Mini 275: Subject Mafia - It's all over!

[Turbovolver]

FOS: petroleumjelly

Random votes based on random numbers/dice rolls are truly useless.

[Turbovolver]

So you do a random FOS? vote: turbovolver

It's clearly not a random FOS if it has a reason.

It is a rather meaningless FOS however, as it's a playstyle thing and not a scummy thing. This could be what you mean when you call it random, as random votes are also meaningless (you see? Now either you've misrepresented me or agreed random votes are useless!)


Also I don't know which "random" you are correcting to "randomish" but only scum are that careful with their posts:

Vote: Stewie

[Turbovolver]

...but you made a random FOS (you FOSed only one person, when pretty much everyone else that posted voted randomly)

Because that one person specifically said they used a random number generator. And random votes are usually pretty hopeless, but especially hopeless when you tell everyone you are only voting for someone because they were randomly chosen.

So no, my FOS wasn't random at all. It was my way of saying "random votes suxx0r amirite?" and possibly starting up some discussion.

I think Turbovolver's being a bit quick to point fingers.

Yep. 8)

Especially considering that the "only scum are that careful with their posts" bit is completely untrue.

I don't know, I'm certainly much more careful as scum than as town. But geez, it's just a vote. I promise I won't cast/have a lynching vote on him just because he corrected a post. Pinky promise.


PPE:

FOS: cropcircles because I'm not getting why you're jumping on Turbo when both sides of the argument seem to have decent points. I'm not sure if you're scum starting a bandwagon or if you're strongly on Stewie's side.

Like I said, the FOS was just my way of expressing my view on random votes, and the vote wasn't much more serious. I do think the fact that cropcircles takes it seriously is a

tiny

bit suspicious, but he thinks something I said is untrue, and that makes the vote fair enough.

[Turbovolver]

*snip*

[/Mafia Theory 101]

Thank you!

I had a discussion in a Newbie game about random voting and all the cases I heard for it just didn't stack up. But providing cover for a cop to signal a scum if need be... that could come into play.

I wonder though, if a cop goes through the first night and hits an innocent, wouldn't they still random vote to blend in? Or do many players not vote as cop in this situation? (This is only my third game)

And, back to the game (this text is red because supposedly bold annoys the mods looking for votes)

Un-FOS: petroleumjelly

. The FOS was a comment on random voting, not suspicious behaviour.

I am also unsuspicious of cropcircles (I take back my

tiny

bit of suspicion). The fact that he agrees with random voting while I did not confirms that he thought my side of the 'argument' didn't have decent points.

Confirm Vote: Stewie

. My vote basically signifies who I find most suspicious, and for the moment that's Stewie. Just because he says I made a random FOS, I tell him no it's not random (it had a reason) and he tries to tell me again that it's random.

...no, it's not much. But it beats anybody else for the moment.

[Turbovolver]

I might have Un-FOS'd petroleumjelly because the FOS was more self-expression than a demonstration of suspicion, but reading through the thread I've changed my mind a bit.

I'm still susipcious of Stewie on second thoughts, as when he cleared up which "random" should have become "randomly" he also threw in rather unnecessary justification of his actions.

However, this post by petroleumjelly:

Well, we're clearly past the random voting stage, so I will Unvote: Sotty7. And as to the question as to who I would vote if I had gotten a six: it would have been myself. I've seen people do that before.

In any case, I agree: a random vote only gets the game started. I could have used a randomizer and not told you, and I still would voted for Sotty7. Alternatively, I could be purposely voting Sotty7 under the guise of a randomized vote. Although I don't believe I have read this much conversation on a randomized vote before, it seems like it got some discussion going anyways. As discussion is a large purpose to random votes, I find nothing wrong with a "randomized" vote.

seems far to agreeable and basically says nothing. It is all a comment on his own actions, and does nothing to hunt scums. And all of this in response to an FOS I myself have said wasn't an inidcator of suspicion.

Unvote: Stewie
Vote: petroleumjelly

[Turbovolver]

Un-FOS: petroleumjelly

. The FOS was a comment on random voting, not suspicious behaviour.

If that's the case why not FOS me? I random voted. As did Jimmy, Sineish, pablito and stewie. Why not FOS all of us? Strange that you picked PJ out of all of those choices to FOS. Was it just because he said that he used a randomizer?

Please re-read the thread. I've already explained that the FOS wasn't a demonstration of suspicion, and yes it was because he said he used a randomiser.

So far Turbo, you've come across as extremely jumpy, to me anyway. You unFOS PJ and then in the very next post vote him. . What's that about?

Yeah, I Un-FOSd him because it wasn't about suspicion. Then, having a look through the thread, I thought that the post I quoted was more suspicious than anything Stewie had done, so I moved my vote. Unless the town is bandwagoning somebody I think is scum, my vote will always be on the person I find MOST suspicious. And in the early days, that will change, a lot.

[Turbovolver]

Hmm...does anyone else think that using a Finger of Suspicion for any purpose other then suspicion a little...off?

FOS: cropcircles

(a

real

one)

What is this? Scum trying to see if they can keep a bandwagon on me, based on shaky evidence? Asking all players whether it's OK for you to put your vote back on doesn't look good.

And now for

why

the evidence is shaky. Look at the original FOS - I don't think anyone reading that gets the impression "votes using random numbers are a scum tell". Stewie had a rather convoluted use of the word random, but I think he realised the FOS wasn't serious when he called it 'random' himself.

In my opinion, it's obviously just early day 1 banter, and to try to make it suspicious is reaching.

[Turbovolver]

I agree we seem to be moving pretty slowly, so

Vote: Turbovolver

. You seem a little trigger-happy there, and you have pre-empted that sort of behavior by saying that you will "change your vote, a lot" on Day 1, as if you are excusing yourself from future bandwagoning. Not much to go off of, but you may as well address it.

What's there to address? Yes, I have said that my vote will change a lot, at least on day 1. Yes, this could be me pre-empting bandwagoning behaviour? But, who cares? If I go bandwagonning for suspicious reasons, I don't think people are going to look back and say "oh, he said he'll vote lots he must be innocent". Because the thing is, even though my vote changes a lot it is always accompanied with my reasoning on the matter. If my reasoning doesn't ever sound genuine to anybody, THAT'S when people should be voting me.

And petroleumjelly, don't read too much into my vote. I still think you're the most suspicious, and hence you get my vote, but I don't think anybody has shown themselves to be worth a lynch just yet. There's very little to go on so far, and all I can do is be paranoid about the exceptionally agreeable people. In my books that's a scum tell.

*more clarification stuff about random votes*

The fact that they used a random number generator is irrelevant, it's whether they tell us they used it or not. I originally thought that random votes were used to apply a small amount of pressure at random and see how people reacted - and there's no pressure when you tell the person you are voting them solely because they were picked out of a hat. That's what the FOS was about.

Now though, I've been schooled in other ways that random votes can be useful and I'm also beginning to see that even with just random votes there are little inane comments people make (e.g. my FOS) that people jump on and hence start up the day. So no, I'm not really against random votes... I'm getting to understand them better and see their benefits.

[Turbovolver]

Just for the sake of moving us along,

Vote Turbo

again. Too eager to point fingers, over defensive, yada yada yada.

In my opinion a player is "over defensive" (in a scummy way, at least) when their defenses of their actions start to involve reaching, when they begin defending against things they haven't been accused of yet, or another I recently discovered is when they go on a campaign to defame their attacker(s) in any way possible.

I don't think I've done any of these things... are you really voting me just because I'm a verbose player who is happy to explain all of his actions and voice all of his suspicions?

[Turbovolver]

In

my

opinion, over defensive also includes when someone feels the need to respond to not just votes and FOSes, but every mention of their name, and defend it.

Well, yes. If people are commenting on me, then I think it's pretty much

expected

that I will throw my two cents in.

I would think it scummy if somebody

ignored

every mention of their name, and only responded when they got a vote or an FOS. Are you suggesting that a true pro-town player would ignore disucssion about themselves until a bandwagon started to build, and only comment then?

I really don't agree with your logic here.

I also am not feeling the PJ "case" at all. So I really don't see a better place for my vote.

I quoted a post that I found slightly suspicious, and pointed out why. That was my "case". I even later said that with nothing better to go on I was stuck with being paranoid about agreeable players, and that I didn't feel anybody was worthy of a lynch yet. What I'm saying is, it was never a strong case and I've freely given away that fact... so why do you think your disagreement with

paranoia

is worthy of a vote?

---------------------------------------------

The people voting me for the whole "my vote will change a lot" comment I can at least understand, but here it looks like cropcircles was making up his own reason to rejoin my bandwagon. And if you ask me, it doesn't check out.

Vote on cropcircles pending, depending on his response.

[Turbovolver]

See, I'm not voting you because you attacked PJ. I was saying that the case against you is stronger then the case against PJ, thus you are a better place for my vote.

Well then that's fair enough. Half of the reason I was suspicious of you in my previous post was because of the way I thought you were subtly misrepresenting my case by making a disagreement seem vote-worthy. But I now see that your post can also be interpreted this way.

Everything here is completely useless and pointless. I can read. I saw what you said. When people write nothing, but do it in a lot of words, it is a tell.

That's a tell because it allows scum to lurk while appearing not to lurk. Are you suggesting that I'm lurking? I'm the most active player in the thread!

I would think it scummy if somebody ignored every mention of their name, and only responded when they got a vote or an FOS.

Yeah, that's not really gonna catch you many scum.

Clarify this please?


Also, I'm not going to throw a bunch of quotes in here, but what exactly have I been repeating over and over? I looked back because I thought I had explained myself to Stewie and then again to Sotty7, but no I actually just told Sotty7 to re-read the thread as I'd already explained myself.

I didn't do a 100% thorough check though - do you care to point out where I have been doing this?



Lastly,

In my opinion a player is "over defensive" (in a scummy way, at least) when their defenses of their actions start to involve reaching, when they begin defending against things they haven't been accused of yet, or another I recently discovered is when they go on a campaign to defame their attacker(s) in any way possible.

You're attacking your attacker. By your own definition, you're being over defensive. Real slick.

Attacking my attacker is nothing like defamation. And suggesting that it is wrong to attack your attacker is rubbish:

I am calling out things in your posts that I see as logic flaws. If I truly believe that you are using flawed logic to make your case, it is

natural

for me to attack you - it's the scum that have to make up their arguments and hence are far more likely to use flawed logic.

Unvote: petroleumjelly
Vote: cropcircles

I still don't feel as though his attacks on me are genuine. He removed some of my previous suspicion by explaining how I misunderstood the "case against PJ" thing, but then he put all the suspicion back on with the rest of his latest post.

[Turbovolver]

Alright, I don't believe that Turbo has done anything negligibly scummy. Stupid yes - especially using FOS for a reason other than suspicion. Aggressive, also. But he's just spraying bullets everywhere trying to get some small hit - and then willing to jump on that fault once he finds that hit. I can tolerate that strategy for the first day when there is little else to go off of, but as I've said before, it can begin to become distracting and take away from other legitimate discussion. I hope that my interpretation is correct Turbo, otherwise feel free to correct me.

You pretty much summed it up.

In fact, because everybody else seems to hate my early game play and you are here understanding it all I'm tempted to think you are ingratiating yourself with a townie.

IGMEOY

[Turbovolver]

I do agree with Pablito that endless arguing between two players can get distracting... so I'll pose

A question to all players

What do you think of the statement "One of cropcircles and Turbovolver is scum"?

[Turbovolver]

Although I will note that I have the feeling that Turbovolver was trying a little trap with his question he posed to the town. I am fairly sure that if anybody would have actually agreed to the statement "one of them is probably scum" would have come under heavy attack.

It wasn't planned as a trap, but if someone started saying abosutely that one of us was scum I would certainly start to get less suspicious of cropcircles and more suspicious of whoever said it.

My motivation for posing the question was to see how the rest of the town stood with regard to "Me vs Cropcircles", and to involve them in the discussion. Here we have people saying that they think we are both pro-town, which I wasn't really expecting. This revelation has helped though... whether cropcircles is scum or not I shouldn't be pursuing him so hard if the rest of the town doesn't agree - that just causes a distraction like some people have said.

I will mention though that his "Just claim, I'm not willing to keep arguing" post set off my scumdar. It sounds like he is using the fact that the town thinks I am more suspicious than him as an excuse to avoid refuting my points against him, and to get a claim out of me.

Is Turbo so close to a lynch that it is necessary to claim at this point?

No idea. I'll do an unofficial votecount.

[Turbovolver]

Unofficial Vote Count

Turbovolver (2) - cropcircles, Quailman

cropcircles (1) - Turbovolver
miali1020 (1) - Jimmy the Rez
pablito (1) - petroleumjelly
petroleumjelly (1) - Stewie
RangeroftheNorth (1) - Sineish
Sineish (1) - RangeroftheNorth

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch


---------------------------------------

I noticed Kenji orders the players by chronological order (at least I think that's what was going on), but I didn't set myself up for that before hand so I listed them by number of votes, then alphabetically.


Cropcircles was asking for me to claim with only 3 votes on me, though it was originally brought up by Don Gaetano and earlier in the thread Stewie gave a rough estimate of 4 votes on me. I don't know who to blame, if anyone, from those three so I'll leave that issue for the moment.


I'd like to hear more from RangeroftheNorth and Sineish - they haven't posted since random voting for each other. That sticks out more to me than not posting at all (miali1020).

[Turbovolver]

Offical Vote count:

Miali1020 - 1 (Jimmy the Rez)
RangeroftheNorth - 1 (Sineish)
Petroleumjelly - 1 ( Stewie)
Turbovolver - 4 (Sotty7, CropCirlces, Quailman)
Sineish - 1 (RangeroftheNorth)
CropCircles - 1 (Turbovolver,
Pablito - 1 (petroleumjelly)

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

I have proded miali, but it doesn't seem to have done anything... I will begin to look for a replacement.

Didn't sotty7 unvote me in post #40?

[Turbovolver]

the two that stick out the most to me are ranger and turbo. i say we run em up and see what happens.

I am suspicious of ranger also. Not only did he pull the whole "Now that I'm mentioned, I'll show up" trick, but he had been posting all over the forums on the days while he was lurking.

Something came up he wasn't expecting, but it only stopped him from posting on one thread? No absence mentioned in any of his posts I saw either.

Unvote: cropcircles
Vote: RangeroftheNorth

[Turbovolver]

Turbo, if you can point me to other threads he has posted in since posting that message here, then maybe that would change my mind. For now though I can wait

viewtopic.php?p=296513&highlight=#296513
viewtopic.php?p=296515&highlight=#296515
viewtopic.php?p=296188&highlight=#296188
viewtopic.php?p=296028&highlight=#296028
viewtopic.php?p=295230&highlight=#295230
viewtopic.php?p=295223&highlight=#295223

Most of those are short posts, but there are a few long ones that seem to be well thought out as well. I wouldn't be suspicious if he had said that this game wasn't as important because it was still in Day 1, but I don't think posting in other places but not here gels with "something came up I wasn't expecting", hence my suspicions.

Turbo, is it coincidental that snowmonkey mentions two names - one which is yours - and then you jump to vote for the second name mentioned? You make sense why you did it, but it just seemed very convenient for you.

I saw that and thought it would stick out... but I wasn't going to compromise my suspicions just because I myself would look a little bit more suspicious. You've seen that throughout the day

The reason I attacked RangeroftheNorth is because the town is on a lurker hunt, and I think that Ranger is a better target than Sineish.

