to derail a discussion line by using strawman arguments. THAT is suspicious if you do it on purpose.

You're the one continuing this part of the discussion. I just wanted to point out that your initial logic for calling Ojanen a lurker was flawed. I'll look into whether or not her posts are contentless soon.

[quote"yellowbounder about qwints"]iso 26:

logic post...very solid logic. I suggest reading it. concludes that if walle is town, hero is probably scum, and vice versa.

later iso 27 discusses this too[/quote]Oh, right, I forgot about Hero asking to hammer Wall-E. That's a good point. Where is Hero, anyway?

While I don't agree with everything, I think it's does capture a decent amount of possibly scummy behaviour from Idiotking.

"Possibly scummy behavior." Isn't this sort of what I'm accused of doing? Adding in "Possibly, maybe, potentially", etc.

Tu quoque. Or more commonly, the "You, Too Fallacy." And it's not saying "possibly" that is suspicious (to others, not me). It's that you mention the opposite also, like adding "but also."

For one, I do not think my case against Ojanen is based on lurking. I think it is the pattern of long absences followed by focused attacks on Wall-E. And yes, this is definitely colored by the fact that Wall-E flipped town. The waffling before hammering Wall-E seems like Ojanen trying to get permission or absolution before the fact and appears to me like she knows Wall-E will flip town.

Okay, thank you. This is a lot clearer.

Unvote: Kreriov

.

1. Scum had him pegged as a PR
2. He was NKed randomly.
3. He was NKed because he suspected at least one scum of being, well, scum.
4. He was NKed to shift suspicion onto one of the people he listed as being suspicious.

...

That leaves options 3 and 4, which I consider equally likely.

Yes, it's WIFOM, so it really isn't worth discussing.

OBV scum-
SerialClergy- Leading Town right after a cop death? Convenient.
X- Attacking mason pair, method of attacks on Walle.

Are you serious? I'm not certain that YB and Looker are masons, but I think they are. Unless I'm certain, I will not rule the possibility out, and will attack them for anything I see them do that is scummy. As for "method of attacks on Wall-E," you haven't mentioned this before. And you didn't seem to complain at the time. I'm really in awe at this appraisal.

[X]

Processing...

Code: Select all

Currently choosing one out of each:

1. Kreriov v Ojanen
2. Idiot v Serial v Sajin
3. X v StrangerCoug

What are we choosing based on and why?

[X]

What I never understood is day 1 Cuabarey attacked X. X attacked mason pair. And YB Defended X several times. Something is fishy in that timeline.

Yay random, vague accusations!

[X]

2)

Your attacks on Wall-E weren't scummy because Wall-e was acting scummy and everyone suspected him.

The first part is a legitimate defense. The second (the attacks weren't scummy because everyone suspected him) is not, and I don't think IK has used that defense.

b) He also had more of a case then you gave him credit for. He made the point that you deliberately steered the conversation onto a topic of whether RVS is useful or not to take the heat off yourself. This is a valid point that I don't think you ever answered.

This was Wall-E's case, in his own words. Good luck convincing me that he had a good case.

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

Cler, your point 3 is the only one that I really agree with as a tell.

Serial's Post 1040 - Some more solid points...? As in scumhunt for the entire player list? Nah, I don't think so. I'll figure out who I think is scum and I'll post my reasons and I'll let every other player do the same. This is an Equal Opportunity game you know.

Yes, but you're not participating equally.

[X]

Anti-town? How so?

This made me laugh out loud.

I find your answers in here very odd.

I see one odd answer. What do you see?

[X]

Re-reading...

Funny how Looker and Cubarey both look scummy...there better not be a Mafia Mason in this game...

I missed this quote from Jase, who was fairly quiet while he was here:

I haven't read any further than this post so far, but I'd like to point this out because in the only game I've finished as scum, I was as quiet as I could reasonably be and won.

