Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[SerialClergyman]

Something like Serial or Cler is easy - 'that chump' is fine too!

Umm.

I actually denied the option of a summary that the mod offered me given I was replacing in with 38 pages to read and instead keenly decided to read them all.

I came up with the following in notes:

Page 3 WALL-E sounds scummy and acts a bit wierd.
Page 37 Mason claim
Page 38 Lynch of obvtarget due to deadline approaching.

Thus my insights aren't going to be brilliant.

I think I might have to go back knowing what we know aobut qints to see if there's a reason why he's been killed. My initial reaction to his death is that it is very surprising none of the claimed masons have been killed. Perhaps they were worried about a possible doctor and double guessing and all that, but to avoid the claimed townies and to find the cop iseither lucky or there's something else going on.

Sorry for not being a master sleuth!

[SerialClergyman]

Hi Ojanen. I'm RL friends with Sando, and watched your newbie game. You were very convincing, had me fooled 100%. Well played.

My summary was more of a joke than a specific comment on the game. I meant it to mean that there was a LOT of talk with very little being revealed. It wasn't to say that specifically page 3 was Wally being scummy.

If I were to make a case against anyone based on my initial read, it would be yellowbunny. That all got overridden when she claimed mason which both explained away some of the perceived scummyness and also make it much harder to push a case against her based on normal tells - we need to decide whether we believe the lcaim or not.

Ojanen brings up a point against IK that is reflected in a few of his posts. That is, his language is often contradictory.

Some things I noticed from IK in the latter half of the game:

Things like this from 632:
[quote=idiotking]I guess you could say I've been tunneling, but the main reason for that is because of Wall-E's obsessive refusal to defend himself until relatively recently. Right now I'm not so sure about him anymore. [/quote]

Reflected again in 787:

[quote=idiotking]I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens. [quote]

Lots of pretty definitive language but then a conditioner. It's up in the air BUT I'll hammer first chance I get. I have moved from thinking this is not just indecisive or a personality traint, but actually a scummy conditioning move.

I do think we should try to work out if we can resolve this mason issue. Without a cop, how do we make a decision without wasting a lynch on them?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry for fail quote tags

[SerialClergyman]

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.

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?

@ all

I'm in favour of talking about the masons and making a decision about them before we look to scumhunt elsewhere. It's just too big an issue to sweep under the carpet. If yellowbunny feels I'm scummy because of it, so be it, but for the town it's greatly important we're comfortable with the issue.

I am also perplexed that Looker didn't even realise there was a claim. Did you talk at all in the week of night? Isn't that the entire point of masons as a group?

[SerialClergyman]

yellowbunny that sounds relativly reasonable. Unforunately it does minimise a mason's effectiveness when you guys can't communicate in a week of downtime. (not blaming either of you, just saying that's a town power that's essentially lost.)

Maybe its because I was a bit suspicious of Jase, given his disappearing act and all...but I was concerned when I read this. And if Jase/Serial is scum, trying to shift suspicion back onto Looker and myself is a good move. Or, if he isn't scum, then he is a townie who missed what I thought should be clear. Either way, I felt I ought to clarify.

This is what you wrote in your original post - I didn't quote it directly the first time because I thought it was a bit of a nothing post. If I were scum, then trying to shift suspicion to anyone is a good move. So you might as well say ANYONE who is shifting suspicion onto ANYONE is scummy - meh argument.

But I jsut noticed this on a reread - what did you mean by a 'townie who missed what I thought should be clear'?

[SerialClergyman]

Wow - I actually went back through my posts to quote you the part where I make a reference to the fakeclaiming mason is stupid point and realised you're totally correct, I actually never mentioned it. Fail me.

Yes, I agree that's important. It does have some wifom associated with it, but like i get tired of saying, just saying wifom doesn't discredit a tell entirely. If I rolefished hard right now, I could be scum looking for a NK, or I could be town because it would be crazy for scum to do that, or I could be scum because I'd KNOW people would think it'd be crazy for town to do that etc etc. Does that mean the rolefishing is just a WIFOm point? Absolutely not - it'd still be scummy. WIFOM only goes so far.

I tend to agree with you that it'd be surprising to tie yoruself to a non-responsive partner as scum.

However that is balanced somewhat by the fact neither of you copped it. If you accept it'd be unlikely to fakeclaim, you'd probably also have to accept it'd be likely for the scum to target one of you.

And with both arguments tainted by WIFOm somewhat, it isn't very convincing.

Having said that - what can we do? I'd like a few other members to weigh in on whether they believe your claim or not. For the record, I'm leaning towards believe.

[SerialClergyman]

What do you mean by "copped it"?

heh, sorry, an Austrlalianism. I thought it was universal but obviously not. 'Copped it' just means dead. To 'cop it in the face' in Australian slang is to have something hit you in the face - to 'cop it' is to die. Has nothing to do with the police or the power role cop - bad choice of slang to use on reflection.

I'll reply to X in a sec.

[SerialClergyman]

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.

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.

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 ) that we should check the meta.

Looker I thought was somewhat anti-town without being hugely scummy. i thought the bandwagon on him was a little opportunistic and was simply because after so much discussion noone really knew who to lynch.

My favourite pick for a scumpair were yellowbunny and kreirov. I felt that they paired surprisingly often. They also haven't been replaced (not a huge tell, but an active pair together both not replacing in a game of replacements makes them stand out to me).

I'll go through my notes and post a few scenarios where I noted this occuring.

post 389 after YB's series of posts switching her case to hero. Kreirov writes:

@YB - Ok, so it does seem a bit OMAGUS in how you have switched to Hero so suddenly. You have a good case against Wall-E and suddenly switch to Hero once he mentions he is getting scummy vibes from you. I say only a bit OMAGUS because you have given concrete reasons for your vote.

Which looked like coaching to me.

post 395 Kreirov echoes YB despite not being directly anti-Sajin's point before.

post 522 YB coaches Wall-e just when Wall-e is looking very scummy to my eyes. 527 does the same thing.

post 540 wall-e calls out kreirov for the same thing I was talking baout.

post 552 X answers Wall-e for Krerov.

posts 617 followed by 618. YB does some light role-fishing and is very wishy-washy about whether to vote Wall-e and then Kreirov posts directly after mirroring the wishy-washyness perfectly - he might be a power role, he might be scum, I'd be prepared ot vote him but maybe not. He also continues the role fishing, even extending beyond wall-e.


--

I'm actually going to stop here. The reason for that is because I think more and more I believe YB's story. I think that YB was often trying to push suspicion away from Looker/CUBE in a pretty obvious fashion while still scumhunting elsewhere. It's conceivable that they are scum, of course, but the risk of trying that move with a cop not discovered just doesn't seem to make sense. If the cop was already dead I'd be much more suspicious. And I think it's highly unlikley they had qwints pegged well enough to be sure of getting a cop with their night kill.

So my notes are taken from a position where I didn't realise there was a mason claim, and so naturally YB's refusal to even really consider the looker case did seem scummy. So did her unvoting wall-e then revoting later on. But now I realise that's just because there was a 2-choice lynch and she knew she couldn't lynch looker.

I'm going ot put forward Kreirov for discussion, primarily for the 'fluff without evidence' posts. Relatively low content, usually low on quotes and evidence, always going along with someone else's viewpoint.

I also think that IK is worthy of being looked at. Despite the language thing listed above, there are moments in which I find him very suspicious. Take post 911 for example. This was written AFTER a mason claim. Almost everyone else unvoted and revoted someone else - I'm surprised at this post from a tow perspective. Maybe it's just more qualifying (don't blame me for lynching a townie, I told everyone I would vote whoever at 10pm to avoid no lynch) but it just makes me more and more suspicious.

Arg - my post is getting all over the place.

May I suggest that we each pick one player who is scummy to us and make a case for their lynch, including quoted evidence? I think that will both give us some fodder to chew on and tie each player down to a definitive viewpoint. And encourage some action.

Thoughts?

[SerialClergyman]

I'm going to make my case against IK. I think it's pretty convincing, certainly is to me at least. Is everyone familiar with the term chainsaw defence? That is, to defend a someone from an attack by attacking their accusor? I think I've noticed a few in the process of this case, so I just want to make sure everyone knows what I'm talking about.

I've ignored the RVS stage issue from IK because that got talked about enough. I'd remind people about the (to my mind) overly defensive reaction, but I think everyone has a personal opinion on how scummy they found that series of events.
I'll point out qualifiers that I see just because I think they are anti-town. I kind of agree on the meta argument, but I think it's a rhetorical device that would be more common in scum. By qualifiers, I mean things like 'blah is scummy, but maybe not.'

Iso Post 14 - Asks CUBE to provide more evidence against him even just a few pages after the game has started. That doesn't address the evidence at hand and is a pretty otugh requirement that early in the game. Also says this:

Answer me or I'll end up voting for you,

I've seen this behaviour a bit from IK and I"ll dub it 'licence to vote'. He's giving himself a licence to vote for CUBE that he can fall back on if things sour. (Not my fault we lynched a townie, he didn't answer me properly.)

Iso post 17 - More qualifiers. CUBE was overzealous but not necessarily scummy. Here is part I'm concerned with:

I don't see anything scummy from X, but it's little unsettling to me that he seems to be clinging to me a bit, subtly defending me. Or I might be wrong about that. However, it's possible that he's preemptively connecting himself to me so that, if in the future he suddenly seems scummy, we'll both go down in flames. I'm probably reading way too much into that, though. Still, I like to state possibilities. It keeps me from being bored.

I think this stinks of distancing. Filled with qualifiers again, but also pretty soft on logic. Don't know many scum techniques that deliberately associatie themselves with a townie to bring them down if they go down. I doubt many townies would write up such and obscure point, and he makes a pre-emptive apology for just how obscure an observation it is. Looks like a clumsy attempt to help out X.

Iso post 21 and 22 Very defensive vs Wall-e's vote. Tries to dismiss earlier discussion. Returns the favour (possible OMGUS reply) and appeals to emotion in 22 by threatening Wall-e.

vote Wall-E

What are you trying to do, get yourself killed?

Iso post 23 - More qualifying.

Iso post 24 - Turns out Ojanen and I BOTH echoed quints. He calls it 'hedging', and noticed it all the way back there. IK's response again points towards meta (although others said it for him in the recent episode, YB and X) and doesn't discuss the fact that it makes him hard to pin down to a viewpoint (or at least, dismisses that as unimportant.
Again defends himself against Wall-e by trying to sweep it under the carpet and ask for more or more recent evidence. Accuses Wall-e of jumping his vote around to the most popular contender when really Wall-e remained pretty focused on IK.

Posts 25-27 - Continues to dismiss the case without answering it. It's old, hasn't anything new happened - both of those aren't answers to legitimate attacks about his earlier reaction, just attempts to dismiss the case. Also starts to strongly push a case on Wall-e at this time, including unvoting him and revoting him. 25 is particularly harshly rebounded onto Wall-e claiming he must be scum or terrible - again, without simply talking about the points Wall-e raised.

Post 29 -

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

This stated philosophy goes against his rhetorical style of qualifying everything and always giving himself an out. For a person who believes in allowing people to examine him, he is awfully cagey.