Well, I

did

. I checked out RangeroftheNorth's posting history to see if he was being honest, but that didn't really check out to me. However because Sineish didn't post anything at all, I figured he was genuinely away. Just then I looked, and I see he has recent posts too!

So really, either of them is worth pressuring. Bah, lurking pisses me off.

Turbo has made many questionable moves, and I'm currently attributing them to odd gameplay than scumminess. Either Turbo's been fairly horrible as scum, or fairly horrible as pro-town.

Horrible as pro-town? If cropcircles dies and comes up scum, will you take it back?

Could you explain this further, Turbo? Was this a hidden claim or just a mix-up?

I meant it in the "pro-town" sense, not the "no abilities" sense.

[Turbovolver]

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to say Sotty7 has been slightly pinging my scumdar. She seems to ask a lot of other players to clarify or explain their actions, but never actually commits herself to any concrete suspicions of her own (lurker-voting Sineish excepted).

To me, asking so many of these type of questions is a way of appearing innocent whilst still seeding suspicion around, and hence the slight twinge of scumminess I feel.

[Turbovolver]

Horrible as pro-town? If cropcircles dies and comes up scum, will you take it back?

Yes, of course - and both you and cropcircles are still on my radar at the moment.

Just re-reading this... I sound so whiny.


Sotty7, your response was well-written but I can see either a competent townie or a competent scum behind it. So my tiny bit of suspicion stays - agreed that the lurkers are more important though.


Would people prefer if I posted LESS? If so, I'll try to address that. I just like mafia too much

[Turbovolver]

Turbo, if you can point me to other threads he has posted in since posting that message here, then maybe that would change my mind. For now though I can wait

Although he then gives six links to threads that Ranger has posted in, none of them are actually

after

the post where Ranger checks in and gives apologies. I don't think that diminishes the point he's trying to make, just that quoting the "since posting that message here" bit is a little misleading.

Crap, I didn't see that "after the message here" bit. Yeah, he only has one post since the message last time I checked, and it was a very short one.

I assumed she just wanted verification of my argument, and my argument was just that he had been posting on other threads whilst not posting here. Now that you bring this up though, I'm looking back at Sotty7's behaviour. She said she might be convinced if I gave example threads... I completely screwed up those example threads, as Sineish has pointed out. But Sotty7 doesn't notice this, she's too busy concentrating on her own defense. It makes me think that she requested them in a rather token display of goodness, and that she didn't follow through on her wanting more evidence about Ranger's lurking.

Slightly more suspicious of Sotty7 now. Hell,

FOS: Sotty7

[Turbovolver]

FOS: Turbovolver

for screwing up.

I didn't notice that most of the links were wrong either, Turbo.

That's beside the point - the thing is that Sotty7 made a specific request and didn't pick up on the fact that I failed to fulfill that request. You're just somebody watching from the sidelines, and I misunderstood the request. But if she was serious about the request, she would've realised - hence I'm suggesting there's a good chance she wasn't serious about the request and that this is suspicious.

[Turbovolver]

I actually DID notice that fact, I believe there was one (or maybe two) that were posted on the Friday. The rest of the posts were maybe during the week

after

the thread had been open, that's why I still believed them to be valid points. That is also why I did not move my vote.

If I understand this, you are saying you didn't move your vote from Sineish to RangeroftheNorth because there weren't any posts after Ranger's apology - and that was the condition you were looking for to move your vote.

Is that right?

[Turbovolver]

I was just making sure that I'd understood your post right, because at first I interpreted it a different way (that you were still suspicious of Ranger, and that's why you didn't move your vote... your vote was on Sineish), and then I realised midway through a post that it could've had a different meaning.

Yes was the right answer It's of course still possible you are lying, but your actions make sense now that I know that's what you meant in that post.

Un-FOS: Sotty7

Still that tiny bit of suspicion on you though from earlier, though

[Turbovolver]

Ok, what exactly is going on in here? It's like a freaking SOAPS episode. Confused? I won't be after the next post of "Subject mafia."

If you're talking about me and Sotty:

* Sotty asked for examples where Ranger had posted after apologising here, to see if his lurking behaviour had continued after the apology.

* I misunderstood the request, reading it as just "show me examples that Ranger has posted while not posting here" (in other words, I missed the "after his apology" bit). I post up some links which show him to be posting elsewhere, but not after the apology.

* Sineish points out that I screwed up.

* I say, hey wait, I did... why didn't Sotty notice that? I FOS her.

* Sotty says she did notice, and that's why she didn't vote Ranger

* I almost misunderstand her post, so I ask her to clarify her meaning

* She clarifies, I say that's cool and I un FOS her.


Anybody want to contest that summary?

[Turbovolver]

Cropcircles/Turbo exchange has been played out, but I wasn't here then. I'd just like to point out that I find it suspicious that the thought of the both of them being town didn't seem to come into play for Turbo. Hence

FOS: Turbo

(I don't know what Cropcircles was thinking, but he didn't put forth an ultimatum like that, either)

I'm guessing you're talking about this:

My motivation for posing the question was to see how the rest of the town stood with regard to "Me vs Cropcircles", and to involve them in the discussion. Here we have people saying that they think we are both pro-town, which I wasn't really expecting.

That doesn't say that the thought we were both town crossed my mind, that says that I thought most of the town would be thinking most likely one of us was scum. Considering the flak I was getting for my supposed defensiveness, and my points against cropcircles I wasn't expecting people to come back saying "yeah, they're probably just both idiot townies".

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?



Now, to Ranger: he comes back and says he didn't post here because this game required a lot of analysis. And then all the "analysis" he has for us is "OMG this guy found my OMGUS vote suspicious, let's vote him". I'm still voting for this guy, right? (I'll check later, and post some more). Going now.

[Turbovolver]

*stuff about Jimmy the Rez*

He hasn't claimed to not have a pro-town powerrole, he said he thought that it was a cop head start night and not a full night due to the fact that there was no kills. So I recommend you keep your vote because you think it's suspicious he mentioned the night at all (trying to sound less like scum) or unvote.

BTW, I don't think it's a good idea to vote someone based on four possible situations, three in which the person is pro-town. Unless you think A) is so much likelier than the others. It's a dodgy reason to vote, so you get an

FOS: petroleumjelly

. What do you think of the current bandwagons?

[Turbovolver]

petroleumjelly, he never said he didn't take any actions. He only said that he thought it was a cop head start night, because there was no kills. So he definitely hasn't inadvertantly told us he isn't the cop. He possibly has claimed not-doc simply because docs wouldn't act in a cop head start situation, but that's about the only powerrole that can be ruled out.

Isn't it also possible that Jimmy simply made a mistake? Even if his behaviour did help the scum, voting for him isn't going to help. Are you so sure Jimmy is scum that you would support a lynch on him right now? If not, I'm getting suspicious you are just distracting us all.

What do you think of the current bandwagons?

What bandwagons? The biggest "bandwagon" we seem to have had is about three votes (not even half a majority).

Regardless, the only bandwagon I was on was yours, Turbovolver, and I was fine with that one. Seeing as I have not hopped on any others, it should be pretty clear that I haven't found one that has sufficient substance for me to climb on board as of yet.

Well, by "bandwagons" I meant the two people suspicion seems to be focused on at the moment, RangeroftheNorth and Snowmonkey.

I agree that the snowmonkey bandwagon is a bad idea, but Don at least is only there to apply pressure until snowmonkey explains a post.

But even if you don't think it's the best place to look, you don't think the RangeroftheNorth voters are doing so with "sufficient substance"? He vanished from the thread, and one of his reasons for that absence was "this game requires a lot more analysis than my others", but then the only analysis he contributed was possibly misrepresentation (I agree with Don that snowmonkey's post #76 didn't mean what Ranger claims it did). To me it smells of reaching for a reason.

PPE: Ranger's last post seemed very unscummy to me at first. But now looking back, it seems like he uses a straw man at the bottom. I myself thought snowmonkey was calling Ranger defensive because of his lashing out back at snowmonkey, not (or not just) because he was explaining his lurking. But Ranger uses a convincing argument for explaining his lurking to try to refute the overall attack of defensiveness, which I don't think is telling the full story.

Then again, maybe he just didn't understand snowmonkey's post the way I did. That seems to be a theme around here.

Unvote: Rangerofthenorth I believe his explanations are sound.

What about the whole "Game needs analysis" thing? His only analysis was a vote on someone which I think was either misunderstanding or misrepresentation.


I did look through RangeroftheNorth's other posts though, and they do seem to loosely check out with a player who doesn't have unlimited time. The only long post with a lot of thought was on a game that's in day 6. He did post in another game in day 1 (despite him saying he didn't post here because day 1 is less important), but those posts were pretty short so I suppose his story checks out.
APART from the lack of analysis. At the moment, I'm voting RangeroftheNorth because the only thing he has contributed analysis-wise is a vote on dodgy grounds.


I suppose now we wait for snowmonkey to tell us what was really meant by those posts.

[Turbovolver]

cropcircles: doesn't seem particularly suspicious. i agreed with some of his points in the big quarrel with turbo, but i would mostly attribute them to gameplay differences than to scummyness on turbo's part.

My playstyle does tend to clash with people early in day 1, but I'd have to reread the argument to re-evaluate whether he seems suspicious or not. You reminded me that I don't really remember him in the latter parts of this thread, and that's because he actually hasn't posted since page 3. Ever since the arguing stopped, he made a few nothing posts then slid into obscurity. I'm actually still suspicious of this guy.

Don Gaetano: Don Gaetano is playing like he plays in every game. Lots of good analysis, lots of good posts. Unfortunately, that is no indication of whether or not he is scum. I have no read on him whatsoever.

Agreed, really. I think there were a few

tiny

things that stuck out in my mind, but I'd have to do a PBPA to go find them again, and compared to other stuff in the thread they are rather insignificant.

Jimmy the Rez: I still think Jimmy's admission of not knowing that we had a real night one is odd, but, looking over his posts again, my earlier analysis is wrong. He didn't admit to not being a cop. A cop, in fact, is probably the only power role he didn't claim not to be. I don't think it's suspicious, just a little odd, and perhaps bad play.

Agreed.

pablito: I noticed an odd dynamic between turbovolver and pablito. pablito especially seems to be attempting to distance himself from turbo, while still attempting not to add to the suspicion on turbo. if one of them turns up scum, i would look hard at the other one.

He's the only one who truly understands me
Unless of course he dies and turns up scum, then he was just ingratiating, obv. 8)

petroleumjelly: while I do find Jimmy's post is strange, pj seems to be blowing it way out of proportion. it seems to me that he is taking something tiny, that is more likely to denote poor play than scummyness, and attempting to start a bandwagon over it. That raises him several notches on my scummy list.

Yeah, this is the same thing I was getting at in my last post. Or in other words, I wholeheartedly agree - you shouldn't be voting people in this stage of the game based on "I don't really know your alignment, but that was bad play". In my opinion, anyway.

snowmonkey: I already detailed most of my reasoning here. the suspicion of me for my random omgus vote, and the accusation of me being defensive when I defended myself. I particularly disliked the part where he said his vote was "for the village."

Waiting for his clarification here.

sotty7: I'm not really getting a read one way or another from sotty. she seems to be asking questions and avoiding the major confrontations. That doesn't really tell me much one way or another.

It's the fact that she's asking questions but avoiding taking a stance in the confrontations that makes her slightly suspicious in my eyes. Probably not the best place to be looking today, though.

turbovolver: I don't agree with most of the things that turbovolver has said, and I don't like how agressive he has been. Nevertheless, I'm not getting scummy vibes from him. He seems to be attempting to catch scum, even if I don't like the way he does it.

Bah. And yeah, I'm still newish and trying to prove my scum-finding abilities to myself, and the world.


Anytime Ranger said he couldn't get a read because he hadn't heard much from a person, I pretty much agreed. So I removed those ones to save space.

Unvote: RangeroftheNorth

I'm really happy with this analysis. I'm waiting on snowmonkey's clarifications and your responses, but considering on how many points I agree with you there I'm removing my vote.

I think petroleumjelly and cropcircles are the best people to look at today, possibly Sineish. Perhaps my old suspicions were right after all

[Turbovolver]

OK, so perhaps voting is going a little too far, but I fail to see the harm in adding a little pressure to the situation. Bad play is not nessecarily indicative of scumminess, but a little pressure could reveal something significant. On the other hand, I'm a little suspicious of the way PJ worded his post. It seemed to me as though he was fishing for more role information from Jimmy.

S.

FOS: Sineish

for wishywashiness. I didn't really get a feel of "fishing" from the post where PJ voted Jimmy, either, so I'm leaning towards that last part being a way to distance yourself from the partner you just defended.

I think petroleumjelly and cropcircles are the best people to look at today, possibly Sineish.

Perhaps I correctly named three scum? 8)

[Turbovolver]

Stuff to be clarified by snowmonkey:

*votecount*

ahh, the old retaliatory vote....very nice.

the two that stick out the most to me are ranger and turbo. i say we run em up and see what happens.

Ragner took this as you finding him suspicious for an OMGUS vote, and that started up a mini-bandwagon on you (Don said he was voting you to get you to clarifiy this point too). So, is that the reason Ranger stuck out? The OMGUS?

*quotes from Turbovolver and Sotty7, seem unrelated*

as a late comer to this game I didnt have the luxury of watching this thread develop slowly so I couldnt get a real feel for people's reactions to each other. that said, ranger comes in today and is completely defensive. this game is moving too fast? maybe we should free up some of his time. I'll do my part.

unvote. vote ranger.


believe me, this isn't retaliatory, this is a vote for the village.

What was it about Ranger that you found defensive?

I also find it odd that the only people ranger can seem to get a good read on are the ones voting for him (he must not have noticed pablito unvoted then turbo followed suit in the very next post).

What are you trying to say here? There were only two people voting him, but he contributed analysis on a bit more than two people. For example he voiced his thoughts on the PJ/Jimmy thing, and I agree with them.

Vote: petroleumjelly

. That puts him on 2.


I'm also a little confused, who are you asking to "reconcile" the two quotes by ranger in your post?

[Turbovolver]

Clarifications

All fair enough, although scum cant talk during the day as far as I know so they wouldn't have been able to tell him he was getting run up. Need to hear Ranger's comments on your clarifications, as he thought by defensiveness you meant him explaining his lurking, not his vote back on you (or he deliberately strawmanned... hard to tell).

Question 3

I agreed with most of Ranger's analysis, but I do think the people voting for you are doing so without good reason. The accusation on Pablito seemed fair enough - Pablito hasn't really done anything scummy but me and him are sort of linked. It would make sense to me to look at the other if one of us turned up scum. His comments on me seemed sound.

You raise an interesting point about how the people voting for him get the most attention, but perhaps that's just because outside of the voters, himself, and Jimmy the Rez/petroleumjelly, we've got the "slide past" people who don't seem to contribute much. I mean I cant really fault him for having nothing to say about Stewie, or Quailman.

Question 4

The last question I asked just in case you wanted me and/or Pablito to try and explain.

[Turbovolver]

I'm just going to say, snowmonkey thought Ranger was defensive because of the quick vote Ranger put on him, which had a bad reason (Ranger either misunderstands or misrepresents the first post I asked snowmonkey to clarify).

This is why I asked him to clarify in the first place, because I could see the defensive accusation being down to that but people kept going on and on about the lurking thing.


I still disagree with the bandwagon on snowmonkey, though I'm slowly warming up to it - that last post of his doesn't seem very pro-town to me, though I cant really put my finger on why.