I took it out of context, so he was bringing it up to mention how someone else's being quiet could be a scumtell, but it's a scumtell for him.

Jase, here's a question for you. What are your opinions on everything that's happened since page 10 or so? In detail.

At-a-glance...I think there's been a lot of question, acusations, etc. that have been ignored, and not just by Wall-E. Though I can't help but wonder why you're asking me this now.

Well, you asked us to pressure you. And in detail.

Sure...I couldn't help but notice, though, that you asked me to do a bunch of work just after I suggested that you systematically refute wall-es case...

This was also never followed up upon.

I have a long post ready for day2. The reason I have not posted said list is because we have a decent day 1 lynch for varying but somewhat agreed upon reasons. I dislike lining up lynches.

Gimme!!! Gimme!!! Oh, wait, 1028 is your long post? Tons of that information became available after you promised us this post. This inconsistency is really irksome.

StrangerCoug, your post 846 was really a tangent not worth discussing.

@Looker- For my own sanity would you mind confirming Yellowbunny's claim?

Actually, as I recall, Looker still has not done this.

[X]

^ I endorse this product and/or service.

Sajin wrote:
@Looker- For my own sanity would you mind confirming Yellowbunny's claim?
Actually, as I recall, Looker still has not done this.

She confirmed it in her post 1032.

Whoops. Missed that.

[X]

"You're scum, and here's why"
"Ok, I take your evidence and try to show why I'm not scum"
"Ok, I take your response and show flaws in it"
"Ok, I take your response to my response and show why there aren't any flaws in it"
". . ."
"So am I cleared?"
"No, I think you're lying"
"Ok, why?"
"No particular reason, I just do"

Uh huh.

Something rubs me the wrong way with this post, but I can't exactly pinpoint it. It looks like you're trying to frame SerialClergy presenting craplogic.

Unvote: Kreriov
Vote: Idiotking

Duly noted. I find IK's representation of the conversation accurate, and quite frankly, the conversation is absurd. Cler is basically arguing, "If you're scum, then you're lying, so you're scum." Circular reasoning. And also not putting forth an effort to find

and kill

the scum.

Vote: SerialClergyman

.

[X]

There's nothing circular about the logic at all. The argument has merely reached a point where there's not much more to say.

Say I claimed cop. Then I said that was a lie because I'm town and wanted to avoid being lynched, but I'm actually vanilla. You could still vote me for that, right? And I'd say 'Well, ask me questions about it, I've TOLD you why I claimed cop. What other evidence do you have??''

You don't need any other evidence. You don't need to ask any more questions about the incident. You have their version of events - you just don't believe it.

In the scenario you presented, I would still keep asking them questions about anything else scummy they've done, not just put it to rest. See, your post 1048 said that you just thought he was lying. About what? His whole defense (post 1045)? There had to have been something in there for you to respond to and question further, to say, "Here, THIS is what I think you're lying about," or something even more revealing.

And as to X's point that:

Duly noted. I find IK's representation of the conversation accurate, and quite frankly, the conversation is absurd. Cler is basically arguing, "If you're scum, then you're lying, so you're scum." Circular reasoning. And also not putting forth an effort to find and kill the scum.

Well - I'm now convinced that IK and X are partners. I'm actually so suspicious of X, because IK counld be trying to defnd himself from a townie point of view, I guess (although strongly unlikley), but that post by X just seems to have no purpose except cast suspicion on me with a really dodgy bit of logic.

I'm not scum, IK is not my partner, and my logic is, at worst, unclear. Anyone can be lying or telling the truth. You've decided he's lying, and have not shown why you think he's lying, except with the possible reason of you wanting it to be true.

In addition to that, I am certainly not arguing IK may be scum, if he's scum he's lying, therefore he's scum. I am saying that in each of the issues I brought against IK, there is a chance he is a townie, truthfully explaining why he did the thing I find scummy, or there's a chance he's mafia and is lying to try to cover why he did something I find scummy.