Also in this post:

My point was basically this: Wall-E only goes after those who are under suspicion anyway. I was under suspicion (by CUBAREY in particular), Wall-E voted for me once he finally decided to show up (I assume he wasn't paying much attention to what was going on, and picked me as a target because I was most visible and being examined). He also was after X, who was similarly under suspicion (you state yourself that X was getting "some flak"). Then, when Wall-E himself starts looking pathetically scummy, he suddenly apologizes and unvotes. Then, a relatively short time later, he votes for me again, using the logic (or lack of it?) he had for originally voting for me, apparently. My question is this: Why, according to his argument, has nothing relevant been said in so long? Why did he unvote me in the first place? Why did he apologize and then promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally? WHY? I have yet to hear an even tolerable answer, much less a good one.

This is a poor case. It starts with an assumption - that Wall-E only goes after those under suspicion. Wall-E actually had a long-standing argument with X where he didn't vote, there were several pages before he decided to vote IK among a few other candidates. He then unvoted with no more explanation than 'Hmm, interesting' and apologised in a later post about not posting enough content. He then revoted (wall-e iso post 26) with quite a reasonable accusation that IK started a common discussion about RVS and baited people to join it to take some of the heat off for his earlier erratic play. The only time he ever votes X is in ISO post 33, and then IN THE SAME POST unvotes and votes IK. He also explains the reason as thinking X and IK are scumbuddies.
IK's timeline of Wall-e's action doesn't stand up. Wall-e didn't just go with the flow, nor did he ever have a vote on X except for the top of his post to the end of his post.. He made reasonable points that weren't answered, and didn't just jump on the bandwagon of people near him. It's also worth pointing out that Wall-e never votes for Looker, which would be an obvious choice for him to vote, trying to stay alive. So the charge of opportunistic doesn't stick to Wall-E.
It's a very poor case, it seems inspired by hypo-defensiveness and OMGUS (note IK backs off after the apology then fires up again after he's revoted and says later 'promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally'. That's imply not true- Wall-e was making reasonable posts filled with content and quotes after the apology - the only similarity after he apologises (and again - he apologised for not posting much, nothing to do with voting IK) is that he once again voted IK. And bingo, IK steps up his attack on Wall-E again.

Iso post 30

I also admit to hedging, yes, but here's the thing. I've been pretty consistent with my opinions thusfar, I think. My hedging is mostly for details and future possibilities. I believe Wall-E is scum. That is fact to me. No hedging. Wall-E cannot seem to decide who is scummy and who is not. His on again/off again votes for me show this. I don't think that's a contradiction. Though I could be wrong

I didn't attack X. I haven't attacked you or qwints, who have shown suspicion of me. All I'm after is Wall-E at the moment. Why? Because I think he's scum, and has YET to answer my arguments against him. Scumhunting is good, yes, wonderful. But I'm not overly good at it unless I'm directly under fire in the first place. I find Wall-E to be scum, or completely insane. Either way, I think he deserves to be lynched today.

Makes a firm point when pressed - against a townie. Could be a mistake, of course, but that's finally black and white, so we can at best agree his first strong stance is unfortunate. His last paragraph essentially admits to being prepared to lynch an 'insane' townie (again, is insane a reasonable summary of Wall-e's cases up until now?) and to OMGUS reasoning and voting. (Am I going to be attacked because I'm placing you directly under fire?)

Iso post 35 - I have no idea why IK would post this except to perhaps excuse poor play (or scummy play). If people brought good points against you as town and you felt this way, couldn't you just apologise for making a poor play and correct yourself? Why the sob story? Should we not believe your points and arguments if you are such a poor player?

Iso posts 39 and 40 noted for possible coaching (not necessarily scummy). It also may encourage Hero to put his vote on Wall-e - as noted by Krerov later.

Iso post 45

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

This is almost a contradiction (I believe it was X again who defended IK on this point, saying it's not a contradiction. Could be wrong on that). But it's worth bringing up again, because without a doubt, to my mind, IK has been the single most defensive person in the game by a significant margin. His defences are rarely measured, often over the top with appeals to emotion, capital letters and dismissive rebukes. Even what I believe is an OMGUS case.

Iso post 69 -

I will also be the first to admit I'm defensive.

And as a great man once said, being defensive is bad.

Iso post 70 -

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess.

Still no argument here.

Iso post 73-75 suddenty has a a change of heart. Requests people to wait, gives Wall-e a chance to be heard out and actually unvotes. This is highly scummy in my mind. The single greatest advocate of a Wall-e lynch now unvotes after a massive amount of discussion, doesn't bother to summarise the case he wants Wall-e to answer. To me, he's trying to back off from what he knows is a townie lynch. Essentially it's a massive licence to vote.

Iso post 77 - revotes. His work is done, he can get 'townie points' for not rushing it, he gave Wall-e a chance. But he didn't actually make the case against Wall-e again. It could have been frustration, but I think it was just that he didn't need to hear the answers. The less Wall-e says the better. IK again has an out for himself (I gave him the chance to defend himself and he didn't takei t!) and promptly revotes.

Post 88 - IK attempts to address parts of Wall-e's case. He is unconvincing to me. He regularly answers a question with another question. I think it's scummy to start an RVS conversation when you're being scrutinised. Do you agree it started discussion? - it's not really an answer. You have yet to explain how post 53 was a flip out. Again - it doesn't answer the question. At the very least, explain what you were thinking during post 53, explain how it WASN'T a flip out, or if it was, why it was justified. Just questioning the point doesn't ANSWER it. He also makes three 'just go look it up' defences. So rather than wuote the evidence he was lacking, or make the point again, or even provde a link to the post where he made the defence, he just says 'I made the defence recently' and moves on. Also, often with capitals and dismissive/emotional language. It's just not a convincing argument at all, from my point of view.

Post 103 - Had given up on qualifiers but there's a few biggies in 103. Also more licence to vote.

Post 106 - Again being defensive, trying to pre-empt a defence if Wall-e turns town.

Post 107 Has started to turn off Wall-e and make a few posts against Sajin. This could be opportunistic.

Post 111-112 Hero notes this chance and IK is quick to defend himself (as ever).

Post 121 IK says the day has gone on for far too long. This is in direct contradiction with his case against Sajin in 113

There is a point where prolonged discussion becomes detrimental to the town, yes, but I don't think we've gotten there yet.

Post 122

I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now. If it comes to it, I'll hammer Wall-E the first chance I get, but my gut is telling me to wait and see what happens.

I didn't edit that quote - those sentences are literally right next to each other. I'm not voting because I'm up in the air right now, but if it comes down to it I'll hammer Wall-e the first chance I get? That is utterly bizarre. I think he was trying to give himself licence to vote, warning people he might hammer, but logically, it doesn't make sense. If there's doubt, why would you hammer first chance you got? If you feel that strongly, why aren't you voting that person? I really don't like this post.

Post 127-128 Chainsaw defence of X. The issue of lining up lynches was worth persuing, and don't need to be as blatant as 'X then Y then Z'. It was worth raising and to FoS because of it is just bizarre.

Post 129 makes the night's vote a dichotomy between one confirmed townie and one suspected mason. I admit that they were the two major suspects, but there were other suspects and to push the two of them seems unwarranted.

Post 131

Crap.

Ok, folks, if we haven't reached a majority vote before 10:00 PM CST tonight, I'm going to vote for whoever's got the most votes, regardless of who it is. We CANNOT risk a no-lynch, no matter the cost.

This is bizarre. After a mason claim, he is still apparantly prepared to hammer Looker. It's providing a licence to vote for what will turn out ot be a townie (assuming masons = true). Why would anyone hammer Looker after a claim like that? Well, I think IK thought he might be able to knock of a Mason and have a ready-made excuse - the deadline was coming up and I wanted to avoid a no-lynch. I don't like this post at all.

Post 132 qualifier.

Post 134 qualifier

--> Worth throwing in here is X's possible chainsaw defence in 948. I've seen a few posts like this between X and IK during this case that I think is worth investigating. X attacked me despite a post with actual content, and also pointed out a few other suggestions for scummy people, while completely ignoring the IK issue. In post 968 X answers my question at the bottom of his post and essentially says he has a feeling that IK does this all the time, and defends the action as highlighting opinion, as opposed to being obscure. He also firmly points me away from IK by suggesting I make a case against YB or Looker.

Thoughts

I don't expect IK or anyone else to reply to every single point above - they are just examples of the main scummy behaviour I've seen from IK. If I had to summarise the things I find scummy from IK, they would be:

IK is very hard to pin down to a viewpoint. He almost always offers himself a way to back down on his opinions if questioned, and at key moments in the game gave himself a 'way out' by either unvoting and waiting for a defence he dismisses without analysis, declaring he would hammer if he got the chance, or if it got too close to the deadline so he couldn't be blamed for it later when they flipped town. etc.
IK very rarely uses quotes, very rarely refers to posts, very rarely uses reasons to make his cases. His language is often emotive, he overreacts, he is very dismissive of cases put against him without answering questions. He is overly defensive, has admitted that being defensive is scummy and that he has been playing defensively, as well as admitting that OMGUS cases are scummy while professing that his best cases are against those that suspect him.
IK and X seem to have a nice defensive arrangement where they subtly defend each other. I have found enough examples of this to be suspicious but it is not definitive as yet.

In terms of specific actions:
His poor case against Wall-E @ Iso 29, his shot-lived reprieve for Wall-e that I feel is pure licence to vote action @ 70-77, his odd opinions on hammering at 122 and 131.


And now you all hate me for epic wall of text.

[SerialClergyman]

For those curious, X did defend IK about the 'Defending yourself isn't scummy, being defensive is' post. Well, he described it as a null tell in ISO 23:

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.

He also further defends it to Wall-E in 49 and 50.

[SerialClergyman]

Hi IK - I'm not going to address your defence yet because I think we should give people a chance to read both our posts and see what's convincing in them and what's not.

I'll just point out when I was listing posts of yours, I was using iso posts (I believe that's the term.) So that is where you search at the bottom of the page for all posts by user: whoever, and irritatingly it lists the posts in order, not as that actual post numbers.

So when above you can't find certain posts, like iso post 35, you can just search for all posts by yourself and number 35 is what I'm referring to.

Secondly, I apologise for writing such a long case and I can see why it would be frustrating no matter what your alignment, but yelling at me to stop tunnelling mid-case is probably a lost cause - I felt that we needed to have some cases out on those we think scummiest, and you were mine.

Because I forgot to do this after my posts last night (went to bed at 2am!) and I'm comfortable with where I stand at the moment, I'll

vote Idiotking

[SerialClergyman]

Hi Mod, can we get some prods on Ojanen, Looker and Hero? It's been over 3 days for each, and there's been a lot to talk about, I think.

Also Sajin - it's been close to 3 days for you, can you tell us your thoughts about some of the recent developments, or make your own case?

[SerialClergyman]

Well good news about the prods. Hopefully Sajin will post soon but perhaps in a day or two we can prod him too.

Don't worry IK, I haven't forgotten about your defence, I just think that the two all of text posts are already intimidating enough for the 4 or 5 people with low participation at the moment, if we go at it for pages and pages then noone will read it. Also, I think people need a chance to air their suspicions.