I'll soon start randomly PBPAing people and see what comes of it. For one, I'm going to see just how much content Quailman and Stewie have really supplied...

[Turbovolver]

Everyone assumed that him calling you defensive was referring to the "here's why I was lurking" speech, but it wasn't. When you addressed his calling you defensive, you defended against the speech part, which isn't what snowmonkey said. Hence either a misunderstanding or you tried to strawman/misrepresent your way out of it. Probably more likely the first, as snowmonkey's post wasn't particularly clear and nobody could really be sure what wsa meant.

I've never came out and said that you intentionally misrepresented anybody - it's pretty hard to be sure either way - I've just raised it as a possibility.

[Turbovolver]

Ok, I have no read on what snowmonkey is doing

The two possibilities that jumped to my mind are:

1) He's being sarcastic when he calls Don's post "good posting", although that seems like a rather bad play when you don't make the sarcasm obvious.

2) He's some sort of role that likes being lynched (the jester in one game), though I doubt that we'd have that as this is a regular mini.

So yeah, I have no idea about that.



Sotty7, if snowmonky thinks Ranger made an OMGUS vote (I wouldn't be suprised if Ranger did myself), and he finds that suspicious, then of course he should vote for Ranger. I myself wouldn't put so much weight on "OMGUS is a scum-tell", but his actions make perfect sense (especially when considering that he has mentioned specifically looking through the thread for OMGUS as a way to start the hunt for scum) without any sort of retaliatory nature. You know this, as you've even said it was the reason for snowmonkey's vote. If you vote someone for a reason you believe to be good, then you aren't doing it out of retaliation at all.

FOS: Sotty7

for well-disguised craplogic.

But in my opinion, the way he's been acting the last two pages is way more scummy than what made us vote for him in the first place. His posts contradict each other several times and his arguments are full of holes. I don't have the time to quote all his posts right now, I'll do it later.

Agreed about him looking scummier recently. I don't know what his very-recent posts are supposed to mean, but I was getting a vibe off a few of his recent posts (pointed one out also). I don't think I agree that there are contradictions or holes in his arguments though, but I haven't looked hard. So yeah, please do point out what you mean by this.

[Turbovolver]

Well that's where we disagree. I do think that Snowmonkey's vote was simply retaliatory and his “Ranger is defensive” reason is baloney...hence my vote.

Bah, I don't buy it. Not only is this not what you originally said (you originally said you were voting him for being a hypocrite), you yourself have said Ranger was "using a retaliatory vote" and yet are voting snowmonkey for the same. Why didn't you vote Ranger when he did it?
Perhaps because there was nowhere to go with Ranger?


snowmonkey seemed like such a convenient bandwagon at the time, didn't he? He's got three votes on him, the town thinks he's behaving suspiciously, perfect! Well, almost.

Unvote: petroleumjelly

Vote: Sotty7

Here's a last little gem I just discovered:

It seems as if everybody is talking about how slow this game is, personally I don't agree. I've been in games a lot slower than this one.

...What's up with this game? Turbo and I stop the back and forth banter, and suddenly nothing is happening? ...

Pretty much...

(Posts separated by about one real-time day).

It's only tiny evidence, but I don't think her sentiments here are very genuine. She goes from saying the game isn't that slow, to agreeing that pretty much nothing is happening - I think she is deliberately trying to come across as friendly pro-town, even throwing in a disagreement to make it more real.

[Turbovolver]

I'm bored, and I just saw people in this game have been around but not posted (since my last visit) so I present an analysis of everybody's lurker-age. Note this does not take into account how much content the person has been posting, only whether they've been avoiding posting altogether. Also its based more on recent events than the whole game. Do with it what you will, and feel free to raise issue on anything you think might need correction.


cropcircles' recent posts have all been dedicated to this game, and he's promised content. So not lurking.

Don Gaetono hasn't really been lurking.

Jimmy the Rez just posted.

snowmonkey hasn't really been lurking.

pablito didn't post here on his last visit to the site, but hasn't been lurking much either.

FOS: petroleumjelly

for being around, making a whole lot of posts since your last one here and yet not commenting on recent events. They were pretty long posts you made, too.

Quailman has no recent posts here, but a few scattered around the site (nothing super-long though). So slightly suspicious.

RangeroftheNorth hasn't really been lurking

recently

.

Sineish seems to be on limited access - hasn't posted much here but hasn't posted much

anywhere

recently.

Sotty7 has also been around since my last post (which specifically deals with her, even). However, she only signed up for a game, so perhaps she didn't have very long. Hasn't been lurking.

FOS: Stewie

has also been posting in other threads but has declined to post here. Most of his posts are in mafia/general discussion, but some are still rather involved (for example he took the time to make a long "hidden message" post in the color = black thread).

Turbovolver hasn't really been lurking.



I'm going to look through at each player in the game, because there are little things that make me suspicious of pretty much all of you and I need to clarify my thoughts. I've got a bit of a headache though so I don't know if it will happen tonight or not.

[Turbovolver]

What are you talking about? I'm voting Snowmonkey because he said the retaliatory vote reason was

why

he was looking at Ranger in his second post!

No, he didn't. He's even clarified this. Don't misrepresent him.

I've never said Ranger was using a retaliatory vote at any point during my argument because I don't really count an OMGUS vote at the start of the game as one. In your defense of Snowmonkey you have really twisted my words.

I'm voting him because

he found Ranger suspicious for using a retaliatory vote

but then goes of and does one himself.

That's the quote (bolding mine). It looks like I misunderstood you (I thought you were talking about Ranger responding to snowmonkey's "Ranger and Turbo need looking at" with a vote), but you cant accuse me of misrepresenting you when I specifically chose your own words. You did use the fact that Ranger OMGUS'd, otherwise you couldn't call snowmonkey hypocritical.

PS: I wasn't defending snowmonkey. I was attacking you.

If you read back and notice the timestamps after I posted the first quote the game did die comparing it to the rest of the time. Almost a whole day past and only three posts were made. Quail votes Sineish the mod announces a replacement and Crop posts that quote that's in with mine there. So in my eyes the game had die down after a stop was put on the Crop and Turbo debate. As for my statements not being genuine...well they are and all you have is my word on it. At the moment Turbo I really think you are reaching.

I even said myself "it's only tiny evidence". It's hardly reaching (at least in a bad way) when I admit that myself - there's no misdirection going on. I did find it interesting though, so I brought it up. I think you have explained yourself rather well, at least here.


However, your response to me has not satisfied me - instead of explaining any mistakes I made you've accused me of misrepresentation, which is a false accusation and rather defensive. Your story also seems to be changing quite a lot - here is a summary of events:

* You don't believe Ranger's OMGUS was serious, or suspicious (I agree)
* You believe that snowmonkey picks out RangeroftheNorth because of the OMGUS
* You say nothing to correct him, despite posting a few times before his next post.
* You think it's "fair enough" that snowmonkey lists Ranger as one of two people to look at because of something

you consider to be meaningless

(see her summary post.

No, snowmonkey didn't pick out Ranger just because of the OMGUS thing. But you've made it clear that you believe he did, even in your last post.

Confirm Vote: Sotty7

Look at the dot points people - Sotty7's actions don't add up. Also, she's been asking all these little questions to appear helpful, but very rarely states any suspicions of her own (there was a lurker hunt once, and she joined the snowmonkey bandwagon... that's it). I'm pretty sure a few of those questions didn't really add up to me, and I'm happy to go find them again if people want me to.

You've noticed me being suspicious of her in the past, but those times she has managed to squirm away. Not so this time, by the looks of things.

[Turbovolver]

FOS: Stewie

has also been posting in other threads but has declined to post here. Most of his posts are in mafia/general discussion, but some are still rather involved (for example he took the time to make a long "hidden message" post in the color = black thread).

You are welcome to look back a page, and about midway through that page, you'll see me, not only posting, but explaining why I am not doing so more often!

You were one of the people who inspired the lurker summary, because I saw that you'd posted elsewhere on the forums but not in this game since my last visit. I don't care how long ago your last post was, I wasn't FOSing you for that. And cropcircles is right, your reason for not posting is a scum tell in itself.

You are posting so much, yet reading so little. Scotty voted snowmonkey because the fact that snowmonkey's vote was retaliatory was hypocritical, and not because of one of those two reasons isolated.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here, but I think I've made it clear in my posts that I'm doing a lot of reading. I think this would turn into an argument of semantics, but all I can say is from the way she words her two reasons they sound different to me.

Here's a last little gem I just discovered:

It seems as if everybody is talking about how slow this game is, personally I don't agree. I've been in games a lot slower than this one.

...What's up with this game? Turbo and I stop the back and forth banter, and suddenly nothing is happening? ...

Pretty much...

(Posts separated by about one real-time day).

It's only tiny evidence, but I don't think her sentiments here are very genuine. She goes from saying the game isn't that slow, to agreeing that pretty much nothing is happening - I think she is deliberately trying to come across as friendly pro-town, even throwing in a disagreement to make it more real.

What does this have to do with anything? Had he changed his mind about something else, such as a person's scumminess, then ok, but about the speed of the game? Give me a break. Furthermore, the game could have changed speeds within that 24 hour period. One is during cropcircles "back and forth banter" and the other is after the fact, implying that stopping that discussion stopped the game.

It does have significance if Sotty has been less than genuine, but I see no reason to believe that she hasn't, in terms of the game speed turnaround.

I disagree with both though, at no time has this game stalled, or even gone slow. I think we are moving fast. The problem is that we aren't moving anywhere.

Well I'd ask what you thought of Sotty7, but she's probably your scum partner. So, what do you think of the bandwagon on snowmonkey, now that your reason for voting him has been debunked?

In case you cant remember, you voted him for "creating suspicion where there wasn't any". All he did was say "I think Ranger and Turbo" were suspicious - which a lot of people agreed with. And even though you were probably referring to him talking about OMGUS, he has clarified that was not the only reason he saw RangeroftheNorth as suspicious.

Hell,

FOS: Stewie

again for the scum tell I agree with cropcircles on, and then

FOS: Stewie

again for defending Sotty7, and then

FOS: Stewie

again for having a shifty reason for joining the snowmonkey bandwagon - even if it was because of the OMGUS thing, it's still a rather terrible reasoning for a vote.

So yeah, I think we should lynch Sotty7 or Stewie, at the moment. I'm also suspicious of Quailman for lurking, his only post of substance was putting something like the

fourth

vote on me, IIRC and he's come back in thread after being mentioned only to make an excuse and run away again. That does sort of suggest snowmonkey could be scum and that's why Quailman hasn't joined on though

The other people I've listed I'm still suspicious of, but Sotty7 has really shot to the top of my list, and Stewie is right up there too (the fact that cropcircles who I find kinda iffy is voting for him makes him look a tiny bit better, though).

Ah hell, I'll analyse everybody like I promised. I'm pretty much suspicious of all of you in some way or another, and I'll give the reasons in that post.



PPE: snowmonkey, I don't think Ranger is the best target today. I'm having trouble with what to think of your last post, but I think it shifts you slightly towards pro-town just because you addressed my call to action. Then again, perhaps Sotty7 is innocent and what you did was a clever way to add suspicion whilst not voting... damnit I cant read this guy

[Turbovolver]

Turbo...what am I going to do with you? Yes you have completely misunderstood the situation here. Hopefully this will clear it up for everyone.

I already said that I didn't think that was the reason for Snowmonkey's vote, and that he would not have voted Ranger if Ranger hadn't voted him. That's just my view, I'm not misrepresenting him.

This is the big misunderstanding here, and I realize that it could be my fault and the way I word things. Never have I, said “Oh my god Ranger used a retaliatory vote”. In that second quote you have there I was using Snowmonkeys

own words

. That's why I'm voting him, because he throws suspicion on Ranger for a retaliatory vote and then votes Ranger after he voted him. Which in essence is a retaliatory vote. Snow and yourself have both argued that it wasn't and he had a real reason for voting him, but I'm not ready to believe that, especially after Snow's last few posts.

I am in a position to call Snow hypocritical because

I

don't believe anywhere Ranger has used a retaliatory vote.

STRAW MAN

I'll come back and refute these posts soon, I just wanted to say that. You didn't address the dot points that didn't make sense, even though that is the bulk of my case. Instead you try to make me seem like an idiot by claiming I've misunderstood everything and saying "What will I do with you?".

This is closer to the defamation stuff I was talking about with cropcircles - she's not refuting my arguments, just trying to make me sound like a bad player.

NOTE: I removed the quotes in her post, to save space.

[Turbovolver]

What are you talking about? I'm voting Snowmonkey because he said the retaliatory vote reason was

why

he was looking at Ranger in his second post!

No, he didn't. He's even clarified this. Don't misrepresent him.

I already said that I didn't think that was the reason for Snowmonkey's vote, and that he would not have voted Ranger if Ranger hadn't voted him. That's just my view, I'm not misrepresenting him.

What? You say quite clearly "he said the retaliatory vote reason was why he was looking at Ranger". This is untrue, as snowmonkey has told us.

In your defense of Snowmonkey you have really twisted my words.

I'm voting him because

he found Ranger suspicious for using a retaliatory vote

but then goes of and does one himself.

That's the quote (bolding mine). It looks like I misunderstood you (I thought you were talking about Ranger responding to snowmonkey's "Ranger and Turbo need looking at" with a vote), but you cant accuse me of misrepresenting you when I specifically chose your own words. You did use the fact that Ranger OMGUS'd, otherwise you couldn't call snowmonkey hypocritical.

This is the big misunderstanding here, and I realize that it could be my fault and the way I word things. Never have I, said “Oh my god Ranger used a retaliatory vote”. In that second quote you have there I was using Snowmonkeys

own words

. That's why I'm voting him, because he throws suspicion on Ranger for a retaliatory vote and then votes Ranger after he voted him. Which in essence is a retaliatory vote. Snow and yourself have both argued that it wasn't and he had a real reason for voting him, but I'm not ready to believe that, especially after Snow's last few posts.

I am in a position to call Snow hypocritical because

I

don't believe anywhere Ranger has used a retaliatory vote.

I see what you're saying here, and it does make sense (at least the part about you being able to call him hypocritical without agreeing Ranger's OMGUS vote was suspicious).

However, snowmonkey has also said he was originally suspicious of me and Ranger, became convinced that I was clean and hence voted Ranger. It could've been retaliatory, it could not have been. Doesn't matter when we've caught scum - you.

Oh by the way,

again

you've said snowmonkey threw suspicion on Ranger for a retaliatory vote. Do you think if you keep saying it over and over it will become true?


PPE: See, snowmonkey confirms what I just said above. There is a perfectly reasonable series of events that leads towards him voting Ranger without it just being retaliatory. Considering I'm having trouble reading him, I cant say for certain whether it was retaliatory or not. I hardly think it's anywhere near a definite though, and I think we have better leads.

Even you Sotty7, what do you think about the case pablito, cropcircles and I have raised against Stewie?

PPE2: Sotty7, your point on snowmonkey is fair enough. I'm not really perturbed by the fact you find him suspicious - so does Don Gaetano and I think Don's been acting rather pro-town - I'm peturbed by the way you're suspicious of him. The reasoning for your original vote was not good in my opinion, and I think you've been acting quite scummy since.
You're still refusing to defend against the dot points I raised, or the fact that you strawmanned.

[Turbovolver]

Gah, Don beat me to the punch. Well Don, I hope you will find this analysis I post more objective, as it is outside of the context of any arguments.

I promised a post analysing everybody, so it will be done. Am working on it now.