Okay...it's good to not have an absolutist standpoint.

In the majority of the issues I brought up against him, I think it's more likely to be the latter.

Yet you have not explained why. Hence my vote.

Finally, I think it was a pretty cheap shot about not putting forth an effort to find and kill the scum. I've made one hell of an effort to find the scum, I think I've got a couple now, and I posted again recently after some inactivity to ask how we're going to get a lynch today. So of the things you can accuse me of, low effort and not scumhunting are not there.

I'm sorry if I insulted you. I just think you're trying to look like you're scumhunting without actually doing it. And I'm definitely not saying you're lurking.

But - as I said - I've noticed a connection between X and IK before and this does not surprise me. I think it goes beyond 'they might simply agree sometimes' and this is why - they chainsaw much more than other people would. So it's not just 'I agree with IK', it's 'I think IK's attacker is scummy!'

It's happened in thread post 948 where X defends IK by FoS'ing me, it's happened in post 860 and 881 of IK where IK defends X by FoS'ing Sajin. It's also happened again here.

I think it'd take a fairly strong case to get me ot move off of either IK or X at the moment.

The best that I can explain these are that they are coincidences. You looked scummy to me - it just happened to be while you were attacking IK. If IK was attacking you and not responding to the conversation while leaving his vote on you, I would have found IK scummy. I doubt that will convince you, but it's true.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea as to why X has clung to me in this manner. While I've defended myself to the best of my ability, clearly X seems to want to drive the final nail into both of our coffins. So be it. If you guys decide to lynch me, do so quickly, because I don't have the patience to wait this out any longer.

I am a townie. This claim means absolutely nothing to you, nor should it. But now that it has been clearly stated, I would like to have "I told you so" rights in the future.

X, while I agree with your sentiments, you must realize you've just killed us both. By making it seem so damn clear that there's a connection between us, you've gone to spectacular lengths to get both our heads on a pike. If you're scum, I pity you, because when I go down I'll be dragging you to hell with me. Funny, though, normally scum don't cling to a townie when they're not under severe pressure.

First, you really didn't need to claim. Second, it's certainly not my intention to get us killed. I don't want pro-town players to die, which definitely includes me, and possibly includes you. Third, you shouldn't pity scum. And lastly, we're not dead.

[X]

Welcome, BSY! Goodbye, IK? I really hope you're scum...I don't see why a townie would self-hammer like that.

HEAR THIS, THOUGH, PEOPLE! I AM STILL VERY GLAD WE LYNCHED WALL-E!!!!!!!! Even though he turned out town, he didn't look like it, and while he was alive, he was annoying as hell.

I don't really think it's a good idea to praise the death of a town-aligned player, regardless of how little you like him.

QFT.

1121 looks like a response to something, but I have no idea what to. And I still highly doubt that YB is lying, although possible.

We'll see soon if I was a fool to trust you.
If you are town, please never self-hammer in future, it screws your team.
Please don't give up so easily, please be more considerate of your team and please don't use circular logic about not being good enough.

If you're scum, never mind, you can laugh at me.

QFT.

On a completely different note, Kreriov was actually the hammer, I was mistaken. My vote against myself was overkill :p

10 alive means majority = 6. Your vote was the hammer.

[X]

All I can promise is that I will have read through the whole thread by the end of Monday. Sorry for all of this, but I'm sure you'd rather have me stay than have to go through another tedious wait for a replacement.

This was written last Saturday...he did not comment on the game once Today.

Mod, can you reconfirm Hero's presence in the game or get a replacement?

[X]

Oh, my...I think that is the third time that I've seen a townie self-hammer. ACK!!!

Day 1 I find lists bad for town. I was asked to make one I said fine, day 2. I did. I was unable to post before night as I had to V/LA(note sig). I am unsure how posting about things that happened that day are lining up lynches. I considered the night kill in to the list for the day.