Kreirov - I think X and YB make a good point. Could you explain why your case against looker was more reasonable than Ojanjen's vs Wall-E, and could you explain why your 49 posts aren't evidence of lurking when Ojanen's 48 posts are?

I think they were your two major points against Ojanen, let me know if that's a misrepresentation.

Oh - and Ojanen is a female.

Happy bithday, YB!

[SerialClergyman]

Hi Sajin.

If you'd like to make a case against me, I'd suggest you looked through the post history and find some quotes with more scummy behaviour. But to answer your charges -

I would like everyone to start making evidence-based cases against someone. It's been really informative so far and I think we're getting somewhere. You aren't an exception. You haven't ever spelled out the reasons why you think someone is scummy, you have just listed your suspicions as you go in a piecemeal set of charges. Sum them up and post it, see if it's convincing.

I wanted to prod you because you went three days without posting, when there was a lot of content to post on.

I asked for a prod on Looker and have got one, as well as a prod on Ojanen and Hero. (post 992)

In fact, I decided to quote it because it's so far from what you suggested it would be:

Hi Mod, can we get some prods on Ojanen, Looker and Hero? It's been over 3 days for each, and there's been a lot to talk about, I think.

Also Sajin - it's been close to 3 days for you, can you tell us your thoughts about some of the recent developments, or make your own case?

Hardly ignoring looker, and it gives you a reason as to why I want your input.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm 'leading' - I'd be happy if others wanted to post more and let the game flow. I've actually deliberately cut my posting down a little to get other people into the game and talking.

And nope, I'm just an active player. I don't make any apologies for it and I'm surprised you feel that I should.

[SerialClergyman]

Ok, well lots of issues and things out there.. I'll try to reply to each.

Looker - I'm unimpressed, to be honest. Not having a go at you, but if we're going to view the masons as essentially confirmed you are one of the most town people at the moment and so your opinion and reasoning really, really matters. Asking why Kreirov doesn't suspect Wall-E after his death and subsequent townflip is just.. Well, it's not helpful. As one of the few voices we can trust (again, assuming masons are true) we need you to start making some more solid points.

Sajin - You can push your case if you like but I don't think it's convincing. You started out saying that I was scummy because I didn't want to hear from looker, because I was pushing for you to post and because I was leading. The first two points were both dismissed by you after I pointed out their inconsistencies. But despite having 2/3 of your major points dismissed, you're still pushing on the basis of the 'leader' issue. You even say things like:

I don't like the way serial is "leading" especially after lurking day 1 (I know, not his fault, still).

Anyway - I stand by my actions. I think my postings and questions have all been pro-town. The questions to the town served a purpose of bringing in discussion and it's not like I'm hiding my views on who I suspect as scum.

@IK - OK, in reading your defence, I'm getting these major points:

1)

You often qualify your statements and rarely tie yourself to a decision. Your defence is that this is a meta-issue - you ALWAYS do that so it doesn't mean you're scummy.

To be honest, I also just looked at election mafia, not your other site's games, but I still feel you are doing this more in this game than you did before. It is also more damning when put in the context of some of your other traits - like the licence to vote stuff (which I didn't see in your meta much at all.) It paints a picture of someone who is not prepared to put themself out there.

But having said that, I accept it's not as scummy as if this was totally unusual for you.

I will say this though - I think it's something you should look at when you're town. The major advantage of townies is that you can throw yourself into a case, make really strong points and hunt strongly. And if it all goes wrong, you get caught out, or lynched or NKed - well - you've done the best you can for your team, you've case suspicions on those who deserve it and your death just gives your words more value. Scum can't be that strong. So if you're always hedging yourself, you're giving up that advantage. Plus, you're making yourself look scummy.

OK - so on meta, you seem to be doing it more than usual and doing it in conjunction with licence to vote stuff. However, suspicion has been downgraded because you have done it as town previously.

2)

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

I think that there is no doubt Wall-E showed some scummy behaviour. But in day one, whoever was scum had the advantage of information asymmetry - they KNEW he was innocent. So when going back, it's not enough to say someone suspected wall-e, I think you need to show why their action was suspicious, and perhaps indicative of information asymmetry.

That's where most of my points come in. Your case in ISO post 29 was stretching far beyond what Wall-E wrote. It looks to me like someone who knows he is innocent trying to push a cash a little too hard. I'll break it down as asked:

a) You make the claim that Wall-E only went after those who are suspicious - this is not true. He only ever really went after you, and he never went after Looker or Sajin or anyone else who came under suspicion. The only time he voted another player, he unvoted before the end of the post and revoted you. The claim you make is just not true.
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.
c) Your questions -

Why, according to his argument, has nothing relevant been said in so long?

This doesn't answer any of his charges. Nothing scummy has to have happened, and even if it did, it doesn't cancel out anything that happened previously. This is a red herring question.
d)

Why did he unvote me in the first place?

To be fair - this wasn't answered and is a mystery, but again, it doesn't give any defense of the points he brought up against you.
e)

Why did he apologize and then promptly go back to acting the same way he did originally?

This is also not true. He apologised for being inactive then after the apology became much more active. He didn't go back to how he was at all. He never apologised for making a case against you or voting you.
f) You attack Wall-E when he attacks you. You back off when Wall-E unvotes. When Wall-E revotes, you attack him again. It looks like a steady pattern of OMGUS, and this is backed up by your own words when you later say things like

And tossing suspicion at your attackers is suspicious, agreed. That's what I do best, I guess.

3) Your tendency to back off when it was getting close to hammering. Your iso post 73-77 is still a very suspicious series of events to me. You've asked me to read the context, I've read the context and am still unsure why someone with no real alternative suspicions would unvote, and then why they would revote within the very next few posts. What was it that spurred your unvote? What did he do in the next few days to undo that good and cause a revote from you? I think the entire event is much more likely you as scum trying to distance yourself from what you would know was a townie lynch if you were scum.

The second time this happens is in iso post 122, where you say you are up in the air but would lynch Wall-E first chance you got. Your explanation is that you wanted to end the day but Wall-E was not cleared in your book. To me - that's still an unsatisfying explanation. Rarely is it pro-town to want to lynch someone who you are up in the air over the first chance you get. I simply find the explanation where you are scum more likely here.

The third time this happens in iso post 131, where you write that any lynch is better than no lynch. I think this is a poor excuse. If we had a confirmed cop would you prefer to lynch them rather than a nolynch? Or even a believeable claimed cop? Would you hammer yourself rather than no lynch? I suspect the answer to those questions is no, and rightly so. Masons are a significant advantage in this game and the claim deserved more than I'm going to vote SOMEONE, no matter what. Again, if that's your explanation, so it goes, but to me it is much more likely you are scum and you were trying to grab a mason lynch without taking the blame for it.

I think that addresses most of the main points.

I should also say something about tunnelling. Tunnelling to me is where you focus your entire game on one person without considering anything else happening around you. Hence your 'tunnel' leads to that person. I don't think I've done that to you IK at all, you're just the only person I've made an extended case against, and that's because I think you are the scummiest. I'm not sure that you are scum, but I suspect so. I'm also prepred to hear about other players and have asked for cases against them from those who find them suspicious.

Also, obviously, when I'm making a case against you, I'm going to be focusing on your posts. So when I have a long post talking about the things you've said, saying I'm tunneling is pretty meaningless - who esle would I be quoting if I were making a case against you?

It's also not actually disproving anything I say. You can say I'm tunneling, but that doesn't make the points I make any more or less valid. You don't actualy explain why the point I'm making are wrong, you're just saying I'm only making them on you. It might pass as an attack against me, but in no way does it contribute to your defence.

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry for the double post, but I really didn't address the Ojanen and Kreirov issue.

Personally - I'm getting less and less convinced by Kreirov's case. It came to a head for me when Kreiov went back in context to Ojanen's posts, looked at how they clumped at certain points and looked at the context and them came to - absolutely no conclusion whatsoever.

I think the biggest charge you can lay on Ojanen is being a little passive and a little low on activity, but she is working on that as we speak. I think there's very little convincing scumtells in her behaviour, certainly the Kreiov has posted.

StrangerCoug - I agree with you about yellowbunny's analysis of Qwint's NK. The only problem is that the two possibilities are almost in direct contradiction, and we're likely to get into a heavy WIFOM debate. I think the idea to analyse qwint was great, and the posts were well thought about, but I'm also not that convinced that much is there for us to work with.

I think that the poast 26, where he suggests that since Hero asked for permission to hammer Wall-E, that suggests that Hero is scum if wall-e isn't is a worthwhile propostition. It's logic could be carried to IK, who also delayed and asked permission to vote Wall-E, and Ojanen who did the same thing.

However, if we're looking at who qwints targetted (and therefore why he was killed), he specifically gave permission to Ojanen just before the lynch, so it seems unlikely to include her.

I think there was more to qwints last few posts than you(YB) are giving him credit for. I also think that his primary suspect was me(Jase), not IK. In fact, I think his suspicion of IK was relatively minor at the end. He was most suspicious of looker, had gone off Wall-e as a lynch and was also asking for me to be replaced or to post more.

I think probably that means the most we can draw is that IK, looker, myself, YB (since she's now tied to looker) all would have some motivation as scum to kill qwints, and those who wanted to frame would have the opportunity. But remember there are at least 2 (I would suggest 3+ is much more likely given 12 players + mason + cop) mafia, so just one person's needs can't be considered. Which means this analysis is even tougher, because if I or IK were scum, there would be some amount of others who would presumably have a say too.

So all in all, while I think the qwints recap was a good idea, I'm not convinced we can glean too much from it, apart from looking at his logic throughout his posts and knowing he was protown.

[SerialClergyman]

Thanks for that IK - I think we've reached a point where we just have to settle it there. I don't have really any follow up points other than I (and the rest of the town) have to look at your defence and judge whether it's more likely you're town and that was your genuine reason, or you're scum and you're lying. Nature of the game and all. I would say at the moment, I still think scum is a more likely explanation, but certain parts of my case have been downgraded a little.

Yes - I think our definitions of tunneling differ - I hope that I'm correct but I'm not sure.. anyone have a site-wide definition handy? If I started saying you were scum as if I'm 100% sure then I'm sorry, I don't mean to imply I'm 100% sure at all.

[SerialClergyman]

I wondered if you were just saying this because its honestly what you believe, or simply to justify what you said about lynching Looker.

QFT.

We have to make our own minds up, of course, but never forget that just because someone says it's their opinion doesn't mean it necessarily is. There's no reason why IK as scum couldn't say that it's just his policy. (same with many of the 'my playstyle' tells)

[SerialClergyman]

Well - it's been some time.

We have 4 x 1 votes and 5 x no votes.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to come to some consensus?

Would love to hear your thoughts, hero..

[SerialClergyman]

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.

For example - the up in th air post. I just think it's more likley that's posted as scum than as town who is genuinely up in the air. I can't sort of question you more about it because we've gotten to the nub of the issue, but even at that resolution it just comes down to whether I (and the rest of the town) accept your version of events over the alternative that you're scum and you're lying.

Unforunately for me, the case doesn't seem to have exactly inspired mass action. In fact, no case we've had has encouraged a vote from someone else, really.

[SerialClergyman]

I'd be much more surprised if it was anyone but X that voted for me using that reasoning.

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.

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.