[Turbovolver]

Ok, everybody in the game. I'll note here that I've removed the posts that I didn't have much to say about except for "seems fair enough" or "I agree" as this post is already going to be huge.

I'll also say that I'm trying to be bias-free but I doubt that's going to happen. This isn't gospel, and I won't pretend it is.

Negative scores are more likely to be scummy, postive scores are more likely pro-town.

cropcircles:

#9: Very attentive to the game, and random votes the mod. I think these are very slight scum tells. (-1)

#16: Calls me out for voting Stewie, refuting the logic "only scum are that careful with their posts". Fair enough move to me. (+1)

#25: Unvotes me because I have three votes and he "didn't mean to apply that much pressure". Goes back to voting the mod. I think he is a bit too cautious here, I'm slightly suspicious (-2).

#28: Chats with the mod, not game-related. I won't give any negative points here, but I think people who do this are a little more likely to be scum than not.

#33: Questions whether others think using an FOS for anything but suspicion is "off". This post is supposedly a joke, but I don't necessarily believe that. (-1)

#35: Tells me it was a joke.

#44: Goes back to voting me for being too quick to point fingers, and being over-defensive. If he was serious about #33 being a joke, this makes a bit more sense. I also had another long post clarifying that random voting junk. So I don't think his vote has a bad reason. The way he expresses the vote is slightly suss though (i.e. yada yada yada), so no positive points either.

#49: Says part of the problem with my posting a lot is that I'm repeating myself. I later asked him to point out where, and he says he won't. Says I won't catch many scum by looking for people who only respond to votes/FOSes... I think that's BS and when I asked him to clarify he again refused.

The next part is the suspicious part though... He takes most of my quote and hilights it all as information he can get from the thread. Hence I'm saying lots of words but saying nothing, which is a scum tell (I myself thought it was only a scum tell because lurkers used it to avoid taking a position on things). But then, he quotes the rest of my paragraph and points out that I misunderstood his post. So if all my response was based on a misunderstanding, why would he still attack it? (-2)

Lastly he calls me out on attacking my attacker, which is supposedly one of my definitions of "over-defensive". It isn't, but I can see how he misunderstood.

#58: cropcircles refuses to clarify my question, or show any proof to back up his earlier statements. He also asks me to claim on only three votes, which is bizarre. (-10)

#66: Points out Don Gaetano seems to be leaving things up to the rest of the players. It's a good point. (+1)

#73: Comments on the game slowing down. Suddenly he's calling what was a rather heated argument "banter", which I think he could be doing to lessen the attention on us both (because he's scum). So slightly suspicious there. (-1)

#123: Returns to the thread after a long absence, only to say he cant post today but will post a lot tomorrow. Decently likely to be true, considering he didn't post anywhere else... then again it doesn't look like he was in any other games. I don't like the way this happened just after the heat came off though (-2).

#154: Finally returns, and makes a very convincing argument against Stewie. However I was expecting a little more than this considering how he was supposed to have lots of free time. (+2 for Stewie) (-1 for kind of skating by).

I'll note here that I didn't think cropcircle's attack on Stewie was a scum-on-scum play. Hard to pick which one I think is more likely to be scum, if any, though.

Final score:

-16

I think this guy is someone we should be looking at, but perhaps not a main target. We'll see when I finish all the other players.

Don Gaetano:

#57: Posts his thoughts on the Turbovolver/cropcircles argument. He seems to avoid the specifics of the argument, dealing just with how aggresive/defensive cropcircles and I have been. He's done this again when looking at the Turbovolver/Sotty7 argument, so perhaps that's just his playstyle. I don't think there's anything wrong with his conclusions, but nothing sticks out as particularly pro-town either.

#62: Here he says I only have three votes on me (it was actually 2 ) so he guesses we're moving on. I don't really like this post... it's not long after his previous post, the number of votes on me has only changed by one, and we have one person who says I should claim. So not only do I not really see the reason for talking like that, it's not even clear that the town wants to move on... (-2)

#85: Votes Ranger for lurking, and posting elsewhere but not here. This could've been a result of me screwing up the links, but either way this post is not suspicious. Says he is warming up to my playing style, but now in his latest analysis is saying I'm too trigger-happy... I don't really think I've been acting any different. Hmmm.

#140: Says that Ranger and his original votes on snowmonkey have been shown to be baseless (true). Then says that he thinks snowmonkey is suspicious anyway. I can see people thinking snowmonkey is suspicious, so I like this post. (+1) I haven't read through his big analysis to see if there really were the holes in arguments he talks of here though. If not, there will be some negative points.

#156: Says he cant read snowmonkey (Amen). Goes off to re-read before posting his huge analysis. I like the way he unvotes, for some reason. (+1)

#170: Posts his big analysis post. I've skimmed it, won't finish reading it till I'm done with this post. Haven't seen any conclusions I don't like yet...

#173: Apology not needed, my playstyle grates on a lot of people. I do agree my playstyle needs some work, and I get the feeling that because I post a lot and get so crazy logical some people just switch off and assume my arguments are baseless, which I don't think is true. I have had some success picking out scum while playing like this though (see Newbie #182).

Final Score:

0

I wouldn't be suprised if Don was scum because he's acting like the voice of reason, which is the way lots of good scum like to play. But he's playing it very well - he hasn't actually done anything overly suspicious that I can see, so I don't think he's somebody we should be looking at today.

Jimmy the Rez:

#31: Rather detached from the discussion, makes a joking comment aimed at pablito. Not very scummy, in my opinion.

#43: Says I shouldn't tell people in advance I will be changing my vote a lot. Probably right. Then he makes a joke aimed at me, which I didn't get until the third read

#50: Slightly suspicious of this post. Throws in a little "sarcastic" comment about me "playing against my own rules", and says my side is not looking good, but does not vote or FOS. Threatens to vote me, as if he is preparing in advance... kinda scummy I think, considering I was in a rather fragile position (-2)

#105: Admits he was lurking a bit, unvotes miali after he is replaced. Should note that he was away in his newbie game too, so lurking not very dodgy. FOSes me for not considering both me and cropcircles could be town, but that's not even true (-1). When I clarified this, there was no response from him... possibly he was distracted by all that cop-head start rubbish though.

#107: Doesn't realise there was a killing night, thought it was cop-head start. Or so he says. I don't see a way of working out whether he is being honest here or not.

#114: I agree with his sentiments regarding PJ's post, and I guess I kinda like the way he handles himself here (+1)

#149: Says "cant we all just get along?". No, we cant. That's mafia. (-1) Asks for prods, unvotes... not much of a post when there has been lots to talk about (-2).

OVERALL: Has contributed a very small amount to this game, and seems to be getting away with it. Uses a lot of humour, which some actually say is a scum tell. (-5, I don't like lurkers). Post your thoughts, Jimmy. You've been saying you take notes.

Final Score:

-10

Has been successfully lurking, and contributed little. One of his two big contributions was a "you're suspicious but I'm not going to vote you just yet... maybe later" and the other was self-defense. He's evaded us all so far, but I don't think it looks too good for Jimmy.

OK, so I checked what the Don had to say. I agree with his reading of the cop head start thing, but I think the lack of content in Jimmy's other posts makes him a bit more than a "2 out of 10". A good analysis from Jimmy would make me much less suspicious of him though, as I don't think he's done anything exceedingly scummy either.

snowmonkey:

#76: The post that started it all. He makes a little comment on the retaliatory vote, then lists his two most suspicious people. A lot of people took that to mean we were suspicious because of the retaliatory vote, but it's since been clarified that was not the only reason he was looking at us. Very hasty to "run us up"

#98: Votes me for no reason. Without reasoning it's hard to analyse, but I'm giving him some negative anway (-2). Well, the negatives are because he was asked and never told, which I think is quite scummy.

#108: I didn't think the village comment meant anything, and I thought it was hilarious "perhaps we should free up some of his time". I'm still not sure whether this post is OMGUS or not. So no score.

#124: I don't agree with point he raises about "only analysing those voting for Ranger" (-1). Makes a weird off-hand comment about Ranger hiding something, but who knows what to make of that.

#126: Some of his reasoning involves being told things during the day by his "wolf buddies". Innocent mistake, or reaching? Don't know
Says Ranger's comments about me and pablito "fly in the face of each other". I think that's rubbish (-2), I agree with those comments (unless pablito is scum, like I already said ).

#129: Saying Ranger has a scummy playstyle, possibly trying to rope me and pablito into joining the bandwagon? I don't understand why he's so hung up on Ranger if he's scum, because I think there are better targets to try to get lynched. But perhaps he's a clever scum pulling a stunt to look more pro-town. Second option is a little more unlikely than the first though, so (+1).

#131: Asks pablito if he's taking Ranger at face value. I don't know what this achieves, it doesn't seem like good posting but still rather neutral town/scum wise.

#134: I like the way he explains his vote for Ranger, but at the same time why does he feel it necessary to stick to his original two targets. Strange, but not scummy in my opinion.

#138: Here he basically says "I am awesome at picking scum, Ranger is scum." The only reasoning he gives is rather shoddy (OMG you voted before I voted you, making you not OMGUS. That's scummy!) Considering how hung up he is on OMGUS being evil, why would he think it bad that Ranger voted before he did? (-3)

#141: Bolds a part of Don's quote saying his arguments are full of holes, and says it is good posting. What the hell? Did he think Don was talking about Ranger?

#143: Doesn't even clarify. No, it's not obvious. (-1)

#145: Possible claim. Seems to have given up but that doesn't make me sway one way or the other.

#153: Reiterates that he wasn't OMGUSing, only aimed specifically at Stewie. There's no reasoning, no nothing. cropcircles, why aren't you all up in his grill for repeating himself? Oh cropcircles posted in the next post, but didn't call him out on this! (-100 for cropcircles)

#158: Says that his posts reek of good-guy ness. I think that's pretty far from the truth. Still, I cant really give negatives for posts like this... they are very neutral imo.

#161: Seems to be trying to get me on his side by bringing up again that he thinks I'm clean, and agreeing that Sotty isn't right. But still stubbornly clings to Ranger. Still neutral

#165: Tries to explain his Ranger reasons again. I don't like them (-2). Also he says he's willing to move his vote if I need it elsewhere? The only way I can see somebody saying that is scum trying to make me seem friendly with them... his reasoning for "giving away" his vote (the stuff about me reading and taking time to understand) sounds fishy too. (-1)

#174: Threatens anybody who makes a case against him with death? Oh I better just stop right here now with a (+25). More like (-1)

#177: This post sounds townie to me. No score changes though as it's all emotion/gut.

Final Score:

-12

I think cropcircles has done more overtly scummy things (asking me to claim, and suddenly stopping an argument when asked to back up his points... his reasoning only being "it'll make me look bad if I keep this up"), but looking over all of snowmonkey's posts there are a lot of little things there I don't like.

Despite all this, I just don't feel like snowmonkey is scum. He is behaving entirely strange, but not strange in a way that would benefit scum... just strange. I've had experience with townies acting strange (Newbie 188... *shudder*), and the person I think is scummiest joined his bandwagon right around 2nd-3rd vote. This probably sounds wishy-washy giving him such a low score but saying he is likely pro-town, but it's what my gut tells me. If he ends up dead and scum, I'm happy for extra pressure to fall on me.

pablito:

#17: This FOS is a little strange to me, though something about it sounds more misguided townie than scum. Still (-1).

#32: Unvotes his random vote, but this seems a little early and he didn't vote anybody else. Slight possibility he random voted a scum buddy, if he's scum. Also says the random vote discussion is distracting from real discussion, which is a valid point (+1).

#53: Sticks up for me a bit, saying I'm not suspicious just aggressive. Not really any other content.

#78: Raises a good point here (+1). I don't think it's strange that he brings it up but votes Ranger.

#81: Despite the fact that he says my play is horrible, I like this post (+1). He also picks up on a little thing that turns out to be nothing, but it's good to see him being pro-active.

#130: Questions snowmonkey on his reasons for voting ranger, and asks for a prod. Seems a little bit like laying low to me, here. (-1)

#159: A reasonable FOS on Stewie. (+1)

Final Score:

+1

Seems pretty clean, though he seems a bit hesitant to put forward strong suspicions. Another person who is still possibly scum but looks good - not the kind of person we should be looking at today, in my opinion.

petroleumjelly:

#37: Responds to my calling him "too agreeable", seems a fair enough response. Also votes me for a good reason (+1)

#59: Most of this post is just stuff I agree with, slightly pro-town vibe (+1). He votes pablito "possibly with or without reason", but it's pablito's first vote I think so either way it's not very scummy.

#60: Wants a votecount. I think votecounts are more in demand by scum than not, but I'm not going to take away any points here.

#106: After a decently long absence comes back and suggests we talk about night-kills. I don't think that's a very fruitul path, but his conclusions seem fair enough so doesn't seem like scum planting false ideas.

#111: Votes Jimmy the Rez for claiming he didn't know it was a killing night. He doesn't actually say he thinks Jimmy is most likely scum until later, so he's voting for something which is not scummy. (-2)

#115: Says Jimmy's play was only helpful to scum, therefore he must be scum. I don't agree with this logic, because townies make mistakes. He also seems to mistake what cop-head start means, but that's not scummy in itself. pablito points out that petroleumjelly actually misrepresented Jimmy by switching the order of his statements (-2).

#132: I can believe PJ here when he talks about why he voted Jimmy (+1)

#176: I like this post. Makes me less suspicious of him but not in any quantifiable way, so the score stands.

Final Score:

-1

Looks like petroleumjelly is actually looking relatively legit. The only thing he's said was suspicious recently was the whole Jimmy thing, so I think he's due for another good post.

Quailman:

#14: Pointless question. Doesn't rub me the right way. (-1)

#48: Counts up the number of posts cropcircles and I have, instead of any real contribution. Wait there is a contribution, a bandwagon vote with no reasoning (-2).

#67: More attentiveness to the game, but no actual content. (-2)

#71: Switches vote to a lurker with a "sure, why not". I swear this guy is scum, but I don't think I can give any negatives here.

#157: Comes back just to tell us he will be gone again. (-1)

OVERALL:

Huge amount of lurking, not a single bit of content contributed to the whole game, but he seems fine to jump onto bandwagons. (-12) just for that.

Final Score:

-18

One of the more likely to be scum people. Pretty obvious why.

RangeroftheNorth:

#69: Makes an excuse for not posting, and still delays (-1).

#101: Explains his lurking rather convincingly here. Hasn't really been lurking much since, so I'll accept it. When he goes on the offensive though, he says that snowmonkey is "willing to stretch". I think Ranger is stretching a bit himself here. (-1)

#119: Provides a decent analysis of all the players in the game. (+1)

#136: Defends himself pretty well.

OVERALL
Seems pretty clean actually, though I'm going to give him a (-1) here for being seemingly hung up on snowmonkey. It's almost like he's trying to keep first vote on the lynchwagon and as such is ignoring the other going-ons in the thread. My impression, anyway.

Final Score:

-2

I don't necessarily think Ranger is legit (the score doesn't really represent my suspicions well... I guess it represents those I can quantify well), but considering there's not much evidence against him and he is under attack from one of the scummiest looking players, I don't think he's the play for today.

Sineish:

#88: His first non-random vote post in the thread is actually a pretty good one. He points out the mistake I made when I provided the thread links (+1), then refers back to one of the defining events for his suspicions, which I think is nice. Then again, he's just a parrot by calling me defensive, and he'd probably be more than happy to point out my mistake with the links if he was scum... but that's just paranoia and the plus stays.