This doesn't change the fact that your list was fairly lacking. I can't fault you for being V/LA, but you're not saying too much.

The post about X and yellowbunny is simply me pointing out a inconsistency:

Yellowbunny defends X
Yellowbunny claims mason with Looker
X attacks masons
Yellowbuny defends X

In that order and as such seems like a circle of attacks that is inconsistent. I do not think I am being inconsistent here.

I didn't attack the masons terribly hard. I just didn't rule out the possibility of them being mafia together. What inconsistency did you see?

I've read that yellowbunny and replacement of Cubarey claim to be masons. Has yellowbunny given a good explanation for her behaviour and suspicions towards him during day 1, as expressed in post #94, #131, #250 and #281?

In post #137, Cubarey states he is a townie. To what extend was this taken as a Vanilla Townie claim?

The answer to both questions is not really. Good find. YB, at least answer the first question.

My primary suspicion is still on SerialClergyman. He has still to respond to stuff that I posted yesterday.

MichaelSableheart, I hope you don't mind being MS.

[X]

I have no problem with being called MS. Despite my signature, people tend to make mistakes spelling my name anyway. Usually, they add an 'a' in Michel, but that's the first time I saw someone writing Sajin instead of MichelSableheart

Sorry.

As promised, hero's post:

Hero764 wrote:
Alright, really sorry. I got to page 8 yesterday and was just like "screw it". Laziness took over. Here's my summary now:


qwints - Well, first I'll have to unvote my RV on him, its been long enough since the RVS lol. Anyways, he hasn't really posted much, but I like what I've seen of him from what he has posted. I couldn't find any flaws in his reasoning.

Ojanen - Good player. Nothing really too scummy about him. Not ruling out the possibility though, its just that there's other targets on this D1.

Wall-E (rp. Kieraen) - Alright, I really don't like how he's been playing. He asserts that he's definetly town. But his posting style is very arrogant at times, and he's got this "are you fucking retarded? of course I'm not mafia" tone to his posts. It's like he's trying to act as scummy as possible so that everyone will assume there's no way he's scum because he would be acting too obvious(even though his plan doesn't look to be working so well.) I also don't like how he thinks he can just ignore posts and get away with it because "I'm obviously not scum, stop wasting your time discussing me".

Another side points I'd like to make: He's been very confusing, hell he even changed his vote twice in one post. I just can't imagine why a town player would act like this. He isn't obvscum, but he certainly isn't obvtown, and he's not making any attempts to convince otherwise.

CUBAREY - My no. 1 suspect. I don't buy the noob defense at all(unlike my counterpart ). He even said at one point that he wasn't a noob because he could play mafia on other sites. This, coupled with the scumminess of his posts(which others have already pointed out, and I'm not going to restate unless requested) makes me the most obvious scum target atm. So Vote: CUBAREY

X - He's been getting some flak from people, but I generally agree with the majority of the posts he's made. I honestly don't have much to say on him right now. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for me about his behavior though.

yellowbunny - As surprising as this may seem, I'm actually finding yellow here a possible scum target. It's just the vibe that I get from his posts, and I thought Wall E did a good job(despite my thoughts on him) in showing his argumental flaws. I don't have many examples to point to, and I'm certainly not near voting for him, but I don't like the vibes I get from him.

burfy - I'm not sure how I feel about burfy here. He's 100% neutral as far as I'm concerned. X did point out his flaws, and burfy did respond to them. His explanations were satisfactory I suppose, but not great by any means.

Kreriov - Not much to say. Probably not scum. Moving along.

Jase - His inactivity makes him look a bit bad, but he's not my prime suspect by any means. I haven't seen anything terribly wrong with his posts as of yet.

Idiotking - Ok, I was fine with him until a few pages back(I forget which), where he defends himself against Wall E. I'm not gonna go look for the exact quote unless requested, but he said something about Wall E voting for him because CUBAREY did, and I'm sitting there going WTF? CUBAREY had been inactive by the time Wall E started doing all his vote jumps between him and X. The defense just made absolutely no sense. He's my no. 3 suspect right now. His inactivity doesn't make him look much better.