But I'll address it just in case someone finds it convincing.

IK's version of the conversation is wrong where he says he 'shows why they aren't flaws'. He gives one version of how they could possibly be explained by a townie. I am satisfied that that is his final explanation, but to me it's more likely that he is scum and is lying. IK's summary falls down because he assumes that by finding an answer for my question, the point is resolved as not scummy - but if his answers are not convincing that's completely untrue.

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

Everyone in the town will be looking at issues in my case and how you've answered them - but just because you answer doesn't mean we have to believe you. In fact, we have a duty to the town to work outwhether it's more likely that you are lying or not - that has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

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.

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.

[SerialClergyman]

Hi Bills, thanks for replacing in. Can we get a claim from you quickly?

[SerialClergyman]

IK - I've told you that my vote stays until I find a more convincing case. It's not a foregone conclusion at all, and never has been. The recent episode with X slightly made you more scummy, but made X significantly more scummy to my eyes. As I said in my post, I can see a situation wherey ou would be genuinely frustrated and feeling helpless as town, but I can't see any reason for a town X to post his last post. It makes more sense to me if he's your partner, obviously, but he might be just being opportunistic. I just don't know.

But you also need to look at the game as a whole as town. Say your lynch was inevitable (which at 2 votes is slightly melodramatic atm). You still have the advantage of a)still winning if the town wins and b) knowing you're about to be vindicated. So rather than just an I told you so (and that's not unreasonable ) you could also write up who you think was scummy, whether you thought my case on you was motivated by genuine scumhunting or whether I am scum, looking at the people on your wagon or the people who didn't comment much. If you post all those thoughts then tomorrow the town can look at them and know they are honest and genuine impressions and that wouldh elp us greatly, I think.

Also, which sentiments of X do you agree with specifically?

[SerialClergyman]

My last post was a simulpost, so I've only jsut read Ojanen's and I too am somewhat worried about his conclusion. It DOES sound a lot like Electionmafia. Hence I was using my last post to try and guide IKtown into something more productive and morel ikely to result in a win for town (and therefore IKtown) despite the lynch.

Ojanen - what are your thoughts on X given recent developments?

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP - '...despite the lynch that IK is fearing' -
I don't mean to suggest it's inevitable because as I said in the post before it, I think that view is melodramatic. Hell, I have jsut as many votes on me as you have on you, IK.

[SerialClergyman]

YB - that middle quote was somthing I wrote, not IK.

[SerialClergyman]

YB - no problem about that, but could you please elaborate al ittle further? If it was a typo and you meant to say 'Serial wrote', does this now apply to me?

QFT. However, your reaction makes you seem so much more scummy than anything X said in his post.

Or does it still apply to IK? Does the fact that the post was mine change this point for you?

[SerialClergyman]

[/quote]Also, please remember that you've been asked to re-confirm that you are indeed my mason partner. [/quote]

I'm off to work, I'll be posting later hopefully. I think I'll wait for IK's post before I post much.

However - I'm a little disappointed at this post. It might have been a little sneaky of me (sorry) but I asked bills to claim ASAP. I specifically did NOT mention WHAT he should be claiming, on the off chance we get a vanilla claim or anything other than mason. Yes - it was a long shot, but meh, what can you do. If bills hadn't been paying that much attention, his claim could well have been truthful, he would have had to read back quite a few pages before he got to the claim.

Anyway - by Yellowbunny specifically telling bills what to claim, it makes the point of my post useless, there was no test on bills at all.

Not necessarily anything dodgy, it was a long shot, I know, but nonetheless a little irritating.

[SerialClergyman]

Ugh bad tags, sorry

[SerialClergyman]

Had he claimed VT I would have been much more suspicious of you two. That's not much of a WIFOM issue - you might argue he didn't want to give up his power role, but that's much more of a stretch, I feel.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, it was only a small thing.

[SerialClergyman]

IK?

I thought you were going to elaborate on your thoughts today?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry Kreriov - I didn't want to reply to that until IK had posted his thoughts that I htought were coming today.

I might actually still hold off - I don't mean to be coy but I'm interested in hearing what IK has to say without a reaction to my opinion.

[SerialClergyman]

Hmm

Well I'm totally confused unfortunately. I'll go through some of my thoughts.

I was really disappointed that IK self-hammered. I think we gave him enough reason to stick in the game and by self-hammering he denied us more of his thoughts which are of course useful as he's confirmed town, and he's denied us the chance to look at the full wagon.

However, we do have some interesting information from the wagon. I think it's probably unlikely IK was lynched without any scum support. So let's have a look who was on the wagon.

Me. Well yes, I'm an obvious target because I led suspicion on IK. The question the town has to ask is whether my suspicion was a fabrication on someone I knew was town or a genuine scumhunt. 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. And at the end of the day, the power of the townie is to be vocal and unwaivering because, after all, you're expendable. So I take full responsibility for getting it wrong, but I hope that you don't consider me scummy because of it.

StrangerCoug - Confirmed town.

Kreriov - Was the second last to vote. Before he did vote, he defended the masons for some significant period of time. Asked IK to stop posting in twilight, which I thought was odd. It's not like he could harm us at that stage. Was very fixated on a connection between myself, X and IK. All in all - hard to say. There are hints of scummy things there but I'd have to do a proper rehash to see if there was anything there.

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.

Note: This is not necessarily true, just true if we accept that there must be at least 1 scum on that wagon. I think that having 3/4 of the non-voters scum is probably a bit much to accept, but it's possible.

(by the way, I believe there are 3 scum. in newbie games, there are 7 town to 2 scum, occasionally with a power role. We have had at least a cop and 12 people, plus any other power roles that are out there (and possibly mason, of course). That suggests to me it's likely to be more than 2. This has some interesting gameplay issues - firstly, a wrong vote on a townie could see 3 scum votes and that'd be the game so BE VERY CAREFUL WITH YOUR VOTES. Secondly, a nolynch vote here is a perfectly valid option. If the scum NKed, then there would be 7, we'd still be in lylo but we'd have better odds of hitting scum.)

[SerialClergyman]

Just reading through some of the posts above me, I'm incorrect, scum would need 2 town votes on someone to hammer. But even so, please, please be careful with your vote.

[SerialClergyman]

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.

I'll have a look about Ojanen + Hero now.

[SerialClergyman]

Well OjaneWell Ojanen's post starts with her town reads which, while valid for her, don't come with mounds of evidence. So we could just accept that myself, X, masons, herself are all town and that leaves the rest or not. They aren't exactly a uniform group either? X and I have openly attacked each other and who knows what to think of the masons.
Sorry - I'm not being clear. I think this process of elimination based on vibes might be a good internal process but it's hard to back her or not to back her knowing she's making the cases on people she doens't have good vibes on. From an outsider's perspective it's not convincing. I think you could makes a case on anyone and find SOMEthing. So right from the start I'm inclined to not be as impressed.

Having said that, I agree the case on Kreirov is quite well put. I agree the quote there is scummy. He uses Coug as the catalyst for his change which to me looks like piggybacking on someone else. I also felt his change to IK came a little out of the blue. There's also the telling IK not to say anythign in twilight.

For Sajin, there isn't much of a case to say he's scummy, I think. There are a couple of questions that are valid, but not much to make me think Sajin is scum. I also would have liked a big Sajin post day 2, I also thought his case against me was bad and you can see why in my reply to him. I also think much of what he's done, including the spelling out of interactions between YB and X and the case on me show more evidence of inept scumhunting (err no offence) rather than manipulative scumreasoning.

Ojanen doens't make a case on hero/michel at all, just sort of process of elimination's him into the scumthree.

So I think Ojanen makes good points against both Kreirov and Sajin but the ones against Sajin are more indicitive of bad play than scummy play, in my opinion.

Onto the Michel dialog in the next post.

[SerialClergyman]

To be honest, I don't see much of a case against Michel at all. This doesn't mean I think he's town or more likely to be town, I just see very little in your posts where you explain how his actions are scummy.

You might have had a feeling Hero was scummy but you never really explained why. Then Michael came in and made some valid and invalid points about you. I agree with you that your defending of CUBE works as a mason pair (it also works as a mafia pair though too). I don't know where Michel is getting at by arguing that you are unsure of CUBE's alignment. Whether you're mason or scum you would know his alignment, so I guess the only point Michel could make is that as mason you're more likely to be pro-partner because there's less reason to distance than if you're scum. I don't know whether that's true or not, I think it's iffy.

Either way - your defence doesn't do much to make me think Michel is scum at all. The point about Hero's vote on CUBE I actually agree with Michel, I think characterising it as a vote for CUBE, no discussion, is pretty unreasonable. You might have meant dialog with other people, but when I read it I view it morel ike bills' vote on IK which genuinely had no discussion, just a couple of ill-reasoned half-points.

There is the point baout delaying the game at night though. I replaced in very early, in fact it was just a few hours after the lynch. I don't know whether it was just Hero that was missing or if there were others.. I think there were some V/LAs? I don't know. Worth investigating though. I'm also not quite sure what I can say regarding communication with mod, I'll pm and ask.

YB - your vote seems out of place. If you feel I haven't addressed your case could you summarise it a little, put in a few quotes to give us the picture? That'd really help.

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.

[SerialClergyman]

Hi X.

That post of Heroes is already in the game, it wasn't PMed to MS or anything. I cbf finding it, but I remember it. Sort by users for Hero and you'll see it. MS quoted it in response to YB saying Hero voted CUBE 'without discussion', so MS was showing the discussion that Hero had in his vote cube post.

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'.

IK's answers just looked like lies. There's only so much you can do when making a case against someone. I pointed out a lot of evidence, asked a lot of questions. His answers just weren't satisfactory. I say why did you say you were up in the air but still want to hammer asap? He says I was just a little confused and I wanted the day to end. Well - OK. What else can I ask? Eventually there comes a point in every argument where you have all the information on the issue you're going to get and you have to

make a decision

as to whether they are scum lying or town telling the truth. I never tried to argue that he was lying THEREFORE he's scum, I never said everyone had to agree with me that he was lying. All I can say is that his defence DID NOT CONVINCE ME, and I couldn't see any other question that would change that.

I'm disappointed that I was wrong, I'm disappointed his defence wasn't more coherent, I'm disappointed that he didn't put up more of a fight, try to make cases on people voting him and self-hammered. But I can't do anythign about that.

I also think given how much I DID post, this is a pretty unfair criticism of me. Out of all the people who voted IK, I by far had the most research, reasoning, evidence and questions posed to him. Is it reasonable that despite all this you would consider me more scummy than those who waltz in near the death and vote without much reason?

[SerialClergyman]

It's a definitional issue, YB. MS took it to mean talk, reasoning, content. You seem to be defining it as interaction between numerous people.

My feeling is that his interpretation is a bit more reasonable. To say someone posted with no discussion to me implies he posted without saying very much at all, just hi, vote: someone, bye. That's clearly untrue. But I agree that if you define discussion as 'wait for someone to respond to you, ask questions, form a dialog', then yes, he didn't do that.

Ok - to your original argument. Would have been nice if you'd linked or summarised or something. It's about page 14 for all of you who are keen to see it. (later I use 1 2 and 3 to refer to specific points in post 332)

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.

However - leaving those issues alone, I'm trying to get to the nub of what you're saying.