#121: I may have been a bit aggressive in my reply to this post, but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite wishy-washy (-2). Reading through it again, I can see it either as scum or as a townie specifically replying to my comment about "voting people who aren't scummy" and then throwing in a little suspicion of his own. I'll give him (+1) just in case.

OVERALL:
Another lurker, though this one hasn't been posting all over the forums. I'll still give him (-7) for lurking, but he actually seems less malicious than some of our other lurky players (*cough* Quailman *cough*).

EDIT: It's only recently that he hasn't been posting everywhere. His first lurky period he did post in other places, so an extra (-2).

Final Score:

-9

Despite his lurkiness, I'm actually leaning towards this guy being pro-town now that I look through everything. There's very little to go on, though. Need more posts, Sineish.

Sotty7:

#7: A random vote... maybe on her scum partner?

#27: A small attack on me, but I was kinda jumpy so it's fair enough. Strange that she decided to ask me a question based on the FOS I'd admitted to being not serious about, instead of questioning my actual vote on PJ. (-1)

#40: Accepts my reasoning for voting PJ, asks another question which is a bit dodgy, considering he's already answered it AND she answers it as part of the question (-1).

#42: Chatting with the mod is a little scummy, like I said before. But not worth any negative points.

#70 - #74: I'm willing to concede that these two posts aren't suspicious (in terms of the supposed "game speed" turnaround).

#79: Another question, and this one I really don't agree with. What, he's not allowed to express suspicion on anyone but who he votes for? It's the scum that think they only have to express suspicion on those who they vote for. (-1) I'm tempted to take off another point but I think that would be bias.

#84: Sotty7 fails to realise I buggered up the links here. I don't care what anybody says, I think she would point that out if she did notice, and the fact that she didn't notice means she wasn't genuine (-1). I agree with her that I was very paranoid early on (hell, still am, as this analysis probably shows), and I'd give a positive point here for her analysis of me and cropcircles if it wasn't for the stuff at the end about "getting a scum lynch" which seems tacked on. Especially with the "that's my thinking anyway".

#92: She explains herself well, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that she is lying.

#94: Yes was the right answer, though the bottom paragraph seems a tiny bit defensive.

#133: Don't know if I agree with the conclusion it must be an OMGUS vote, but the post is fine. Well, it is based on a whole bunch of misunderstandings, but that's not scummy in itself.

#144: The paragraph I had explaining why this post is craplogic is actually based on another misunderstanding (I thought we were talking about OMGUS as in snowmonkey lists Ranger as suss and Ranger responds with a vote), so it's actually not a very good case. However, the fact remains that being hypocritical isn't much of a scum tell in my books. I still don't like this post justifying her vote, and seemingly trying to push the lynch (-1).

#155: This is where it really starts to get screwed up. She's still thinking that snowmonkey listed Ranger as suspicious because of the OMGUS right back at the start of the game, and I'm still thinking that it's possible Ranger did OMGUS another time when he responded to snowmonkey calling him suspicious.

The second paragraph of this post is completely true. I was wrong to be suspicious of the game speed crap.

#163: The convolution continues (the fault of both of us, probably) in this post. The points she raises I have no problem with, but I was rather suprised she didn't defend against the dot points. She's later explained why, but there's still the chance she's lying. Because I consider strawmanning a significant scum tell, I'm going to give (-1).

#169: I don't really know if I am any closer to understanding... I think I've actually weakened my case by arguing so fiercely but I do think there are some suspicious things Sotty7 has done. Most of this post is fair enough, though she doesn't really address the logic hole the dot points express (-1). I'll put that in my next post, so it can be dealt with.

Final Score:

-7

Well, there was a lot of confusion here, and semantics gone wild. As I said above, I still think some of the stuff you said in the recent events is suspicious, but I also see now that things started to get crazy/pointless and I have at least some share of the blame. I'm sorry for that. Judging from her score, Sotty7 isn't the best person to be looking at... I'm thinking the play now is to get a claim out of snowmonkey, possibly with a lynch too. If he dies and turns up town, I think

then

Stewie and Sotty7 should fall under pressure. I haven't analysed Stewie yet, but I certainly no longer think Sotty7 is scummiest

Stewie:

#36: Bandwagons just for the hell of it, but here it's still early days and he's right in that most of the discussion has been useless crap about random votes (my fault, though it did break us out of the "random vote deadlock" that happens when you have no crazy players like me)

#51: Don't like the way he doesn't comment on the me and cropcircles argument, instead padding out his post with answering a rather pointless question and a request for a votecount. (-1)

#96: Asks for clarification. Still no content, but perhaps its coming after he gets his head around the events.

#99: Oops, no, no comment from him here. (-2)

#102: Votes snowmonkey for "creating suspicion when there wasn't any". Stewie must be talking about the way snowmonkey said he was suspicious of Ranger and then this was taken to mean "Ranger is suspicious because of an OMGUS". This has been shown to not be true, so why haven't you moved your vote Stewie, or made any move to justify it? (-1)

#139: cropcircles already did a number on this post, and nailed it.

First comment has already been addressed, and isn't very relevant. Also, the fact that he specifically chose a comment by his current vote target to comment on in a negative fashion doesn't look good to me. (-1)

Says he hasn't been posting much because he's not suspicious of anyone, despite the fact that he has his vote on someone along with three others. (-2)

Lastly he tries to enforce lynching on shaky grounds (-1).

#152: The first point he refutes doesn't actually refute anything, though perhaps he misunderstood my post because it wasn't particularly clear. He also defends Sotty7, though his points there aren't bad.

OVERALL:

A bit lurky, too, and doesn't post much content. Quite a bit of padding, though. (-8)

Final Score:

-16

I think he's probably the scummiest, despite how numbers have come out.

Turbovolver:

I'm not going to do an analysis of myself. I did notice my post #34 was really defensive though - that's more the type of thing I call over-defensive (yes, omg I was guilty of it ). The rest is just me being very wordy while arguing.



Ok, posting... like Don I'm sure there's mistakes. Call me out on anything. Next post will be a convenient summary of my findings.

[Turbovolver]

Wow, that was long... that's why I'm summarising my suspicions here:

cropcircles: -16

I really don't like the way he suddenly stopped arguing with me and asked me to claim. A few other minorly scummy things. Also backed off posting a lot when the heat wasn't on him.

Don Gaetano: 0

A voice of reason. Scum like to play like that, but we shouldn't be lynching our solid analysts just on the off-chance they could be clever scum, at least not yet.

Jimmy the Rez: -10

Most of this score is because he seems to joke a lot and rarely posts suspicions. Has successfully lurked by doing this.

snowmonkey: -12

He has a big bandwagon on him and with good reason, but I cant shake the feeling he is town.

pablito: +1

When he posts, it tends to be good in my experience. Probably needs to post more, and I probably should have bumped the score down a little for being a tiny bit lurkyish. But either way, not the best person to look at today, I think.

petroleumjelly: -1

As I say, due for another good post because he hasn't posted too many of his suspicions. However, I haven't had much to object to in his posting, despite the Jimmy thing (which he explained pretty well).

Quailman: -18

This guy has lurked to no end, and joined two bandwagons. That's his entire contribution to the game

RangeroftheNorth: -2

I think he's unlikely to be scum, and his earlier lurking seems to be fair enough.

Sineish: -9

Another lurker... re-reading his posts I think they are actually more pro-town than not, but there aren't many and he has been avoiding the game quite a bit.

Sotty7: -7

The arguments between me and her have been dotted with a whole slew of misunderstandings and semantics. I think there are still some scummy things to look at there, however. She would probably say the exact same about me. Again, I will say sorry for going a little crazy , but that doesn't mean I'm not suspicious

Stewie: -16

Pads out his posts, rarely contributes actual content. Has voted on suspicious grounds, and tried to encourage the town to lynch on flimsy evidence. Also lurks quite a bit. I think he's scum.

Unvote: Sotty7
Vote: Stewie

Also would be happy with a Quailman lynch.

Next on my suspicions list are probably Sotty7 and cropcircles.




Sorry if the super-long post annoyed anyone, but I promised I would do it and it has helped at least me in working out this game.

[Turbovolver]

So, nobody else is posting...

* You don't believe Ranger's OMGUS was serious, or suspicious (I agree)
* You believe that snowmonkey picks out RangeroftheNorth because of the OMGUS
* You say nothing to correct him, despite posting a few times before his next post.
* You think it's "fair enough" that snowmonkey lists Ranger as one of two people to look at because of something you consider to be meaningless (see her summary post).

1)I didn't look twice at Ranger's OMGUS vote at the start, they happen in lost of games
2)I think he picked Ranger out because he did vote Sineish in a retaliatory fashion all be it in a OMGUS form
3)Correct him by saying an OMGUS vote isn't a retaliatory vote? Technically it is, maybe Snow hasn't seen many of these in games he plays and that's why it caught his eye, and not ours.
4)I'm not sure what your pointing at here I had a look back but couldn't find what your referring to. If it's Snow's first post were he lists yourself and Ranger as people to look at then I agreed because at the time Ranger was lurking. Lurking is never good. If that's not the point you mean, quote it for me and I'll clear it up as best I can.

1) Agreed

2) You did/do believe that, yes.

3) Possibly, though I highly doubt that you thought through all that upon seeing his post - it really seems like you just made up a reason right now. And you'd be correcting him by saying "I don't think Ranger's vote was serious". Ranger's was definitely a retaliatory vote, but it's not a scummy one.

4) Sounds like you are correct about what I'm referring to. And the post says nothing about lurking, and you've made it clear in 2) that you believe/believed that the post basically said "Ranger is suspicious for his retaliatory vote". When you read a post that says "XXX is suspicious for reason <foo>", and you don't agree with <foo>, you don't say "fair enough" when you analyse it. That's the point I'm trying to get at here.

This makes me think that the large post with reasoning for your place on the snowmonkey bandwagon was manufactured... and manufactured reasons for voting are scummy.


But, Stewie or Quailman are probably still better targets.

[Turbovolver]

Does post #159 give anybody else the feeling that Stewie and pablito are likely to be linked?

I say this because the attack seems rather half-hearted and the post is set up for him to just go "Un-FOS Stewie" when Stewie comes back and posts his reasoning. That is, it seems like he could be a scum buddy warning Stewie about the scumminess of those comments and trying to get him to rectify them.

If Stewie ever turns up scum, I think it would be time to take a good look at pablito. Thoughts?

[Turbovolver]

am I correct when I count 6 votes on me?

That was my guess at the number of votes on you. But I haven't specifically counted.

[Turbovolver]

We share equal blame in the craziness I think but I'm happy enough to move on now if you are.

I will stick by what I said before... as a result of our exchanges you're probably more suspicious of me, and me of you. I don't think you're one of the people to look at today, and yes you could be lying about your explanations but either way we're not going to get any more information out of that issue. Things did get a bit stupid, but there is also solid content in our back-and-forth posts.

What I do find a tad scummy is you trying to link Stewie and myself. He defended me on the speed of the game (which you later agreed wasn't a good point) and also on the whole misunderstanding thing, which personally I think is a valid point (then I would). So in that post I just see him as the voice of reason, plus if he was my partner wouldn't he just leave me swinging in the wind? This of course is all just WIFOM and any player that defends another player will always be looked at as if they could be possible scum partners. Don also mentions the link between myself and Stewie but only in his analysis of Stewie which is kinda weird. I do think that to go off solely on day one links is not a good idea but they are something to keep in mind come day two or three if they are still occurring. That's just what I do, make a note of all possible links and connections once they become repetitive over the days then I look deeper into them.

Perhaps... at the time I was more sold on you being scum than I am now, so when someone rushed to your defense it struck me as suspicious. I still think his defense was a little "blind". I agree with your points about links not being useful for day 1 - I wouldn't want to lynch someone just because there was lots of people they might be scum with... but I don't really see the problem with bringing up possible links on day 1.

Considering I am speaking my mind, I actually think the above was a bit over-explained, but there's a good chance that's just me considering my 'hating' on Sotty and Stewie.

In hindsight I just wonder, am I the only one that finds Sotty's diplomatic, calm tone a bit... off?

Not at all... I said in my big post about how I consider chatting with the mod slightly scummy, and hell I even voted PJ right at the start of the game because "I had nothing better to go on then to be paranoid about the agreeable players". There are probably other times I mentioned it in my big analysis, I don't really remember. But yes, excessive diplomacy and/or friendliness makes me suspicious. I have a small amount of experience from my few newbie games to back up the suspicion, too.

You're probably not the only one who feels that way, but I do get that quite a lot....maybe I need some testosterone to get the blood pumping. Although this does sound like you really wanted me to vote Turbo, which probably would have only escalated the problem we had because then he could have accused me of being defensive when I was supposed to be accusing Snow monkey of that. Then I really would have been hypocritical.

Both genders have both hormones, oestrogen and testosterone, only on average one is higher in one gender and the other higher in the other gender (AFAIK, and perhaps you already knew this but I'm just making sure). I think I myself have way too much oestrogen in my system to be a "real man" (yeah, this doesn't really come across in mafia ). Last night I was bawling my eyes out at a movie while my girlfriend was almost completely unmoved.

As for voting me being defensive, I don't know... if you reasoned out a vote on me well I wouldn't really consider it defensive. Especially for that game speed thing, which I basically said "yep, it was a crap point" when its flaws were pointed out.

As I sort of said with cropcircles, if you're town and somebody is attacking you, you probably think their logic is flawed, and hence they are more likely to be scum. Perhaps even enough to vote them - as such I don't really think OMGUS is much of a scum tell. Hell it's probably a town tell because scum are more careful about doing it (this means you, Sotty ).



This post is already long enough, I'll be analysing Stewie's recent posts a bit later.

[Turbovolver]

but dont give me this crap about me dodging a full role claim because I havent.

Understand that saying the word "townie" does not necessarily mean vanilla... different people use the word in different ways. If you are trying to say here that you have already claimed Math, vanilla townie, I suggest you reiterate that so we can all be sure.

[Turbovolver]

Anyways, to answer cropcircle:

My lost post was targetted mainly at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again. Instead, I will just say that that's the wrong way to look at a game. You need to look at the game as a whole, not as little bits that can be analized separately.

OK, I'll look at your position in this game as a whole:

Pads out his posts, rarely contributes actual content. Has voted on suspicious grounds, and tried to encourage the town to lynch on flimsy evidence. Also lurks quite a bit. I think he's scum.

Even if you refuse to refute all my points just because they are individual posts, at least refute this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second part I'd like to know how it is a tell. Until you give reasoning for this claim, I will

FOS: cropcircle and Turbo

(turbo for agreeing), and in this sentence "fos" does not stand for "finger of suspicion."

So what does it stand for?

And it is most definitely a tell... when scum lurk and people say "oi, post more" one thing they love to say is "but I'm not suspicious of anybody!". Which is usually BS. I'd also say that if you aren't suspicious of anybody, why are you voting at all, but you seem to have covered yourself there by saying it's in the town's best interests to just vote without good reason.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, right now I'm going to

Vote: Stewie

- I find it odd that Stewie decided to write a

huge post

that understandably got lost. However, the main reason I continue to suspect Stewie right now is that his

huge post

was in response

to Turbovolver and not to me at all.

Please read closely:

My lost post was targetted

mainly

at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again.

Can't see how you can interpret "mainly" as "to Turbovolver and not to me at all." When I said "mostly," you were actually the exeption, because your post deserved a response. If you are town, read more carefully next time, and if you are not, then nice try.