Sajin (rp. Lleu) - Not much to say about him. I barely remember what Lleu, and Sajin hasn't done anything wrong yet. Ok for now.

Hero764 (rp. The World No.1 Noob) - Obvious scum.

Um, I can't see how you got this legitimately...unless Hero posted it in a QT for his replacement.

FoS: MS

.

I can understand YB's logic for not always supporting Cubarey.

I would say that it is clear I was genuinely trying to find scum, but I'm happy to address questions if someone finds something they see as twisted reasoning or something dodgy in my posts.

I think it was

extremely

dodgy of you to stop the argument and just say "lynch this guy!"

It's not WIFOM at all. The question is one of momentum.

I posted my case on IK significantly BEFORE the main wagon on him. There was a little period where a few suspicions were tossed around and then suddenly he had 6 votes. You're assuming the scum had a choice about whether to be on the wagon or not. I would suggest that it's much more likely that they pushed the wagon.

It is *possible* that of the 10 people in the game at the time, no scum voted IK and he was voted out with 6/7 townies, but I think that's highly unlikely. I think it's much more likely that there's scum on that wagon.

Yeah, I definitely think that scum was on the wagon. It's not a guarantee, but it's statistically likely.

[X]

Um, I can't see how you got this legitimately...unless Hero posted it in a QT for his replacement. FoS: MS.

That was post #307 by Hero, which I also linked to in my previous post. It's right here in the thread. Follow this link if you don't believe me.[/quote]Whoops. I searched for it by Hero's ISO and using "Find" on the first sentence, but it didn't work. Anyway, the way you presented it it looked like it was something recent. Why did you repost it with no commentary in post 1145?

Oh - and as for Hero's agitation, I can say that's his meta. Don't know if that matters, and

I don't even know if he's scum in the game I'm talking baout

, but we had a game together a while ago where I asked him to calm down and not get so aggrivated because it was getting on my nerves, so that was just who he was i think.

Bolded part makes a difference. First of all, a sample size of one tells you very little. Furthermore, if it a game where he is scum, then that makes his aggression a possible scumtell for him. I think passion about the game is rarely a tell, and when it is, it depends on the player.

X, I don't know what I can say to you that I haven't already.. I didn't try to kill discussion, there weren't questions that were asked of me that I didnn't answer. I didn't even say to the town 'screw this guy, he' probably lying, lets kill him'.

1. Lack of defense is noted.
2. I think that not finding anything to respond to in IK's post 1045 was passively killing discussion. To do that and remain voting for IK was not helpful to the Town, regardless of his alignment.
3. But you did say:

IK - the problem is that I just think it's more likely you're lying. I'm not having a go at you personally, it's the nature of the game, but we've reached certain points in our conversation where we've actually nailed everything out.

More gentlemanly, but otherwise the same.

So I'm perhaps the wrong person to ask about your case, because your main argument is that I(my reincarnation Jase) and Hero have suspiciously similar arguments. So asking me to comment on that ignores that a) I KNOW I'm town, so any argument that depends on linking us together is unlikely to convince me and b) I can't know Jase's motivations for his actions and suspicions.

Well, unfortunately I'm not as convinced of your alignment - actually, if we do have 3 mafia in the game, from where I sit you have a 50/50 chance (all other things being equal) of being the scum. So can you please address that issue (why you do not believe they are similar arguments?)

YB, this is a problem with replacements that you just have to understand. In my first game, I replaced a succession of 3 people, and you're asking SC to do the impossible, which is explain Jase's psychology. And it can't be 50/50 from a townie standpoint, because there are 7 other players.

This is your most recent point:

Considering that there were much more scummy acting players at that point in time...that is really odd. It reeks of someone who has perfect knowledge of town/scum. He is avoiding being on the obvious wagon (which turned to be town) and at the same time is trying to cast suspicions on another townie.