I think your argument that CUBE was the easy lynch is wrong. Wall-E would have been an easier choice.
I think that 2 and 3 are utter null-tells - they found CUBE scummier than Wall-E. Well, fair enough, you don't explain why that's scummy or why they're trying to manipulate something.
I think that 1 is possibly scummy, that they found you vaguely scummy and didn't say why. But then that's hardly unique in this game, there's plenty of vague feelings and poor arguments.

You also don't complain about a lack of dialog from Hero at this point. Why is it scummy now but not then?

If I havne't gotten the gist of your argument, just put up a summary. Asking me to go find it means I might have missed something and it's also not condusive to convincing.

And as for why I'm being defensive of MS, I don't think I am, I'm just responding to what I see as bad cases. X claimed MS had to have some kind of QT to get the Hero post he quoted - that's just not true. You put up a pretty weak case against Hero, I don't find it convincing. I can't do much more than be honest about my thought processes.

[SerialClergyman]

YB, I'm reading that quote and to me it seems like you are implying Hero waltzed in and voted without posting something concrete. You're welcome to disagree, but that's how I view it. I also see nothing wrong with voting in a new game when you haven't had any questions answered, so either way it's null for me.

Of course you aren't convinced of my alignment, but you've missed the point of my quote. You asked my opinion on a case against hero, the majority of which was 'hero and jase at one point in the game had very similar viewpoints'. How am I supposed to repond to that, as either town or scum? I'm unlikely to go BINGO - they're a scumpair! I'm suggesting you should make that case to people other than myself, by it's very nature you're unlikely to find support here.

Well, I think this is a pretty solid contradiction on your behalf. 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.

How does the quote you gave address my point about discussion at all? You recently have specifically argued that the lack of discussion before Hero voted is suspicious. Back then, you make no mention at all as to whether Hero should have waited for discussion, no mention of asking questions.

Perhaps you got the impression I didn't find the argument about Ojanen compelling because I did say I didn't find it convincing and did point out to Kreirov that there were inconsistencies in his post? You'll also note I wasn't specifically asked to comment on the Ojanen case, unlike now where you've specifically asked me to comment then attacked me for being defensive of hero/ms.

Yes, that is reminiscent of what I said about IK because it's the same principle. I don't find your case convincing. I could be wrong, just like I was about IK, but I don't find your case convincing.

Your last section to me is a very poor bit of logic. You seem to ignore the arguments and dismiss it as a feeling which is totally unreasonable. The logic is:

- There were probably 3 scum amongst the 10 town members we had.
- There was a large amount of evidence against IK that I posted.
- There was a long period where noone really voted IK.
- Quite suddenly, IK became the hot lynch, and in the space of a couple of days got 6 votes.

If scum WEREN'T on that wagon, that means that a) the town who didn't find the evidence hugely convincing when first presented it, all decided in around the same time frame that IK was actually pretty dodgy after all and all voted him, that b) none of the scum decided to join in on this drama and try to push the wagon on someone they knew to be town and c) 3/4 non-IK voting members were scum - and there was one empty slot in that 4.

Surely that's hugely unlikely. We actually have a big advantage in that of the 6 on the wagon, 2 count as 1 due to the mason claim, 2 are confirmed townies. So on a wagon with (at least) 1 scum, we've got a really good chance to weed them out.

And having two players who aren't really participating makes it MORE likely that scum are on the wagon because there's less people around to get the critical number of votes.

And even ignoring all of this - how on earth is it WIFOM?

[SerialClergyman]

Well, ok. So when he joined there were two scummy targets, Wall-E and Looker. He went with Looker and you found it scummy? What if he'd gone with Wall-E? What should he have done? I'm just confused by this point now.
And I think it's odd you're defining easiest as not Wall-E. What makes Looker an easier target than Wall-E, who was a townie acting scummy who by your admission was easier to lynch?

You really think automatic vote implies a vote without discussion? To me, it implies a vote without much consideration. But ok. But that's two words now (easy bandwagon and automatic vote) that you're relying on quite specific interpretations of.

Your statistics argument is quite well thought out and much better than dismissing it off hand, so thanks for that. But I think it's flawed in that you're assuming a semi-random distribution. There's more reason for scum to be on the wagon than to not be on the wagon. So I would suggest it's more likely that there are scum on the wagon than not. See my logic above about why it's likely scum are on the wagon.

Also, if you and bills are scum, then obviously there would only be 1 left. So it's not quite 1/3 - it's only 1/3 vs 2/4 if I or Kreirov were scum alone. It's just as likely you or bills are scum, which means it's 1/3 vs 1/4.

So if you want to do it purely by stats, you'd have to assign a probability to each of the 0,1,2,3. So, purely by stats, 2 and 3 mean it's much better to focus on wagon, 1 is closerto not and 0 is terrible. But I think that'd be going to silly lengths.

Look at it like this - the chance there's 0 scum on the wagon? Pretty damn unlikely. That means the lynch of IK and the sudden popularity in voting him a while after my case was all purely town-inspired. Once you assign a low probability to that event, the rest of the events make looking at the wagon much more statistically worthwhile.

The question about town's suicide is a non-issue - if we focus off the wagon and you, bills and kreirov are scum then that would be suicide too. All the townies are in the dark and we're trying to work out the best way to tackle this.

So just because we don't know for sure how many scum are on the wagon and so can't do the maths doens't mean it's a bad idea. In fact there are some good qualitative aruments as to why. We have more information about the people on the wagon, there's good reason for there to be scum there and the numbers are reasonably convincing too.

Hell - I'm ON the wagon. I certainly don't want to be lynched, but it's not like this is a scummy ploy to take attention away from me.

And as I've said before - anyone who knows they are on the wagon and knows they are town has essentially a 50% chance of catching scum if at least 1 person on the wagon is scum. Since I think it's unlikely, from my point of view it makes perfect statistical sense to chase the wagon. Don't you feel the same way from your point of view?

[SerialClergyman]

MS, I appreciate that you want to fight your battles, and to be honest I haven o idea if you're scum, but a) there were some bad points made and b) I was asked to comment. I'm not going to hold back because it might look better for me.

[SerialClergyman]

Where normally I might take the lack of support for my points as a sign they aren't very convincing and perhaps try to move on, I can't afford to do that in lylo because 3/8 of the group are scum. So the level of manipulation is hefty. I'm prepared to listen to arguments borne of good scumhunting, of which there haven't been many, so I'm still going to plug away with my leads. I think the one thing that's hard to fake is good, evidence based cases against people.

The argument by statistics has caused a great deal of confusion. To answer YB's question, if I know I'm town, and I think there's sucm on the wagon, I have two entities which could be scum. So from this point my chances are at least 50% to lynch correctly.

If you do stats in your job you'd know a statistical analysis requires much more effort than the odd fractions we're tossing around now. You'd have to asign a weighting to the chances of how many scum are in the group and then play out the combinations of finding them. Something like 10% chance of 0 wagon on scum, 0% hit rate. 40% chance of 1 scum = ~33.3% hit rate. etc etc. In other words, appealing to statistics becomes ludicrous.

Also - arguments about gambling and town-suicide are all meaningless. Any lynch the town opts for is a gamble that if incorrect is town-suicide. That's the whole thing about lylo. So trying to paint one particular path to that decision as suicide but others not is a misunderstanding of the situation at best and a misrepresentation at worst.

So the upshot of all this is - I believe focusing on IK's wagon is important because I believe that scum voted him. They had every reason to vote him, the pattern of suspicion and voting fits with a stalled wagon that scum pushes. We have concrete information about the people on that wagon, I say we should look at it. Just saying that it's possible scum all stood by and let IK get lynched doesn't make it true - how do you explain the fact IK went along with 1 vote for weeks then had 6 within a couple of days? The explanations when attempted so far have been feeble. The argument to look at the wagon is specifically because there is good information there and reason for scum to be on that wagon.

However, as I said, I'm always prepared to listen to good scumhunting.

Next is the issue of who I'm targetting. At the moment, despite arguing with yellowbunny, I find Kreirov probably my most suspicious. He was the one who stopped IK talking, he was the one who FoSed before the deadline was in place (nice catch Ojanen), he was the one who saw the light after StrangerCoug's post. It's entirely consistent with scum pushing a wagon to me. Also Kreirov - since when do you have a consistent record of finding IK scummy? Going back in time, you FoS, then there's a big patch of nothing beforehand where you say very little baout IK.

However, having said that, I do think we can't afford to continue to ignore the validity of the masons. I was in favour of assuming innocence yesterday but after 2 NKs that missed them, it's just not feasible to assume innocence. I'm surprised Ojanen finds YB so townie, I think that my first read through I didn't like her play at all. It's true much of that could be attributed to her links with CUBE, but that link could well be a scumlink.

I agree the whole claim without knowing who the cop is thing is the biggest point against this and the reason why I've been OK with ignoring the masons up until now. But I think to give them a free pass after 2 NKs and when they were on the wagon both lynches is not feasible.

And remember that by YB's own admission she felt that she could be tied to CUBE. So on a CUBE scumflip, she felt at the time she would have been the obvious second choice. So it's not THAT much of a risk.

And to those who suggest the scum are NKing elsewhere to try to find power roles - masons ARE power roles. The ability to know that a teammate is town and be able to talk to them is invaluable. I don't think that the masons have used their ability at all well this game if they are indeed town.

X Your point about Hero's meta is taken.

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

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.

YB - I think that yes, generally scum end up on townie wagons. Because it's very rare for purely townies to lynch purely other townies without scum being involved. I find it odd that's even a point f contention. Looking at voting records is one of the more evidenciary-based approaches possible.

You can FoS me, but even in our disagreements, I'm unsure of what I've done that's scummy? I've argued we should focus on the wagon, which has good reason behind it, and I've argued that we shouldn't consider the masons as obvtown and that has good reason behind it too.

I think I'm replying to a lot of different ideas and points and it's becoming jumbled. I might go away and look through the thread for something a bit more concrete than conjecture. My point to everyone who is townie is be very careful, there are a significant amount of scum around who are using poor reasoning, and they can back each other up and manipulate collective wisdom. Just be sure of your opinions and why you hold them, that's all.

[SerialClergyman]

MS made the point about YB and fakeclaiming better than I did. It's not suicide if there was a link between them already, because a looker scumflip would be disasterous.

[SerialClergyman]

Ok - I think there are some important things cropping up here.

1) My argument was never bourne from statistics. You first introduced statistics to try to show that there was more statistical liklihood of finding scum off the wagon. My point was always a logical one - that it was logical that scum would be pushing that wagon, and we have a rare chance to narrow it down (rare because we have 2 confirmed townies and a mason pairing out of 6, which cuts down the real number of candidates for scum dramatically).

2) My relationship with the masons. This is about the 15th manipulation of words you've had in the last few days YB.

I agree the whole claim without knowing who the cop is thing is the biggest point against this and the reason why I've been OK with ignoring the masons up until now. But I think to give them a free pass after 2 NKs and when they were on the wagon both lynches is not feasible.

Big problem with your statement here. First of all, you were not "okay" with ignoring the masons, and you did not give us a free pass. YOU SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF LYNCHING ONE OF US TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE TOWN. Explain to me how that is a free pass?