Hell, even if you did want to write a post up addressing me it could just have been that you forgot about pablito's post. I'm a bit suspicious of what pablito is saying here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One example of people drawing too many conclusions is Turbo the first time he voted for me (or any other, for that matter) and pretty much any other vote Turbo did after that (basically, Turbo is either scum or town trying

way

too hard). Then there's cropcircles, with the "scum tell" he just made up, and the arguments cropcircle was involved in, and snowmonkey trying to make retaliation votes seem suspicious in an early stage of the game. Then there's the bandwagon on me, which is based on crap, or a deliberate misinterpretation of my posts.

How can one draw "too many" conclusions? You want half-assed reasons to lynch people, I provide full reasons and that's a bad thing? Do you care to refute my reasons for voting?

Please tell us why we should not be suspicious of your lurking. Please tell us where this "deliberate misrepresentation" is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I think snowmonkey voted for ranger:

He says "ahh, the old retaliatory vote....very nice." immediatly followed by "the two that stick out the most to me are ranger and turbo. i say we run em up and see what happens." If the two are not connected (the OMGUS votes and the "the two that stick out the most are...") then there should have been an "anyways" or some other form of transition between them to emphasise the fact that both statements are not related.

Quite possibly, but that's why I asked him to clarify (and he has).

That's not her vote though. That's when she pretty much goes against OMGUS votes. Then, later on the thread, after RotN comes back, he says "ranger comes in today and is completely defensive. this game is moving too fast?" What is so suspicious about being defensive? If you are absent, you

better

defend yourself, or else you are going to see votes going your way.

This, to me, seems like a shit reason to vote for someone

. In the last sentence of that post you say "this isn't retaliatory." I guess I was wrong then, because why would you lie about such a thing... oh wait. Right. I don't buy it.

Bolding is mine. I'm just pointing out that you are voting for someone (and putting them dangerously close to lynch) for doing something you consider to be proper pro-town behaviour. Or is his reason less half-assed than everybody else's?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still waiting an explanation on the "wolf buddies have told you you're being run up." I want to know what your posts mean. If I posted in spanish, I'm sure you'd like someone to translate (unless you know spanish, in which case replace that with any language you don't know).

This isn't important. Making a mistake about when scum are allowed to talk isn't scummy. It's WIFOM to call it anything but neutral. PS nice touch with the Spanish - I should add that some people think appealing to emotion is a scum tell. In this case I am inclined to agree.

And the constant dodging of a claim doesn't make it any better.

Well I cant deny this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'd also like to say that yes, my first vote on Stewie wasn't perfectly well-reasoned. That's how I like to start the game, by voting for reactions. You've all seen how I don't really like random votes.

[Turbovolver]

Damnit, the lines looked right in preview

[Turbovolver]

Now, as for your quote, I am not sure what "pads out his posts" exactly means; "rarely contributes any content" is a lie, because I have posted in the past, just not often during exams but my first few posts (before exams) and my latest posts (after exams) had plenty of content; "has voted on suspicious grounds" is another lie because I vote for people for the same reasons I always vote for people on day one, and nobody ever called me on it, and they boil down to me wanting to get the game moving, up until but not including my current vote; I encourage the town to lynch because there is a half assed reason out there (which is getting more and more like a real reason as post go by) and we are still in day on page nine (too freaking long); lurking goes back to me having to study (aced two exams, by the way ); and you thinking I'm scum... you are entitled to your opinion, I guess. Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Pads out his posts:

As in putting non-game related stuff in them. Not a problem with this, except when it is used to take the place of real content. Which in your case, I think it has. (#51, #139)

Rarely contributes any content:

Let me summarise your posts in this game:

11: Random vote
12: Well, randomish
15: Explaining your actions
36: More explanation/defense, bandwagon vote
51: Answers a useless question, asks for votecount
96: I don't know what's going on
99: Thanks for telling me what's going on
102: The infamous "half-assed vote" speech, and then a bandwagon vote. This has some content.
109: Correction
139: First point is irrelevant, second point concedes you are not posting much (and look, the reason is nothing to do with exams). Third point you had already made.
152: Defends Sotty7. Fair enough.

Between here is when I say Stewie hasn't contributed much

185: Tells me I'm looking at the game wrong, FOS me and cropcircles until we explain why what we said was a tell actually is. I suppose this is some light content.
192: Starts out with some self-defense, then some decent content with the snowmonkey thing.
193: No content.
207: More self-defense

So the sum total you had contributed when I said you don't contribute much was:

"This is why I random voted etc etc"
"We should vote for half-assed reasons and just get day 1 over with. I vote snowmonkey for creating suspicion where there wasn't any"
"Turbovolver those attacks on Sotty7 were BS"

I'm sorry, but that looks pretty sparse to me. After I said you didn't contribute, you've contributed a reason for your snowmonkey vote and an FOS on me and cropcircles, but the rest has all been self-defense.

Votes on suspicious grounds:

Well, actually you haven't voted much. First you voted PJ just for a bandwagon, but that's not really suspicious. Your only "real" vote I have disagreed with the reasoning behind, and we'll come to that point below.

I'm voting because I chose the least-non-suspicious person, and voted for them. I don't think I'd vote snowmonkey right now if this was day three or day four. But it's day one, and we already have nine pages. She seems like the most likely to be scum, and even more as time goes on.

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason because there aren't any (or at least there weren't any at the time) and we gotta lynch someone. If we let this go much longer, we won't be able to get replacements, should the need arise

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be lynching based on how easily we can get replacements. And there aren't any good reasons? You've accused me of misrepresenting you/lying a few times, and you've attempted to debunk (in at least one case successfully) a few of my arguments against Sotty7.

These actually sound like pretty good reasons to vote for *me*, if you truly believe them

.

Step back and look at what you're doing - you aren't trying to catch scum, you're just picking the bandwagon on the weakest player and sticking to it. This is hugely scummy to me, no matter how much you go on about the day needing to end (PS: Bringing up the replacements thing hinders, not helps, your case, in my view. I think it's reaching for justification of your actions)

Too many conclusions means that you are coming to conclusions which are irrational. It's too many conclusions because you came up with one (that I am scum, or acted suspicious) when you shouldn't have done so. Hence, too many conclusions. As for you providing full reasons... perhaps full-assed reasons, and yes, that's a bad thing. I think we should lynch on some kind of evidence. My position is that this evidence does not have to be the strongest, at least for day one, and sometimes day two.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the last bit of this post not say "Town shouldn't vote for the person most likely to be scum (strongest evidence)"? You suggest we should instead just go for the players who will be lynched the easiest?

You should not be suspicious of my absence because it was explained by joint reasons: I had exams, and with the workload I could not keep up with the game. Is that unreasonable? As for the misinterpretations, read up, I pointed out some. Although I might be mistaken in calling them "deliberate," since they could be an accident, I am fairly confident that they were done on purpose.

Yeah I'm sorry for saying you don't post much content when you in your own words have already said "The reason I'm not posting much is...". Gross misrepresentation
And as for the second "misrepresentation", yes I think if you are voting for half-assed reasons that is "voting on suspicious grounds".
As I said before, you're fairly confident I'm deliberately misrepresenting you - that's far worse than anything snowmonkey ever did... why are you still voting for him and not me?

Also, you have previously said you weren't posting much because you weren't suspicious of anyone. Good to see you've changed your tune now that people have pointed out that was a scum tell. You shouldn't really change your tune mid-game though, as now you've given two very different excuses for your lack of posting (and even accused me of lying when I said you didn't post much... go figure).

Are you implying that my vote on Snowmonkey is because he defended himself? Because it's not. I am voting for him because I think he is lying in his defense.

No, I'm implying that you calling him out on "voting for a shit reason" doesn't really gel with

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason

And no, don't try to bring in the semantics of the words "shit" and "without good".

How am I supposed to know that it was a mistake about when scum can talk? I seriously don't know what he was talking about, and wanted clarification. You are saying it's a mistake on when the scum can talk, so I'll assume you are right unless snowmonkey says otherwise. As for the spanish, I just wanted to point out that if I don't undestand what he's saying, he should clarify in a manner in which I am accutomed to. I fail to see how this is appeal to emotion. You might be able to call it a false analogy, but it's not.

I looked at snowmonkeys comments about talking wolf buddies, and the only possible explanation I saw was that he was mistaken. As he himself has since explained (#199), he was talking about other games he's played in where the mafia ("wolves") get a separate forum to scheme in. And perhaps I used the wrong phrase by calling it an "appeal to emotion", but the Spanish stuff was certainly not necessary and I think probably thrown in there to subtly make snowmonkey look worse.

Random voting IS voting for reactions...

Yeah, sure. When you vote someone without reasoning, they've got nothing to respond to. And unless people like Fritzler come along and start putting third or fourth votes on, nothing will happen.

PS: You're almost definitely not going to get a reaction when you use a randomiser (sorry, "claim" to use a randomiser) because then the person knows there's nothing to respond to. This is what my original FOS was about.

Confirm Vote: Stewie

.

snowmonkey has done some really strange things and even acted intentionally obtuse, but the way he has acted doesn't really seem to benefit scum more than town. All he's done is attract attention to himself and *Ranger*, of all people. Stewie on the other hand has picked an easy bandwagon and stuck to it, tried to hurry along the day and has avoided posting about anything other than himself and his lynch target (apart from Sotty7, but she's his scum partner ).

I really think he's the best target today.


PPE: I don't know if I agree with Pablito's rather interesting look at events, but we agree on who the scum is so I'm cool with it for the moment

[Turbovolver]

If anybody wants me to summarise my case against Stewie because they don't feel like reading all that, feel free to ask. I'm happy to give my latest points against Stewie in short-form. He's going down.

[Turbovolver]

It looks to me that Stewie was (and maybe still is) of the opinion that Day 1 will not give us super-solid grounds for a lynching, so his “sticking to a half-assed reason” didn’t bother me, since that’s usually what kind of reasoning there is for a Day 1 lynch anyways.

What about you, petroleumjelly? Do you think it'd be OK if we lynched on a half-assed reason? That's the impression I get if you are OKing Stewie saying this.

[Turbovolver]

Hmm, a diplomatic answer. Cant go wrong with that

I just saw you online and was wondering about that point. Thanks for answering.

*waits for pablito to come in and say he thought I was laying a trap there*

*perhaps I was*

[Turbovolver]

OK, here we go *sigh*

I'm going to try responding in a different style to make this easier for everyone else in the game.

Stewie refutes my calling posts #51 and #139 padding. I disagree, but really you should all look and decide for yourself.

Then he goes and reviews my summary of his posts. He even says stuff like "I fail to see how this is a crappy post" to posts I never called crappy. He even explains why he had to make a correction? All I did was list all of his posts and what I made of them - he's being awfully defensive by explaining posts I never said were suspicious.

He fails to deny my summary of his contribution to the game up until the point when I said he didn't contribute much. So basically he fails to deny that he hasn't contributed much (if he did, I missed it)

He then makes a really strange reply where he talks about us not finding strong reasons on day 1. Just read it, and you'll see that it doesn't add up.

He then says that despite him posting very little, he has still provided content because content isn't measured in the number or length of posts. While that is completely true, he still failed to deny my summary of the amount of content he has contributed (which had nothing do with number or length of posts).

Then he goes on about why he's voting for snowmonkey, over a supposed discrepancy. I guess that's fair enough, though he then says I'm suggesting my evidence is irrefutable by calling them "full reasons" (I have never said the points I raise are irrefutable). Also he makes a point I don't understand about my evidence "not getting people lynched at a later stage of the game". Please explain?

Next, he says that saying you aren't suspicious isn't a scum tell. Even though I believe it is, I'm pretty sure it definitely is when you later claim you've seen discrepancies in people's posting, and were on the town's biggest bandwagon.

Next he goes off at me for telling him to not bring up semantics. Umm, Stewie? You are right I anticipated semantics from you, but semantics are the easy way out. I wanted a proper explanation, not just "no I used different words therefore I'm absolved from all blame".
His actual response (as in not the semantics stuff) I don't even understand. "Voting without a good reason doesn't mean that your reason has to be based on something a player is expected to do." - does anybody understand what this means, in the context it is in?

Lastly he rolls his eyes, which basically says "I cant deny the points you've raised here" to me.


I don't really understand half of his response. Until I get it explained to me, I'll have to assume that he's just being confusing to avoid a real defense.



Is this type of reply preferred by the town?

[Turbovolver]

Quotes for Stewie's pleasure.

The two above contradic each other. I can't explain why my posts had content, but I fail to deny your summary which implies that my posts lack content? What are you on?

I found it strange that you were justifying things like random votes, or corrections when you voted the wrong person. This has nothing to do with how much content you have posted.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and include all your extra bits. Sure you've justified reasons for posting what you have, but that doesn't mean you've posted a lot of content. Even if we assume the question in #51 is important (i.e. ignore the fact that Sotty basically answered it herself), and that your post #139 is completely relevant... you still hadn't contributed much up until that point. Also, the whole game you still haven't expressed suspicion about anybody

except

your bandwagon target (and me *after* I started attacking you).

He then makes a really strange reply where he talks about us not finding strong reasons on day 1. Just read it, and you'll see that it doesn't add up.

Stewie doesn't even try to deny this.

Also he makes a point I don't understand about my evidence "not getting people lynched at a later stage of the game". Please explain?

If this was day three, none of this evidence would get anyone lynched. It's enough for

today

. Also, you call them full reasons, not me (post 201).

It sounds like we have vastly different playstyles, which scares me, because I could be seeing a lot of things as scummy which I shouldn't because of this (see me vs Raj in Newbie 188... oops turned out we were the two power roles ) For this reason, I'll summarise my points against you that seem more universal in my next post.

Next, he says that saying you aren't suspicious isn't a scum tell. Even though I believe it is, I'm pretty sure it definitely is when you later claim you've seen discrepancies in people's posting, and were on the town's biggest bandwagon.

Oops, Stewie fails to defend against this part too... I think it's rather significant.

If

you

change the meaning of my posts to make it seem incriminating, I have to show people how the wording of my posts is in such a way in which it does not contradict each other. Next time, you can read carefully instead of conviniently, and I won't need to use semantics because there won't be an accusation to begin with.

Well, you said the town needs a half-assed reason to vote, then called someone out for having a shit reason to vote. That seems strange, but perhaps the difference between "half-assed" and "shit" is significant to you. I certainly don't think it's significant enough to use a s a reason for lynching somebody though.

Not to mention you deciding a reasoning for vote is "shit" also counts as over-analysis in your books, as you've been so keen to shoot down any other time the town identifies craplogic as "full-assed reasons and not evidence".

As for the expectations bit, my point was that when a player is called on lurking, he is expected to defend himself. If he does, a vote on him is wrong because he did what he had to do.

Consdering the number of times I've had to repeat myself, it seems strange you bring it up again - snowmonkey didn't vote Ranger because he defended his supposed lurking. snowmonkey himself has said this.

"these points are so much crap that I shouldn't have to deny them. I will anyways. How easy it is to lynch someone is not a factor, but how scummy they are. I find snowmonkey scummy, therefore I vote for him. The fact that four other people agree should not be used against me.

You are right that this in itself isn't very good grounds for suspicion. But when somebody joins a bandwagon for reasons you don't think are genuine, on a player who has been weak rather than scumm, you DO get suspicious, like I have done.

Also, me/sotty scum group is a baseless statement, and a moot point.

We'll see



I'm doing this at my girlfriend's house and she wants me off the computer (hell yeah, I'm whipped) so it was kinda done in a hurry. I'll do up my short-form, non-playstyle points against Stewie at a later time, sorry.