And this was your post back then:

Also I find it weird that in your first post of any real substance, you automatically vote for Cub (who is the easy target atm). Feels sorta like you are jumping on the easiest bandwagon.

That's a clear contradiction isn't it? Recently you're arguing that there were more scummy players and it was an odd choice, where before you were arguing he just jumped on the easiest wagon.

No, it's not. There's a difference between being the easiest wagon and the one on the scummiest person. I felt that CUBAREY was more confused than scummy. If I had voted for her, I would have been on the easy wagon.

First, I do not think I 'suddenly' jumped on the IK wagon.

Did someone say you had?

Second, telling IK not to talk. Well, I can definitely relate my thoughts. In looking back to try and see if IK could indeed self-hammer, I noted that after being dead the rules clearly state dead men do not talk. IF hambargarz thought IK violated that rule, I did not want IK mod killed. Pretty tough to say shut up so you don't get mod killed and not give the mod the idea that he should mod kill him.

Interesting...but my perception is that someone can post until the mod has posted their death scene and announced their alignment.

I am not suggesting that we focus only on the non-wagoners. What I am saying is if we knew the distribution of scum on wagon and off wagon, we could focus more on one to increase our probability of lynching correctly. But since we do not know this, the best course of action is to focus on people BASED ON HOW SCUMMY THEY ARE, not some gamble. And that *is* what you are suggesting -- you are asking us to gamble on how the scum would play scum. You are also asking us to gamble on the two not present people (Hero and Sajin) not being scum, cuz you do not consider that in your arguments.

<3 Statistics only work when they're hard and indisputable or on a very large scale.

Well, typically if someone is mod killed then that person is just dead and we would have to pick another to lynch.

And you didn't want that to happen

why

?

[X]

No offense, but they are about as confirmed as it gets. The only way you could convince me that YBs claim is not legit is to somehow show she knew qwints was the cop on D1. Short of that, it is pretty much suicide to fake claim being a mason on D1, especially to save a scum buddy.

Funny you say that. It's not very strong evidence, but post 476 gave me the impression she might have thought he was more then a vanilla townie. I'll underline the relevant parts. Again, it's not strong evidence, definately no case, just a feeling I got when reading that post knowing that qwintz died night 1 as cop.

Cuz, you know, you didn't post from the 14th until today. That's 5 days. 6 pages. And the most you can come up with on your return is:

Nothing substantive.

Ik's spew on page 15 makes him more suspicious to me. That's a lot of posting with little accomplished which is anti-town.

Wall-E's play continues to be scummy. I don't know if I buy the Asperger's claim in 407. It seems like the symptoms would preclude one from being able to effectively play mafia. I also don't like his claim that tunneling = scum in 396.

Right now I'm fine with a wall-e lynch. IK is probably the second most suspicious over the last stretch. A couple of posts from Krevriov and yellowbunny made me a little suspicious (282 and 393 respectively), but not enough to do much about.

I wrote this without reviewing my previous long post, so I'm sure somebody slipped off the radar.

Now I maybe I could buy the fact that you could only post on weekends, or you were sick, or something like that. Maybe. But if that were true, you'd probably have come up with something better than "Nothing substantive" when you got back.

Not to mention, the only other game I've seen you play, you were scum and lurked like crazy. Just like now, really.

I've thought about IK's point here now, and its interesting.

Qwints, why do you finally post after 5 days...and that coincides with when Wall-e is at L-1? And how can you claim that someone being at L-1 isn't substantial to comment on?

The underlined parts only present suspicion, IMO. I don't see how you can interpret that as seeing qwints as a power role.

Michel, your 3 points against Sajin in post 1173 are basically what I have articulated. I think he has stopped doing them, for the most part, but he's still suspicious. He needs to make significant contributions when he comes back from OM.