You'll notice I never refer to having given you a free pass. I'm specifically saying giving you guys a free pass TODAY is not feasible.

But ignoring that and looking at the meat of your point, lets look at what I said when I first came into the game re: masons.

think I might have to go back knowing what we know aobut qints to see if there's a reason why he's been killed. My initial reaction to his death is that it is very surprising none of the claimed masons have been killed. Perhaps they were worried about a possible doctor and double guessing and all that, but to avoid the claimed townies and to find the cop iseither lucky or there's something else going on.

If I were to make a case against anyone based on my initial read, it would be yellowbunny. That all got overridden when she claimed mason which both explained away some of the perceived scummyness and also make it much harder to push a case against her based on normal tells - we need to decide whether we believe the lcaim or not.

I'm in favour of talking about the masons and making a decision about them before we look to scumhunt elsewhere. It's just too big an issue to sweep under the carpet. If yellowbunny feels I'm scummy because of it, so be it, but for the town it's greatly important we're comfortable with the issue.

I am also perplexed that Looker didn't even realise there was a claim. Did you talk at all in the week of night? Isn't that the entire point of masons as a group?

Having said that - what can we do? I'd like a few other members to weigh in on whether they believe your claim or not. For the record, I'm leaning towards believe.

I'm actually going to stop here. The reason for that is because I think more and more I believe YB's story. I think that YB was often trying to push suspicion away from Looker/CUBE in a pretty obvious fashion while still scumhunting elsewhere. It's conceivable that they are scum, of course, but the risk of trying that move with a cop not discovered just doesn't seem to make sense. If the cop was already dead I'd be much more suspicious. And I think it's highly unlikley they had qwints pegged well enough to be sure of getting a cop with their night kill.

So my notes are taken from a position where I didn't realise there was a mason claim, and so naturally YB's refusal to even really consider the looker case did seem scummy. So did her unvoting wall-e then revoting later on. But now I realise that's just because there was a 2-choice lynch and she knew she couldn't lynch looker.

YB - I've looked at my first 8 posts and they are filled with quotes like the above. After that my focus was on the case against IK and the other town-wide issues. You put it out there, you are making the case that I was gunning for you when it's just patently clear it's not true. When did I suggest that we lynch you to confirm bills or vice versa? Your accusations DO NOT STACK UP with the actual evidence.

Your argument about why scum wouldn't lynch you has been addressed by me, but I'll do it again. There's two sections as far as I can tell.
a) They are looking for power roles so they are looking away from the masons.
b) If the town lynch one, they can kill the other, but as soon as they NK one, the other is confirmed.

So to address the points:
a) Masons ARE power roles. Two innocent townies who know someone else is innoncent and can collaborate? That's undeniably powerful against scum. In a 3-man lylo, masons make the correct lynch trivial. Even in open play, having two people who are perfectly comfortable with the alignment of a teammate is very, very powerful. So I think that scum would absolutely try to knock them off asap.
b) Of course trying to get the town to lynch the masons is preferable. But that's pretty idealistic! You can't manipulate the town into picking exactly who you want to lynch whenever you want to lynch them! If you were scum and knew who the cop was, you spotted a breadcrumb - would you not NK and try to get the town to lynch, or would you do NK him? To me it's obvious.
And even if you don't accept that argument right off the bat - we DIDN'T lynch you yesterday, in fact, we primarily ignored you yesterday. After a bit of discussion at the start of the day, the masons were close to accepted town. So WHY WEREN'T YOU KILLED LAST NIGHT? Are the scum holding off AGAIN? I'm sorry, but two night kills pass claimed masons and neither kills you - it's suspicious, and your attacks won't deter me from pointing that out.

Lastly, X's point about Jase - I have no idea why he was quiet or not, I can't explain the possible scumtell. But I'd point out that he says as quiet as he can get away with - clearly he was more quiet here because he actually ditched the game and was replaced. So that's not the active lurking described in the quote, that's just complete inactivity.

Onto issues where you feel I am scummy.

1a)Cut off discussion with IK

Well - isn't this a fantastic backflip! You had all of yesterday to agree with X and talk about my scumminess but I never noticed you doing it. In fact, I remember in post 1091 you QFT this part of my post:

K - I've told you that my vote stays until I find a more convincing case. It's not a foregone conclusion at all, and never has been. The recent episode with X slightly made you more scummy, but made X significantly more scummy to my eyes.

So why did you feel that X was scummy back then and made absolutely no mention of the possibility of me killing discussion? Why are his points valid now but not then?

Even aside from that specific issue - I certainly did not cut off conversation. I repeatedly asked IK to make his case and discussed events with other players. (1114, 1118, 1083, 1084)
I even specifically stir conversation (again, after having done it earlier in the day) when things stalled at 1065.

Of all the people who have not contributed to discussion, of all the people who have not been open to other cases, of all the people who have not tried to actively scumhunt - I am CLEARLY not one of them. I've been one of the most active, participatory people in the game and regularly tried to get everyone involved. Of all the things to accuse me of, this is ridiculous.

1b) Led the wagon on IK.

Yep. I did that. But I had a lot of evidence, a lot of argument and a lot of reason to do it. Anyone who actively scumhunts has the odds against them but I was trying my best, and just got it wrong.

2) Push a half-baked wagon argument.

The argument of looking at a suspicious wagon is completley valid. I say nothing about ignoring other players or ignoring good points. My suspicion is there is scum on the wagon of IK and that makes me suspect the masons and Kreirov. Look at the dynamic at 1065 then how quickly the votes fly into IK to lynch. I smell scum there, and there's nothing scummy baout the reasoning or the approach.

3) Reaction to the masons.

Well, I've primarily addressed this above. Find my quotes where I try to have you killed D1. Show how the quotes I've listed don't show someone genuinely trying to find consensus on a difficult issue.

And since when are you obvtown??? I think this narritive is getting very tired. CUBE looked scummy as all hell and you claimed to save him. CUBE and his various reincarnations have all been utterly scummy throught the game, including bills' vote on IK yesterday. You have looked reasonable in the eyes of the town, and we can see that you had a link to CUBE in D1. And that's IT. You are in no sense confirmed town. If I were scum and knew you to be innocent masons, questioning you is a much tougher path than just going after a lurker or some other townie. Questioning your claim is PRO-TOWN, it's NOT confirmed and there's mounting evidence to suggest you aren't masons at all.

4) My connection with Hero/Ms

I can't speak for Jase. Your points about Jase and Hero I talked about and found relatively weak. You don't show any scummy collusion, it ignores the fact Hero basically wan't there for D2.

My agreeing with some of what MS says is because he's making sense - he's using evidence and making valid points.
My defending him from some of what you said was because it was a bad case and there was no reason to let it stand.

[SerialClergyman]

If you feel I tried to get you lynched day 1, quote it. Find the evidence where I suggest to the town that you should be lynched.

The point about masons being power roles is not wifom.

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? Even though it'd be less good than getting the town to lynch him, because a NK is certain and controlling the town's lynch is far from certain. Why would the scum leave you alive and risk having masons in the game when they could NK you? Doesn't make sense.

Any choice or opinion in the game has some probability to it. Any lynch the town makes has a probability of being correct. So to make an argument without relying on pure stats, you need to have other things to back you - that's where the logic of tryign to reason where scum are come in. Hence the wagon argument is not one based on statistics, although it has a probalistic element to it. In the same vein, you as town thinking I'm scum has a probalistic element to it - you couldn't be sure, there's some chance you got it right and some chance you got it wrong.

Arg.

I don't hink you've raised many concerns that I haven't answered. I'm going to wait for people to comment and answer any external questions because I'm just getting frustrated, it's like talking to a wall. I think there's good reason for that, of course, but I've already written about 5,000 words and in the end the argument is for others to decide, not you or I.

Are you going to acknowledge the points I made that you didn't try to refute, or try to address the issue that you claiming could be explained as trying to save yourself from the obvious lynch day 2 if looker flips scum?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry, one more point about this:

So why did you feel that X was scummy back then and made absolutely no mention of the possibility of me killing discussion? Why are his points valid now but not then?

At that point in time, I felt there were larger issues to address.

- Yesterday, when you didn't find my 'closing of discussion' scummy, you thought that there were larger issues to address. So you saw X's post, agreed with it, then decided to say nothing about that whatsoever and instead say that X had gotten more scummy. Now today, you're bringing it up.

Yeah, that sounds totally reasonable.

[SerialClergyman]

Wow YB.

Big problem with your statement here. First of all, you were not "okay" with ignoring the masons, and you did not give us a free pass. YOU SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF LYNCHING ONE OF US TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE TOWN. Explain to me how that is a free pass?

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

Are you denying you first mentioned lynching the masons?

You don't directly say it (because you are obviously not a stupid person)...but you are planting seeds for a mason lynch here...testing the waters, if you will.

Just keep changing what you meant YB. Never mind you screamed your accusation in capitals and spelt it out, never mind you're faced with a clear example of being caught out in a lie - I'm sure you had some other meaning to your words.

I've actually quite enjoyed playing with you YB. You just constantly shift your focus and try to push, but if you tell enough lies, eventually you come unstuck.

You can say that saying someone voted without discussion MEANT they were voting without interaction from other people (and ignore if that's even scummy). (1158)

You can say that saying someone didn't hop on the easiest wagon MEANT they were hopping on the 'easiest from a scum point of view, not most likely to lynch' (1160)

You can say that when you said Hero gives an 'automatic vote', you MEANT that Hero voted without interaction with other people - so exactly the argument you were trying to find some consistency for. (1160)

You can say that when you said I hardly said anythign to defend Ojanen from Kreiov's bad case you MEANT that I did post about it (1158)

you asked the mod to verify that you can trust your role PM but you MEANT to not structure the question to imply that his answer would help confirm you as mason. (1176)

You say that X is scummy on D2 for supporting IK and raising an issue about me not questioning IK further but you MEANT that actually you agreed(!) with him but didn't feel the need to mention it due to more concerning issues. (1176)

You say that I claimed to have given you a free pass on D2 but you MEANT that despite the fact I was referring to a different day, a DIFFERENT part of the sentence led you to believe I was claiming that. (1176)

You say that I am scummy for ending discussion on IK but you MEANT that despite all of the discussion I continued to riase and show via quotes and post numbers, you were referring specifically to X's point and nothing else raised matters. (1180)

You take a hypothetical point about knowing who a power role is, suggest that because I use the word breadcrumb, I'm scum, have found said hypothetical breadcrumb and used that to kill qwints.

You say that because I refer to probabilities and what is likely ot unlikly to happen, my arguments are purely based on statistics while conviniently ignoring that ANY THEORY EVER has some probability of success or failure, including your own.

You say that concentrating on a few certain people would be suicide for the town while conviniently ignoring that as soon as you are prepared to lynch ANYONE if they aren't scum, it's suicide for the town.

You also keep throwing your vote around in lylo. Normally I'd be worried about the scum swooping down to lynch and end the game. But I think that if you're voting me, YB, that's not going to happen, is it? Because there are only 2 more scumbuddies of yours out there.

@ town, If I get time at some point, I'll do more of a play by play case on YB from earlier. But if the above isn't convincing to you, God help us.

[SerialClergyman]

Hey, I have limited access today so i can't post too much.