[Turbovolver]

OK, people don't like all the long posts, so I'll only respond to the questions Stewie has asked. The only other thing I can do is urge people to take a look for yourselves at his posting, and mine too I suppose.

The two above contradic each other. I can't explain why my posts had content, but I fail to deny your summary which implies that my posts lack content? What are you on?

I found it strange that you were justifying things like random votes, or corrections when you voted the wrong person. This has nothing to do with how much content you have posted.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and include all your extra bits. Sure you've justified reasons for posting what you have, but that doesn't mean you've posted a lot of content. Even if we assume the question in #51 is important (i.e. ignore the fact that Sotty basically answered it herself), and that your post #139 is completely relevant... you still hadn't contributed much up until that point. Also, the whole game you still haven't expressed suspicion about anybody except your bandwagon target (and me *after* I started attacking you).

Where are you going with this?

Well, the first part was me saying why I didn't think it was a contradiction.

The second part was arguing that even if we accept all the extra content you claim your posts had, it still isn't much.

Lastly I point out that you seem to be only expressing suspicion on your bandwagon target and your attackers, which I think is the way scum think and not townies (see me for example, I'm paranoid about pretty much everyone).

Stuff about no suspicions of people being a scum tell

Read my post again, I'm pretty sure I addressed this. You even replied to it. If you say something twice, I shouldn't have to answer it twice.

I had a quick look, I don't see where. Please point it out.

Not to mention you deciding a reasoning for vote is "shit" also counts as over-analysis in your books, as you've been so keen to shoot down any other time the town identifies craplogic as "full-assed reasons and not evidence".

Uh... Explain?

You are saying you don't agree with the reasoning for snowmonkey's vote on Ranger (i.e. it's craplogic), yet whenever other people (me for example) have accused people of craplogic (e.g. the start of my argument with Sotty7) you've said the reasoning was over-analysing and not evidence.
I'm getting the feeling if you are pro-town then your view is we should be looking more at voting patterns and claims as evidence, and this is why you've been saying there hasn't been much evidence. As I've said I don't agree with this idea, but I suppose it's fair enough. If this is what you believe though, you cant go around calling out people's reasoning for votes because in your own books it's not real evidence.

OK, I'll explain again: A half-assed reason is a reason that is half-good, half bad. A shit reason is completly bad. Therefore, a half-bad reason is good (day one) and a shit reason is not.

I suppose. I still don't like the way you insist we will never find a completely good reason though.

You might as well link to this post snowmonkey made, because I sure can't find it.

I don't know how to link to posts, but it's post #126, the red text inside the quotes.

So you are also suspicious of all the other people voting for snowmonkey?

I am, yes. Especially Sotty7 because I also didn't like her reason for joining the bandwagon. You have reminded me of RangeroftheNorth here, who I must admit I had kind of forgot about. But I can see him keeping his vote on snowmonkey if he's pro-town because snowmonkey was determined to lynch him and solely him.

I cannot understand that Turbo has gotten himself involved in yet another stupid argument. Why start this argument now, before we've resolved anything with snowmonkey? We can restart the Turbo/Stewie argument later if you want to, but for now my focus remains on snowmonkey

snowmonkey has given us all the information he's willing to give, and I think there are better places to look today. I've said what I think of snowmonkey, so there hasn't been much to contribute on that matter. I've been rather distracted with the Stewie thing, so if you want my latest thoughts on snowmonkey:
I think he's one of those people who's against claiming. He definitely hasn't been expressing that view in a very nice fashion, but he's certainly not the first person to disagree with claiming either. Sotty7 raises a good point that if he doesn't want to claim he should be out there trying to catch scum - I agree with that. If he also refuses to do that, I'd be much more willing to add my vote.

As for Turbo's new focus, I'm not sure what to think. I'm finding it hard to read and process all the points he is trying to make. My gut is telling me that this is just a ploy to move us away from Snow, but I'll re-read the last few post between the two and see if my opinion changes with a better understanding.

You've already avoided commenting on the argument once, so I'm suspicious that you've done it again. Especially considering I think you two are scum together.

As for it being a ploy to move the town away from snowmonkey, well I've already addressed that in my reply to Don Gaetano. I am definitely willing to concede that if snowmonkey is scum that I am looking pretty bad.

Just to reiterate, snowmonkey, you need to post your current suspicions. I'm not necessarily asking for an analysis of every player like some people have provided, but we need to hear more from you than just "I refuse to claim".

[Turbovolver]

By the way, I hope I haven't offended you too much, Turbo.

No, you haven't.

To the people who still not agree that Snowmonkey is the best lynch for today (aka Turbo). How are we ever going to catch scum if we let people who refuse to claim and refuse to answer allegations against them live. I'm not even going to make up my mind on your arguments against Stewie because if Snowmonkey doesn't start cooperating with the town, nothing, and I mean NOTHING could persuade me from pushing to get him lynched.

The not-claiming I don't really have a problem with. I can link to another game where I said (as pro-town) that I think the game shouldn't have much basis on claims, if you really want.

As for not answering suspicions, there haven't really been many raised against him apart from by you Don. I'll re-read what you said, but most of the other players haven't really given many suspicions against him - just that he his obnoxious and a hypocrite and etc etc.

PPE: Responding to Sotty7 now, will re-read the suspicions at a later date.

Since by the time he mentioned his suspicion of ranger, it already had come to light that you (turbo) messed up the links on ranger, the 2nd reason is nonsense. Not only that, but it had been discussed over a whole page, IMHO there's no way someone wouldn't have noticed that. So his suspicion about Ranger was based on the OMGUS vote AKA nonsense and nonsense/deliberate misrepresentation.

The links I messed up showed only that Ranger had posted in other places and not in this thread. They were a mess-up because Sotty wanted examples AFTER he posted his excuse, and I only posted examples from BEFORE he posted his excuse.

So mess-up or no, it doesn't change the fact that Ranger had not been posting much in thread when snowmonkey originally called him suspicious.

Yeah You've stated lots of times you think me a Stewie are scum partners based on the fact he defended me against some not so great logic on your part right?

His actual defense of you is fair enough. I think both you and Stewie are likely to be scum based on individual evidence, so when one of you defends the other I will note that. While it would look even worse if the defense wasn't solid, it doesn't mean it still doesn't look suspicious to me.

Until then, I would like you to answer me on why you still believe myself and Stewie to be linked, after you yourself have conceded that some of the argument you had against me was flawed.

I feel I have explained this above.

Also, you are the only person Stewie has defended, despite him saying that he thinks pretty much all of the attacks people have made are over-reasoned and insignificant. When both of you are scummy in my mind (for individual reasons) and then something like that happens, I think it's rather natural to link the two of you together.

[Turbovolver]

The deadline is still a few days away, but it sounds like we need the whole 7 votes to avoid a no-lynch.

Even though I think snowmonkey is town, I would rather see him lynched than nobody because I think it would provide a significant amount of information. So if lots of people are still voting for him but a no-lynch looks likely, I'll add my vote closer to the deadline.

[Turbovolver]

Then you won't mind me not addressing any points in the thread (until snowmonkey claims). If snowmonkey can get away with being two away from a lynch and not claiming, surely it's also ok for me not to address any points you bring up (not that I can't, I'm just too lazy to at the moment) when I am four votes away from a lynch. I could, if you really want, link to games in which I was four away from a lynch and I refused to reply to points against me.

Claiming is very different to answering to your actions. There is no good reason not to answer to what people say to you (apart from outside circumstances), whereas there are arguments that can be made against claiming. Considering a deadline is coming up, this sounds to me like you are trying to avoid answering my points before the day ends.

Really, you are fine with the non-claiming? The only people who are this resistant with claiming are scum who can't come up with a claim. It's ok that he tried to talk his way out of it without claiming, but his bandwagon is not dying down, so he failed at that.

It is certainly not only the scum who will refuse to claim. I've seen frustrated townies do it all the time in newbie games, and I imagine it happens elsewhere too.

I'm willing to let myself die instead of SM iff he claims doctor and nobody counterclaims. I am also willing to answer that post you made iff snowmonkey claims or if you give me one good reason why a pro-town player would not claim in the situation sm is. Until then, I'll have a lot of time to work on my Bio project.

Why doctor and not any other sort of role?

You want a good reason why a pro-town player would not claim? Well, I don't know if it could ever be considered "good play" to flat-out refuse to claim, especially when it looks like pressure won't let up. But just because it isn't good play doesn't mean a townie couldn't do it.

[Turbovolver]

If sm continues to refuse to give a full claim, he is acting in a way that is not beneficial to the town and therefore should be lynched.

It is not our goal to eliminate those who are not beneficial, it is our goal to eliminate the scum. Advocating a lynch based on anything but alignment is a bit scummy to me.

Not quite an FOS: RangeroftheNorth

[Turbovolver]

Eliminating a townie will also make the game harder for us though.

It was less than an FOS, so let's not get too hung up on it.

[Turbovolver]

I'm happy with that.

[Turbovolver]

Make one. [an argument against claiming]

Off to the top of my head, claiming gives the mafia far more information than it gives the town. The town can rarely, if ever, be sure that you speak the truth, whereas the mafia will always know.

If the scum have good safe-claims (or are good at making up false claims), a mass-claim will hurt the town. Individual claims are just a small piece of a mass-claim, and although it could be said there is a better chance of forcing just scum to claim because of how the lynches go, this is no guarantee.

Are those arguments particularly watertight? Probably not. But some people believe claiming is a bad idea, and those are some possible reasons why.

It is certainly not only the scum who will refuse to claim. I've seen frustrated townies do it all the time in newbie games, and I imagine it happens elsewhere too.

Rarely if ever. I can't recall any situations off the top of my head.

Well, I've seen people give the following speech a bunch of times:

what am I supposed to do?

If I claim vanilla townie, you guys will lynch me anyway.
If I claim scum, you guys will lynch me.
If I claim power-role then the scum will kill me at night.

To be honest, I haven't actually made sure that only scum give these speeches.

You want a good reason why a pro-town player would not claim? Well, I don't know if it could ever be considered "good play" to flat-out refuse to claim, especially when it looks like pressure won't let up. But just because it isn't good play doesn't mean a townie couldn't do it.

I want you to tell me what good for the town could come out of not claiming when the pressure won't let up. You didn't give me a reason, you gave me a WIFOM.[/quote]

What I said was in no way a WIFOM. All I said is "townies don't always make good plays". You really want to call that a WIFOM?

[Turbovolver]

*Lots of stuff*

I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not. All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out

You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"

Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

[Turbovolver]

I might go through and check all of your reponses, I might not.

This is not pro-town behavior. This is what I call "selective attention", or "tunnel vision". You only look at what goes into your theory of Stewie as scum, but disregard that which is inconsistent. Sometimes it helps to read responses to what you have to say.

The argument has degenerated into a discussion about whether claiming is good behaviour or not - despite me leaning slightly towards claiming being the better play. All I did was post arguments when Stewie asked me to, and I admitted myself that I made them up off the top of my head and they probably weren't holeproof. That is, there wasn't really much to gain by reading why my quickly-constructed arguments were wrong - so I didn't. I did notice the point about the WIFOM thing being rubbish, so I pointed that out.

I'll go read his post just for you though. And resist the urge to point out the other places where I don't agree.

All you've shown by going on this little "claim crusade" is that you are desparate to avoid answering players' suspicions against you, if you ask me. This is one argument I've been in that *I* can recognise as stupid before it's been pointed out

So Stewie has given responses (see quote above), but is desperate to avoid answering players' suspicions? I believe Stewie has answered you quite consistently, and thoroughly. I do not keep track of every word said in this thread, but I am beginning to think your insistence on Stewie is becoming a smoke screen for scum to hide behind.

He himself has specifically said that he isn't fully responding to me, in this post:

Then you won't mind me not addressing any points in the thread (until snowmonkey claims). If snowmonkey can get away with being two away from a lynch and not claiming, surely it's also ok for me not to address any points you bring up

---------------------------------------------------------------

Also, if you know the argument you are in is "stupid",

why

are you pursuing it?

The only persuing I did was the OMGUS thing, because it was blatantly wrong. This seems almost like misrepresentation to me - I only posted that I realised the argument was stupid in the same post that I refused to continue arguing.

What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

A few questions then:
1.) Has Stewie done anything you would classify as "a mistake"?
2.) If he has, why are you not considering that he is a

townie

who made a mistake? I believe you said a while ago that "Stewie is going down". Is there something in particular that makes you so confident he is scum?

1) Yes, he has - misunderstanding the reasons behind snowmonkey's votes. At least this.
2) Because in addition to this, he's also posted almost no content that wasn't bandwagon-justification or self-defense. In fact, he basically avoided doing anything at all until he found a weak player to stick too, and that he did. I think this is scummy. I haven't been satisfied with his replies.

I am personally growing tired of having to read the constant banter between yourself and Stewie. It may serve it's purpose later in the game, but I think we need to make a change in direction.

Good idea. I'm thinking maybe we should list the scummy things Stewie has done and you can tell us why they don't make you suspicious.

Sorry for the double request, but

Mod

, if you set a deadline, would be please be sure to allow me a sufficient chance to re-read by the time I return?

A deadline is already set - 8PM GMT on Saturday. So you should probably put your vote where it counts if you are going to be away.

FOS: petroleumjelly

In that recent "trap post" #221, I was wanting to see what PJ would say about lynching on a "half-assed reason". If he had straight-up said he believed in it, then I could call him out for voting Quailman and not contributing to one of the lynches. I know some people think such "trap" posts are bad play, but here I think it was justified - was I the only one suspicious when he voted Quailman?

It seemed to me like PJ didn't want to vote his scum partner, didn't want to put another scum on the lynch of a townie, so instead he analysed everybody and took the easy way out by voting a lurker.

It was back then that I started thinking PJ and Stewie could be scum together, and that's why I posed the question. And now he's defending Stewie, and in my opinion not very well. Not to mention he thinks Stewie hasn't done anything to move up or down in scumminess.

Anybody else agree that they are looking rather linked?

[Turbovolver]

Oh my, yes, Turbo: I am so linked to Stewie that I opened my post with the phrase:

Blatant defense of Stewie

(to hopefully stop this silly back-and-forth arguing)

That means nothing. Trying to make anything out of that statement is WIFOM (PS Snowmonkey, WIFOM stands for Wine in Front of Me, and you can look it up in the wiki - I'm no good at explaining it).

I think you have been stretching in your arguments: anybody who disagrees with you (i.e.

ME

) comes under your suspicions. Not everybody is going to agree with you: I did not interpret Stewie's posts the same way you have.

I am quite happy to accept we disagree if you can accept that that isn't the reason for my post.

Also, my suspicions on Quailman is not only "lurker hunting". As I have previously mentioned:
His only actions just so happen to be suspect. He said he would post here by Sunday, and yet he has not. My vote will be staying on him.

Yeah, we all know he is suspect. It also looks very unlikely he'll be lynched today.

Further, I think you are making convenient links now. As of late, you have been saying that you think Sotty7 and Stewie were scum partners: now you have switched it to being myself and Stewie.

Switched? No, I still think Sotty7 and Stewie are linked.

Just because I don't find somebody as suspicious as you do does not make me scum. I already posted my explanations for where everybody stands in my eyes for this game: perhaps you should go back and read it so you understand where I'm coming from.

I obvious had read it, because I referred to it in my post. That analysis is one of the things that makes me MORE suspicious, in that you don't think Stewie has done

anything

suspicious all game.