Well, you've reached an agree to disagree point right here. You've asked your questions, I've answered them - what do you do now? Ask more questions about whether I killed discussion?

There comes a point where you have to make a decision whether you felt I genuinely killed off discussion or not, and you can't just go on asking questions ad infinitum

I agree that there's a point, but I think you never reached it with IK (and I never reached it with Wall-E).

As I said at the time, it's frustrating to me because there were many people who voted IK using a lot less evidence than I used. And yet you are targetting me for killing off discussion? I don't know why you feel that me not having any more questions after about 3 wall of text posts back and forth with IK is scummier than bills turning up, making two utterly dubious points, voting bills and disappearing again.

BSY probably does deserve more flak than I've given. Doubt for the masons' innocence is growing in my mind.

You can FoS me, but even in our disagreements, I'm unsure of what I've done that's scummy?

1. Cut off discussion with IK, and lead his wagon.
2. Push a half-baked statistical argument that we should ignore literally half of the players to focus on the people on the wagon.
3. I read your posts and trying to undercut us masons. You first try to suggest we lynch one of us to see if we are telling the truth (something scum would want to do so we never have a confirmed town). You drop the point when it doesn't get support. We do not get NKed the next night (which, if you are scum, you have control over), and then use that as "proof" that we are not obv town.
4. (A lesser point, I put less stock into this one...) You and MS read to me like you are tied together. You are both working for the same ends. I still believe Hero freaked out when I suggested a tie between him and Jase, and the current behavior is supporting that.

QFT (except for #3, which could be valid, but as I said, I'm doubting them slightly more now).

I want to do a re-read of Hero's ISO when I get a chance.

If you feel I tried to get you lynched day 1, quote it.

You realize, SC, that you joined the game

after

Day 1?

I never said there was a specific breadcrumb, I said IF you found a breadcrumb, IF the scum knew who the cop was, they'd NK him, right?

And the chance of that hypothetical is...what? Try looking for a breadcrumb after we know that he's Cop. If you can't find it, what's the chance that scum could have found it without knowing that he's Cop?

SC's 1186 is very interesting. A compilation of many times that YB has had to clarify himself. But I think most of them are because SC misinterpreted YB to start out with. I didn't find many of these statements in their original forms unclear.

HOW DID I KNOW THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE COP IN THE GAME?

How many mini normal games have you seen with more then one cop? And what is the total number of mini normal games you have seen? In my experience, more then one cop in a mini normal game is extremely unlikely.

This is my second Mini Normal. The other one had 3 Cops. (I realize that that experience was atypical.)

And it can't be 50/50 from a townie standpoint, because there are 7 other players.

From YBs point of view it is. There are 8 people. He says he is town and knows bills is town. If there are 3 scum...

Duh.

Ojanen, what you quoted in 1189 does read as "Kreriov's switch from Ojanen to IK is scummy."

BSY, you're kidding. You have to post more content. Although I do agree with you that SC deserves more than one vote right now.

Vote: SerialClergyman

.

I agree with the assessment that there are 3 scum. Effectively this puts Serial in danger of a lynch

if he is town

.

Fixed. And I disagree with you on the part that I added.

[X]

I'm disappointed that so few people find anything about what I'm saying as convincing. I don't think it's unusal at this late stage because you're always fighting uphill to get past the sheer amount of people who are scum-aligned.

You keep repeating this as if the repetition is going to convince us that you're not scum-aligned.

1) saying in capital letters that I suggested lynching the masons to the town. When she went back on the thread, she couldn't find anything of the sort, and had to backpedal dramatically.