Be careful with putting votes on me unless you're happy to lynch. If I have 2 townie votes and there are three mafia, it's game over.

I'm surprised that X would both start to see my point and view the masons as suspicious and vote me.

When I asked YB to find me wanting ot lynch him D1, I meant MY D1, which of course was D2. His point was that I came onto the scene and tried to get him lynched to confirm that the masons were telling the truth, which is abjectly false.

Sajin, I give my reasons for thinking there are 3 mafia earlier in the thread. Primaily because newbie games have 2 mafia for 9 people and a power role, this game has 12 people and at least 1 power role, that suggests 3 mafia to me.

I totally accept responsibility for getting it wrong on IK. I would say, however, that I had a lot of reason to do it. I had several long posts with my evidence that he failed to address very well, and I went for it. If you look, I didn't reply to him straight away, I waited for others to make their cases but none of them were particularly convincing to me. I thought the IK wagon was the best place to be - unfortunately I was wrong.

Additionally with IK - he went to his death saying I was NOT scummy and that YB WAS. So despite my cases and proported tunneling on IK, he STILL felt that I was genuine in my attempts where YB and bills were not.

All right. I think you're town. I believe you were motivated by genuine scumhunting, though as I've said, the fact that your case against me petered out is somewhat disappointing.

I believe this to be a calculated move. YB is not stupid, we know this, of the "mason" pair she's the more intelligent of the two thusfar. My belief is that this claim was made partially to remove suspicion from Looker and to cause a mass migration over to the Wall-E wagon. In this, it succeeded masterfully. Another reason for this claim is most likely to secure YB's and Looker's position as town, lock it in place, so much so that despite Looker's consistent uselessness nobody has built a case against either of them yet, because doing so would be seen as a scumtell in its own right!

During Night 1, the scum did not kill the mason pair. Even if you take it from the perspective that the mason pair is not a scumteam, that's strange. Why did the scum allow the masons to continue night discussing? There is no logical reason for it, unless the mason pair is actually a scumteam.

YB - I'd make a case on Kreirov but my case on you is getting more and more compelling as you continue ot backpedal on your posts, plus I'm spending much of my time just trying to answer all of the suspicions against me. Why are you so insistent that I make a case on him? What would it prove to you? Every time you ask me it feels like I'm hitting the mark on you.

The breadcrumb thing has been totally misunderstood. If you look at my original post, all I was trying ot say was 'if the scum knew who the cop was they would NK him, not try to get the town to lynch him. If they knew who the masons were, they would surely NK the masons rather than try to get the town lynch them'

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.

As I said, I have limited access today so perhaps I'll just make a few points.

If you didn't find the list of things YB has said but twisted out of at 1186 convincing, let me highlight two -

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.

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.

Surely those two things have at least got to give you pause.

Another question to genuinely ask yourself is how do you know that YB and bills are masons? Why is it so confirmed? They've claimed it, that's true, but there's no external verification at all. Even if you feel YB's play in D1 and D2 was relatively town-aligned - look at bills' play! His vote on IK is possibly the scummiest event of D2 and his subsequent play reeks tremendously of it (look at his recent vote - similar much?) Is YB's play strong enough to give bills a get-out-of-jail free card?

Finally, be sure of your reasons for voting me. Even if you feel I'm wrong about YB, which is certainly possible, can you please make sure you're voting me because you feel I am DEFINITELY scum, not just because I'm wrong, or because I attacked the masons. (which, dammit, is PRO-TOWN zz.) Look through all of my posts, from D2 and ask yourself when you thought I was scum and why. If you have questions that you feel I haven't addressed, ask them. If just two townies vote me, we will lose the game, if the scum are coordinated. There are two votes on me now, so technically it's possible, but one of them is bills, so I'm pretty comfortable. YB unvoted, interestingly.

My point is, just make sure you're exceedingly comfortable with your reasons, not just what someone else said, and ask me your questions first and I'll do my best to answer them.

Also - look back and see if you can see any misrepresenations, contradictions or lies that I've told. I'm sure you won't find any (unlike YB) because I have always believed townies should go hard or go home.

[SerialClergyman]

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?

[SerialClergyman]

YB - My apologies about referring to you as a he just then. As you know, I've written some stupid number of words about you and others on the site and I usually get it right, but occasionally I relapse into the male assumption. I didn't mean any offense.

My wording about IK was meant to imply that on his death he thought you were scum, you were the people he chose to write a case about before he died. Hence I wrote 'he went to his death...'. Sorry if you found it misleading, I thought it was clear.

My point in bringing up the IK thing is threefold.

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.

2) His opinion on both myself and YB can be looked at as a genuine one - not a scum-influenced opinion. The opinion of a confirmed townie is worth more than that of someone who may not be scum. It's certainly true they are not necessarily right, but they are untainted.

You are appealing to the authority of a confirmed townie. Okay, fine, but he didn't have any more information than anyone else in the game.

I'd be surprised you'd take this line of reasoning, YB, given your previous reasoning but I'm not that surprised any more by your contradictions.

Also the fact that we now know that Wall-e was town makes me take his arguments against IK a lot more seriously.

3) You claim that IK's suspicion of you was purely OMGUS. But if he was prone to OMGUS, why would he not suspect me? We all know I was the major proponent of an IK lynch and I did the most effort to see that end happen. Yet when given a chance to finger someone on his deathbed, he chose you two. If he wanted to OMGUS someone, I was the perfect target, yet he thought I was pro-town and you weren't. I don't think OMGUS works as a reason to dismiss his opinion.

You have a point about tunneling, although I think we're both guilty. It's not good to focus on any one person, and I agree that since it is possible I could be wrong we should focus on everyone else as well. The dynamic of the game seems to be you and I have a go at each other during the day then the rest of the town drop in and comment on it. That means that the town has two options for a lynch, both of which could be town.

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?

The difficulty is I'm probably the person under the most suspicion at the moment. I have limited time to devote to the game and it's a struggle to post essays every single day. But I'm doing it because I think it's that or lose the game, and I don't want to lose the time and effort I've invested into the game. It's already really stretching me to fend off unfair criticism, answer legitimate questions and make sure my case agaisnt YB is backed by evidence - the thought of approaching a scumhunt elsewhere is just too much at the moment. I would love it if the town got involved and started bringing up important points about others that I have missed. Im' sure it's probably the same with YB as well.

If there are 3 scum, and we assume no bussing, we will need 5 townies to vote a scum off, compared to 2 townies to vote an innocent. That makes EVERY townie's participation mandatory if we're to win the game.

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.

Meh - when you say 'why haven't you made a case about Kreirov?' I hear 'Stop making a case against me'.

Your hypothetical argument about masons and NKs is really poor, in my opinion, for a number of reasons.

Point is...they played a risky game in not NKing us sooner. They were gambling that they could get us lynched and never have confirmed town. Because each day they do not NK us and we don't get lynched, they run a big risk.

1) I totally agree is would be very, very risky to not kill the masons earlier. And that's the key point, isn't it? There is a much simpler explanation than saying there was an elaborate decision by the scum to TWICE not NK you - simply, that you are scum.

What's more reasonable - that I as scum decided to let known claimed masons live through N1 and N2 without ever really challenging them or tryign to get them lynched during the day, then deciding at the outset of D3 that I was in trouble and tried really hard against general opinion to get them lynched?

OR

The scum fakeclaimed to avoid an imminent lynch.

2) Your argument almost totally depends on there being 2 scum. Remember that scum only need to get 1 innocent kill (assuming 3 scum.) So the easiest option for scum is to just pick a scummy townie and try to knock them off. Why would scum even be thinking about tomorrow's strategy? (unless there are 2 town in a 12 person game with at least 1 pro-town power role - which as I say is highly unlikely to me.) Thoughts about who would be the ideal lynch given tomorrow's strategy ignores the fact that in all liklihood, a town lynch is an instant game over. If I were scum and knew you were mason, it would be much easier to pick someone else.

3) Say I as scum choose not to NK you N1. Why not try to get you lynched D2? Say there's some reason why I (and my phantom scum partner(s)) focus on people other than you two - maybe it was too hard to push the wagon. Why not NK you N2? Why wait until D3 to try to attack you? Did I just wake up on D3 and go 'Holy crap, I'm going to be in heaps of trouble soon!'

4) Assuming there WERE only 2 scum, and assuming there was some reason why I as scum hadn't NKed you before - why not just pick an easy target for a town lynch and NK you both? Sure, I'd have to face the next day with 6 people, one of which is confirmed town. But as you say, it'd be easy to knock you off and then all I as scum wouldh ave to contend with is bills coming along every 200 posts and writing a line or two. The situation you paint isn't dire enough for scum to attack people they know are masons, it's still easier just to NK.

Your contradictions are best judged by the town, so I'll post them concisely. You go from these three statements in a couple of different posts:

YOU SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF LYNCHING ONE OF US TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE TOWN.

You first try to suggest we lynch one of us to see if we are telling the truth

Are you denying you first mentioned lynching the masons?

To this:

You don't directly say it (because you are obviously not a stupid person)...

And you were referring to this quote:

I do think we should try to work out if we can resolve this mason issue. Without a cop, how do we make a decision without wasting a lynch on them?

Which came along with a wealth of other quotes that I posted where I was asking the town to resolve the mason issue.

So is this backpedalling? I think absolutely. You state in no uncertain terms that I suggested the possibility of lynching you, to the point where you ask if I am denying it. It was only when I asked you specifically for quotes or evidence that you had to totally change your tune and say I never suggested it at all (because I'm 'too smart'). That was absolutely different to your original post. You had to backpedal dramatically.

The point about X was that at the time X first made the comment - you actually quoted part of my post for truth and sugegsted that you were suspicious of an X/IK scumteam. So you seemed to completely agree with me there. Now you're saying it was scummy, but you just didn't mention it because it was a small issue. Nor did you mention it in your first few cases against me, but when X brings it up in the middle of day 3, you suddenly feel it's valid. In fact, you list it as number 1 in your 4 reasons to think I'm scummy. That's really, really opportunistic. And why did it go from being small enough to be not worth a mention to large enough to be your top reason why you think I'm scum?

To show everyone just how surprising this turnaround by you is, this is the part of my original post at the time X first makes the point:

K - I've told you that my vote stays until I find a more convincing case. It's not a foregone conclusion at all, and never has been. The recent episode with X slightly made you more scummy, but made X significantly more scummy to my eyes.

QFT. However, your reaction makes you seem so much more scummy than anything X said in his post.

To clear up the 'however, you're reaction...' part, YB is referring to IK here. I specifically made sure this was the case in 1096

YB - no problem about that, but could you please elaborate al ittle further? If it was a typo and you meant to say 'Serial wrote', does this now apply to me?

Quote:
QFT. However, your reaction makes you seem so much more scummy than anything X said in his post.


Or does it still apply to IK? Does the fact that the post was mine change this point for you?

Oh...sorry.

What I meant to say is that I agree with what you said (hence the QFT). The reaction I was referring to was IK's.

These are your posts now.

I think X's points are valid, and you seem to be attempting to close conversation again.

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.

Is this backpedalling? Again, I think the conclusion has to be yes. I can understand if there's a small issue that irks you, but that's not what happened here. YB took one side on D2, specifically saying she agreed with me, and theo ther side on D3, claiming that she thought I was scummy. Could it have been too minor to mention D2? Then why is it her number 1 reason I'm scummy D3? That's a contradiction, pure and simple.

If any town thinks I've been unfair in my quoting or something else, let me know, but I just cannot see how that isn't dodgy.

If your attacks were not based on WIFOM and misrepresentations...then even I would agree with you that your questioning, while misguided, was pro-town. But you are revisioning events to suit your case, and making tons of WIFOM assertions, which I firmly believe you KNOW are WIFOM. If you are a townie, you are engaging in IK-caliber behavior.

Lol...so the past few pages worth of things you did aren't enough?

It's just not enough. If you feel there are misrepresentations then tell me where you feel they are. I have a much more consistent record of actually bringing quotes and evidence into the posts, I feel. The contradictions I've found in your case are there in black and white in your own words.

As for WIFOM, I think you aren't using the correct interpretation of the event. Most arguments based on reasonable activity have an element of WIFOM, but that doesn't make it worth immediately dismissing. Say I were to do something hugely scummy at the moment, like claim second cop (Note: this is NOT WHAT I AM CLAIMING it is a HYPOTHETICAL example.) You could say it's unlikely we have a second cop, you haven't gotten any meaningful results, that's very scummy. And I could say that's WIFOM, why would I claim that as scum, I could claim something less scummy.

Does that mean you should just drop the argument? Of course not! There's an element of WIFOM to the reasoning, but if the cahnces are not roughly equal on either side, it's still perfectly valid as a point. IF we had a claimed cop who wasn't NKed in 4 nights - it would still have some degree of WIFOM to question why he wasn't NKed, but it's certainly a valid point.

You know this as well as anyone YB, beacuse some of your biggest points are riddled with elements of WIFOM. Your entire point about claiming with the cop still alive is filled with WIFOM reasoning. You say it would be suicide to claim with the cop still alive, they say but you KNOW it would look like suicide so you knew you would be safe etc etc.

(Of course, there's a better non-WIFOMy reason why you would claim, and that is during your claim you say that anyone would work out you are Looker's partner. That reasoning applies to scum as well as mason. If we lynched Lookerscum, you'd be next in the hot seat anyway.)

You can't just dismiss things like your lack of being NKed as just a scummy WIFOM point. It's not - it's a pro-town, genuine question because we have an unconfirmed power role claim that only claimed to save bacon that has survived two NKs. If that isn't worth questioning, I don't know what is. (not to mention the fact that your townie reputation is the ONLY thing saving bills from the noose - his play, and the play of that slot, has been consistently scummy every single day of this game.)

In addition to those questions, things like your contradictions and tricky wordplay contain no element of WIFOM and are backed up by quotes and evidence every time. No revisioning, no twisting of words - just your own oft-shifting position.

So yeah, my recent actions aren't enough to lynch on. Not to end the game. And it's a cop-out to say they are. Even if people don't agree with my case on YB, that does NOT make me scummy.

[SerialClergyman]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding MS's argument, Kreirov, but my take on it is

1) YB feels like her defending of Looker ties her to him. We know that because she posted that in her claim post (you will soon work out I'm his partner)
2) Looker was about to be lynched.

So if YB was scum, faced with that situation, she can forsee a number of possible outcomes:

a) She busses or ignores the wagon and Looker goes down. But she's tied to Looker according to 1) above, and Looker scumflips so she would be the obvious next lynch. In this case, the town are 2 scum lynches ahead.
b) She fakeclaims mason and doesn't hit the cop at night. In this scenario, she has two major advantages to a). Firstly, an extra townie is lynched during the first day. Secondly, the cop will have to claim to show a guilty verdict on the masons, and can thus be NKed. So this action puts her team in a better position, having nailed a cop and caused an extra town lynch.
c) She happens to kill the cop at N1 (or there is no cop, he/she are roleblocked or something of that nature,) Then her claim in unverifiable and she's in a really strong position.

So looking at the set of options, it is clear that the fakeclaim is the sensible thing to do,

if you accept propositions 1) and 2)

I think the logic is certainly quite good, the issue is whether you accept that YB had tied herself closely enough to Looker, or - more importantly perhaps - if you feel that SHE thought she had. Because it isn't the town's perception, it's her own perception of how much she had tied herself to Looker.

Also, the godfather point is interesting. I hadn't considered that. IF there was a godfather, combined with the reasoning above, it would push her even further towards making that claim. (although it's only a 50% safety blanket, I accept that.)

I'd like it if you expanded a little on what points of mine you thought were good and what points I hadn't refuted. I've just written about 2600 words so a clue on where I should focus my efforts would be tops

Your question about IK - I didn't answer at the time because I wanted to see what IK would post, see if IK thought that X was scum. My own perception of it is that IK was worried about the case against him, felt helpless, and when X made a mediocre point defending him, IK thought it

looked

so bad, and so much like a scumteam, that there was nothing he would be able to do to convince us that he wasn't in league with X. In hindsight, I view it as a null tell on X, I think. I was obviously wrong about the X/IK scumteam, and the links I saw between them were just coincidences.

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry Kreriov (I've also noticed I've constantly misspelt your name, sorry ><) but I don't know quite how I can explain it. Your dismissal of it shows that you don't quite get what I'm aiming to explain, and I don't mean that in a bad way, I'm just trying to work out how to explain it.



Ok - so the conversation goes like this:

'Your mason claim could be scum trying to save a partner'.

'That would be crazy, if I were scum without knowing about the cop it would be suicide.'

'Well - not necessarily. If Looker flipeed scum, you were going to be lynched next anyway. You'd lose two scum members in the first two days. But if you fake claim, you'd get a free lynch on Wall-E, and the cop would have to expose himself.'

I'll point out to you that I'm NOT saying that the scenario pictured is better than average for YBscum, or better than if no scum had been lynched. However, it is DEFINITELY better than letting Looker die, flip scum and be the next lynch. You're taking an innocent and a cop with you.

I'm also not saying that this argument proves that YB and Looker are scum. This argument is specifically to show that the 'claiming mason is suicide' defence doesn't hold - It actually makes more sense to claim if YB was scum than to not claim.

As you say, this also rests on the proposition that YB felt she was tied closely enough to Looker that the town would know she was his partner. I could show this by the numerous times she defends him, but a better point is made by quoting her claim:

2.) Anyone with half a brain will figure out that I am Looker's mason partner.

So looking at that sentence, it seems to me that she does indeed feel intrinsically tied to Looker. If Looker flipped scum, what do you think YB at the time she made the claim would think? That anyone with half a brain would figure out she is his partner.

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP I don't know if I made it clear, but that quote is written actually in the post where she claimed mason, so it's accurate in terms of her mindset at that exact moment.

Also, again, this is my take on the argument, I hope I haven't mischaracterised MS's point.

[SerialClergyman]

Ojanen - In answer to your question, I guess I was saying simply that I have been discussion generating, regularly gave people a chance to speak their mind, tend to use quotes and evidence fairly, not quote out of context etc etc. I don't think the cases I've made have been fabricated or artificially altered.

YB, I'm disappointed that you chose to just dismiss that last post, and I think characterisations like desperate are totally odd. I've provided quotes and reasons for all my points, it's not like I'm clinging to straws here. There was also a fair amount of material I thought you would comment on, like my refuting of your 'if Serial is scum' case.

Well, with three votes on me at the moment, scum could swoop in and hammer. (even if there are only 2 scum.)

So if that doesn't happen soon, it means pretty definitively that either I or some amount of people on my wagon are scum.

I can only say again that scum can't hammer without at least 2 town votes. Please, please, please be careful if you are town.

I'm ok at the moment, I think, because I have YB and bills as 2/3. But I don't know about X. If he's town, then just one more town + Yb and bills' partner and it's game over.

To that end, X, if you're starting to doubt the masons are town, it's clear that I and they are not aligned together. So if you feel there is doubt there about their innocence I'd urge you to unvote until you are sure.

If I do die overnight and the game does not end - that means 2 scum. At that point, YB and bills are non-negotiable lynches. By game setup alone (no way 2 scum with 12 town and 2 power roles - they acn'te be a pro-town role ergo they're lying.) or by the fact they've just steamrolled the town into a pretty quick and poor lylo lynch.

Finally, it may be worth raising the possibility of a no lynch. Usually the idea of a no lynch is bad for the town, but in a lylo situation with an even number of people, it can actually help. Once the scum NK someone, we will have 7 people, which will eliminate a potential suspect. It just means a 1/7 chance of finding scum, not a 1/8 chance. It also gives any additional power roles (if there are any) the chance of one more night's worth of actions. Just a thought.

[SerialClergyman]

Meh, town here.

If it's not gg, masons cannot be town. 12 townies and 2 power roles to 2 scum is just not feasible. But as I said, 3 scum is likely, so that's game over.

Vote mason if there's a tomorrow, if not, enjoyed playing with you all

[SerialClergyman]

So I guess this means that masons were legit and the other 3 are scum?

Anyways, can't blame others for failing to convince, that was me just not having the words, unfortunately. But the quick voting from the town despite people saying to hold off - it's just not a good option There's no rush.

[SerialClergyman]

1. Was Kreiov really your top suspect for today? Or was it us?
2. Were you really testing the waters for a mason lynch at the start of D2 cuz you were suspicious?
3. Why did you keep pushing the WIFOM? That is what convinced me you were scum.


1. Yeah, it was really Kreriov, at the start of the day.

2. Absolutely. I was suspicious the entire Day 2. If I could do it again, I would try to give thei mpression even more strongly than I did that the masons were CONFIRMED TOWN and we'd go to our death with that knowledge. That would have forced a NK. You were really, really defensive thorught the entire thread, whenever someone quesitoned you you immediately declared them scummy, and I took that the wrong way.

3. I think you need to go have a look at what WIFOM is. You're defining it very tightly for yourself and loosely for others.

[SerialClergyman]

To show what I mean about WIFOM, YB, think of the question 'why would..' So if I say 'why would not NK the masons'. That sort of question inevitably leads to some variety of WIFOM. But that does not make all 'why would' questions invalid. If we had a doc who was killed and then a claimed cop who had 4 nights without being killed - it's still WIFOM to say why weren't you killed in the last 4 nights? But that doesn't make it an invalid question. In fact, the liklihood of him being scum is dramatically high.

And deep down you KNOW this, which is why I thought you were mischaracterising me, rather than answering legitimately. Think of your 'suicide without a cop' defence. That is a WIFOM defence. It asks 'why would I claim mason when I didn't know who the cop was'. The WIFOM answer, 'Because you KNEW that would look like suicide, so we'd never suspect you'.

So I felt you used WIFOM when it suited you and dismissed anything in my cases that had even a hint of discussing motives.

[SerialClergyman]

Yeah - cop death really hurt us.
Inactive mason partner that looked scummy as all hell really hurt us as well. Also Ojanen's limited time, I think.

If we'd had more time I was going to claim tracker with a bullsh!t excuse (currently that the first 5 words of my first post each had a letter in them of the word 'track' - it was the best I could do hehe) and try to force a YB lynch. It would have been radical, but I was vanilla and was going down, so meh.

[SerialClergyman]

Thanks for modding, hambargarz