Interesting. Because this was your first post of D3, in which you highly suspect the masons.

bills and YB - The mason pair. I think I made a mistake about the masons. I think I should have pushed the town into a definitive position, at least publicly. If we all hadn't questioned the masons I think they'd have had to be NKed. But because I and others stilll showed scepticim, especially near the lynch, the narrative of them not being NKed still holds water. Having said that, I think I'm going to have to start questioning them.

bills posts one of the worst posts so far to accuse IK. 1107. The case was weak, his conclusions were poor, and he voted then went away again. This continues a long history of the CUBE,looker,bills chatacter just being damn scummy but being coasted through the game.
YB also has voted IK, albeit with a bit more reason. That's the second town lynch the masons have been a big factor in - being half of the non-confirmed side of this lynch (yb+bills and SC+kreirov) and essentially forcing a wall-e lynch with a claim last time.

So I have to go back and do re-reads and things like that, but I think the premise that there have to be at least 1 scum on the wagon points to the following conclusion -

we have at least a 1/3 chance of hitting scum if we aim at either me, kreirov or the masons. I know I'm innocent, you don't, that makes it 1/2 for me. So I ahve my job cut out for me trying to work out which group are scum and convincing you guys it's them and not me we should be voting for.

So YB did call you out for something, and then couldn't find it later. Is that a tell either way? I don't think so.

2) Saying she agreed with X's point about killing discussion on IK and using it to call me scummy now, when on D2 she posted that X was scummy and mentioned absolutely nothing about agreeing with his point.

Just because you think someone is scummy doesn't mean you can't agree with their point. But YB only made 3 posts on D2 that after I made that point, and they were all extremely short.

Sorry, X, I just re-read your post and I'm still really confused - If you're starting to doubt them, but you're sure enough I'm scum to vote - how does that work? Do you think I'm undermining my partners?

You're right, it doesn't look like bussing. They're probably Masons.

1) People have claimed that my attack on IK makes me more likely to be scum. It's relevent that he felt my attacks on him were motivated by genuine scumhunting, whereas he felt other attacks on him weren't.

I don't think

that

you attacked him was scummy.

How

you attacked him was scummy.

As to the 3 scum assumption - I've given good reasons why I think there are three. If someone would like to explain why 2 is reasonable with 12 people including at least one pro-town power role, let me know. And if you are truly masons, YB, there's no question that there are three scum, because that would be 12 people including 2 pro-town power roles. This is so cruicial to me that if I am lynched and the game does not end, you and bills must be scum, because there's no way that 2 PRs in a 12 person town justifies only 2 scum. Even in 9-man newbie games if there are 2 PRs the scum get a roleblocker. Add 3 more townies without adding a mafia - inconcievable. So if I get lynched and the game goes on, I wouldh ope the town consider you and bills non-negotiable lynches.

This is reasonable. Presence of an SK is unlikely with only 1 death each night, and unless each scum is a PR and no one besides qwints and the Masons have PRs, it makes sense to have 3 mafiosi.

I think we need to change that dynamic full stop, actually. MS needs to read day 2, Ojanen needs to try to post somethign of more content than she has been, despite her travelling. Sajin and bills need to get into the game and X + Kreirov, perhaps you could look around for other issues in the game to examine?

I plan to reread Hero when I get time, which might be tonight.

@ALL: I would like to see lists or at least scum group suspicions from more people.

Serial is scum. You and MS seem scummy to me, and

BSY needs to contribute more

.

[X]

MY FIRST VICTORY!!! MY FIRST TIME AS SCUM!!!

qwints - Is doing marvelously compared to what he usually does. If anyone has any knowledge of his meta, they'll know he's town.

Thanks X! - this may be the best reason for being night killed ever!

You're welcome! And it worked out for me, too. We got the Cop!

Inactive mason partner that looked scummy as all hell really hurt us as well.

QFT.

Wall-E, everything that I said about logic, I still believe. I wasn't just saying that because I was scum.

There was one time that I saw someone say that IK and I could be scum together, but that was unlikely because I looked too pro-town. I seriously jumped for joy when I read that. I can't seem to find the quote.

I think we mafia may have had an advantage, but it was pretty close. The way we managed the Cop and the Masons helped us a lot. Good game, all.