Acually I agree with you, Sotty. Expecially since Turbo has linked Stewie to PJ and Pablito aswell as Sotty so far today. It's starting to enter the realm of FOSing everyone that's done something suspicious during the game, since you can't be sure that anyone's pro-town. So while the chance of one of those links being true is pretty high, it does become pointless to point them out, if you can't narrow them down.

I think it has been rather telling. Here's my narrowing down.

Ok, there is player 1 P1, and there is player 2 P2. I accuse P1 of being linked with P2.

In the case that

P1 is town: P1 doesn't know the alignment of P2, but if P1 just defended P2 then he thinks P2 is more likely to be town. Why protest a link with a player you think is likely pro-town? It's going to become useless the second either one of you is killed.

P1 is scum, P2 is town: P1 won't deny the link at all. If P2 dies first P1 looks cleaner, and if P1 dies first there is a chance of a mislynch.

P1 is scum, P2 is scum: They cannot be linked, it would be disastrous. Must deny the accusation at all costs.

Using the reasoning that if two people deny being linked it's looking

most likely

that they are scum together (unless of course the linking reason is rubbish logic... I don't feel that mine have been), it really doesn't look good for Stewie, petroleumjelly and Sotty7.

So cross off the pablito link, I think it's much less likely than the other two.

[Turbovolver]

I just realised I missed a post by Sotty7 - the one where she summarises her views on Stewie. I was wondering why there was quoted text I'd never seen before. I read it and posted my thoughts at the bottom of this post.

FOS: Turbovolver

Way to leave out another thing I said, namely

Also, you are the only person Stewie has defended, despite him saying that he thinks pretty much all of the attacks people have made are over-reasoned and insignificant. When both of you are scummy in my mind (for individual reasons) and then something like that happens, I think it's rather natural to link the two of you together.

Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?

If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.

...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless.


As for the other recent talk between Don Gaetano and pablito... I'm thinking this day is basically at an end. There's the people who like the look of snowmonkey as a lynch, and those who like the look of Stewie. I think Don could be right when he says that it's the players who aren't metagaming who think snowmonkey could be town.

I do find it strange how Don seems so keen to stifle discussion about anybody but snowmonkey though - it seems likely that snowmonkey's going to be lynched come Saturday anyways, so what's wrong with talking about other people in the game? Then again, Don's "mini-explosion" appeared rather genuine to me (and he made some good points), so it wouldn't suprise me if he's just a bit hung-up on the snowmonkey issue (and no I don't think that's necessarily bad play either).

You don't like me not refuting your posts, but you "might" check my responses, or "might not." Conflict of interest?

I feel I've already explained this. The responses I was only maybe going to check (and I have since checked - if you want comments on them just ask) were telling me why the arguments I made up on the spot were wrong - I didn't even necessarily agree with those arguments myself, I was just showing what a pro-town person refusing to claim might be thinking. So it didn't seem very fruitful to discuss things further.

That discussion was bordering on off-topic, whereas suspicions on players are certainly on-topic - I don't see a "conflict of interest" here.

You are basically saing "he made a bad play, but he can still be town!"

Yes, I am. What, you've never seen a townie make a mistake before?
Ridiculous.

I've seen townies making mistakes before, but not one as big as this one... either that, or they got lynched for it, as they should, since most of the time when a player makes a mistake they are scum. Especially a mistake this big.

What happened to all the stuff about WIFOM? You've subtley changed the subject here by switching from the general to a specific case (snowmonkey). I think this makes it clear the stuff you said above was rubbish and couldn't be defended. Perhaps you are right about snowmonkey needing to be lynched, but I'm suspicious of what you did here.


OK, I read Sotty7's post #245 that I missed. Frankly, it seems like a fair enough opinion but at the same time it doesn't really add or take away any heat on Stewie so I could see scum or town writing it. It probably would've swayed me just a little away from the Sotty7/Stewie link, if it wasn't for her then trying to use misrepresentation to shoot down said link in her next post.

Hope that addresses everything.

[Turbovolver]

Because (like I said above) I think this day is pretty much over, I'll post a quick little thing about tomorrow for us to discuss.

Today it seems almost certain that either snowmonkey or Stewie will be lynched (if somebody causes a no-lynch I think we should look at THEM hard the next day).

If snowmonkey is lynched

And turns up town: I think Stewie is the best person to look at tomorrow in this case, for (in my opinion) having the shiftiest reasons to vote for snowmonkey.

And turns up scum: I think people will probably be looking at me.

If Stewie is lynched

And turns up town: I propose we look at me for being a liability to the town.

And turns up scum: I think PJ or Sotty7 are the people to check out in this case.



It's true, I probably am fingering too many people (at this point in the game, I'd probably be happy with a lynch on any of cropcircles, Quailman, Stewie, Sotty7, possibly PJ and possibly Sineish), but I disagree with the statement "anybody who disagrees with Turbo is scum". That's far from the case - everybody on the snowmonkey bandwagon disagrees with me and I don't think they're ALL scum.


That's enough spewing words for me.

[Turbovolver]

Even if you want to discount a defense as evidence just because the defense wasn't flawed (I can see arguments either way here), what about the point above?

Did it ever cross your mind that Stewie has only defended me because your reasoning

was wrong

? If the logic of someones attack is flawed it's players right to point that out! It's just plan commonsense, to correct someones mistake. If he hard augured against your valid points, making no sense, then yes, then I would understand there to be a link between us. The fact he did not do that and yet you

still

insist on this link is baffling to me.

So first of all you fail to deny that you left out something I said to make me look worse.

And then second you don't even address the extra point, you just go back to your original argument of "but he made good points, so how can you link us?"

And look at the last sentence, you claim that the fact I still link you two even though his defense was fair enough is

baffling

even though I've already explained myself on this point and you "grudgingly admitted" my response was OK.

Makes me think you're not being very genuine here

(just wanted the rest of the town to see this point).

If you are trying to defend against being linked based on a misrepresentation, that only furthers in my mind that you are trying to get yourself away from Stewie because you know him to be scum.

...at the very least your FOS seems rather baseless..

I do not know the alignment of Stewie, and I'm not trying to “get away from him”, I am just pointing out the big holes in your logic. It seems people that do not agree with you or see things in your mindset then they are all grouped together as scum. The fact that you have suddenly linked PJ in too just really waters down your argument. My FOS is not baseless and if Snow was not acting the way he is right now, I would be voting you.

Oh, so you don't deny that you've misrepresented me? Pointing out "big holes" in my logic doesn't really count when you make your arguments with only half the facts.

Also I haven't "suddenly" linked PJ in - I asked him a question quite a while ago because I was becoming suspicious of a link there. I also don't see how that waters down my argument, especially considering in the very post I'm quoting you said you could understand a link if the defense was weak - and I think PJ's defense was weak.







So umm yeah, I'm pretty sure of Sotty7 being scum now. That was a pretty weak response if you ask me - she basically admits she misrepresented me, tries to strawman by returning to the original argument and ignoring the other points I raise. She also attacks

me

for suggesting there is a link there - I'm sorry but if I was scum I would have nothing to gain by pointing out a link because either of you would just turn up town upon death anyway.

She

really

doesn't want to be linked with this Stewie guy, and she's using scummy arguments to try to sever the connection. I feel there's only one conclusion that can be made about their alignment here.

Unless of course snowmonkey turns up scum. Then, I look pretty bad

[Turbovolver]

Turbovolver, I don't really agree with you about your "plans" for tomorow. My main concern now is Quailman and expecially Sineish.

Hmm, I suppose that is the other approach to tomorrow - fair enough. Though I really think Quailman has been behaving more suspiciously than Sineish.

[Turbovolver]

Though I really think Quailman has been behaving more suspiciously than Sineish.

Isn't that just because Quail has been a little more involved, I mean Sineish has only posted three times...

I got a slight pro-town vibe from Sineish's posts, whereas Quailman has done nothing but join bandwagons.

[Turbovolver]

Vote: Quailman

to get him to post.

FOS: Sineish

for the same reason.

Both of them have been around the site but not on here.

Still suspicious of, roughly in order:

Stewie
Sotty7
petroleumjelly
cropcircles


Should we have Jimmy's partner come out as a confirmed innocent? The only reason I can think not to is because a confirmed innocent might be more powerful later in the game - that has the risk of having them die before they come out though.

So there are advantadges either way... what do other people think about Jimmy's partner claiming?

[Turbovolver]

Masons shouldn't just up and claim. So long as any hypothetical vig keeps it in his/her pants, then they will only be dying to the mafia. If we wagon him, he claims. Otherwise, he stays hidden 'til mass claim time. That way, we keep covor for the doc and cop.

I could be misunderstanding the post but it doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

So our "hypothetical vig" should turn themselves into a vanilla townie just because there is an unclaimed mason partner out there?
And if the mason partner doesn't come out, how does that provide cover for the cop and doc? The mafia have no idea who it is, so they'll just hunt for cop and doc like normal - it would be by claiming that the mason partner would draw fire away from the other power-roles.

I'm not saying that Jimmy's partner coming out is the right play (that's why I'm asking for others' opinions), but the reasons provided here don't seem plausible (at least until further explanation).

Also, this post seems like an excuse to post "content" risk-free - it does nothing to hunt scums. While not all posts have to be devoted to the purpose of hunting scums, I'm suspicious that the first post by someone on a new day wouldn't talk about their suspicions now they know the result of the lynch... unless of course they already knew what was going to happen.

FOS: cropcircles

PPE: See? pablito's first post seems far more townie-ish. Perhaps the best idea is to just let the mason partner decide for themself.

[Turbovolver]

I think it should be noted that the following players have been around since the thread re-opened but have declined to post here:

petroleumjelly
Sotty7
RangeroftheNorth

Ranger only posted up the start of a game he's modding though, so perhaps that took priority and he was time-limited.

I'm suspicious of this (less so of Ranger)

[Turbovolver]

I

think

he means, like I think, that if the partner claims right here and now the scum will

know

that that person is not the doc or the cop. So it would narrow their field and improve their odds slightly when they kill tonight.

That makes sense. I can see room for an argument about which way actually puts less pressure on cop/doc, but that's probably not worth it. I think pablito is right and the individual should decide whether to claim or not.


And as for the "not posted yet" thing... I found it slightly suspicious and I put it out there - I know everytime I've come on I've checked to see if the game had reopened.

Funnily enough when I did make that comment two people I fingered showed up in a matter of hours. What are the chances two people I already consider scummy both didn't realise the game was reopened but did just after someone pointed out their absence?

Statistics aren't the best thing to go on, but I'd be suprised if other people aren't also suspicious of what just happened there.

[Turbovolver]

The first post when this game reopened (made by you) was at 4:16 PM, Thursday. My post was at 11:20 PM, Thursday. Of course my first post is going to be within a matter of hours within yours.

I don't get this point. What does the time I made my first post in the thread have to do with anything?

The access I had during the day (where I believe I made a couple moves in my chess game) was done on a school computer: I did not have time to re-read all of my Mafia games, but I did have time to look the current chess position.

It looks like you are in three other mafia games, and you posted in two of them (one decently long post, one short one). If you didn't put the word "all" in there, this would be a blatant lie, and even with "all" there it still looks like bending the truth.

I got home around 8:00 PM (which is 11:00 PM Scum time), skimmed my current games, and posted where I felt necessary.

You posted in one game apart from this one. I like the way the word "re-read" above has suddenly turned into "skimmed".

And I don't doubt that you got home and skimmed your games - I'm just saying that I think you skimmed them while you were making your other posts earlier in the day and declined to post here because you are scum waiting to see how the town responded to the mislynch you were a part of before you posted anything.

Again, it looks to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing.

I can see people thinking my original post was "making something out of nothing". But now you've reappared as soon as you were mentioned, and when called on that you've replied with a rather defensive summary of your actions that appears to bend the truth.

That is, I don't think it's "nothing" anymore.


Oh and you also said the chances of what happened are "really good". If you were being honest I'd expect you to say "the chances are low, but I'm sorry - in my case at least this was a coincidence".

The chances of what happened actually happening (with both you and Sotty as innocents) is low - I'd like to see why you don't think this is the case.

[Turbovolver]

For crying out loud. Click on my name, and click "recent posts", and look at the times.

That's where I've been getting my info from, yes.

You posted here (effectively "opening" the thread) at 4:16 PM, Thursday (1:16 PM for me).

Only I didn't open the thread, the mod did, with the dayscene. And this happened before your posts in other mafia games.

When a game comes out of Night (such as this game) I like to do full re-reads before I post my thoughts. All of my other games are

fresh in my mind

since there has not been a night to interrupt them lately, so I only need to

skim

those games, whereas this one merits a full

re-read

.

If this is true, why didn't you say it initially? I say "why didn't you post here while you were online?" and you say "I wanted to re-read before I posted anything, to get the game fresh in my mind". And that's it - nothing suspicious. Instead you've veered all over the place before finding a legitimate story.

For the record, I don't really care what the chances of both Sotty7 and myself replying to you are: I had not intended to post in this thread before my re-read (other than a standard "I'm here" post), but I thought your unfounded suspicion of me ought to be addressed before it becomes something larger than it needs to be.

Again changing your story. If you don't care what the chances are (fair enough by itself), how are you justified in claiming the chances are "really good" in your other post?

[Turbovolver]

I will politely ask you to stop this argument once more. Once again, you are wasting your breath on a silly argument that I am positive only you care about. I am tired and I am not amused that I have keep responding to you on this subject.

I can still see factual inconsistencies, but I will honour this request unless someone else asks me to point them out. Also there is no "once more", this is the first time I've heard "stop this" explicitly from you.

I feel this exchange has been important - namely the way you've wriggled around and responded quite defensively - and I want people to look back here if I die.

This argument has all been in-game, and I'd be up for a friendly game of chess out of thread.. I mean no ill-will and want to demonstrate this.

...even though you're one of the ones who kills at night.

[Turbovolver]

It wasn't really a joke though... you're up there on my suspicions - it's not a cop claim or anything though, if that's what you mean.

And yeah, when you're done with Akonas I'll fight you

[Turbovolver]

Look, all I can say is I've been trying to catch scum. Whether I've been doing a good job of it or not we will have to wait and see. If we keep lynching pro-town players just because they annoy us, though, we'll soon be out of bodies.

Also, I've never been illogical. If anything, I've been TOO logical and focused on details others would consider insignificant.

Reactions are just as important as actions in this game, and I've generated a lot of reactions for you guys. Don't be so quick to discount them.

I'm not going to change my ways... at least until it's proven that I have been wrong in the majority of my arguments. The last time I played this hard was in newbie game - I was lynched day 1, but correctly found both scum before I died.

In fact, tell you what - I'm willing to stake my life on one of my targets. Any town-supported bandwagon against one of those 4 I will join, and if I was wrong then feel free to off me next day (and I will vote for myself). That way I can either prove to you my worth as a scum-hunter or I can quite rightfully be ejected for being a dick. You guys can choose which one looks the scummiest yourselves, if you want to do this.

[Turbovolver]

If it had been days until I checked while posting in my other games then your point would be vaild. That wasn't the case though, so I think you were really reaching there.

Like I said, everytime I've come online I've checked whether the game was re-opened. Perhaps that's not the case with you, you are in more games than me. But for that reason I didn't really buy people not noticing the game being open.

Of course if you think I'm lying about that, then yes it would be reaching. People will have to make up their own minds.

[Turbovolver]

Unvote: Quailman
Vote: Turbovolver

I investigated him, he's scum.

[Turbovolver]

Unvote: Turbovolver

.

Actually a quicklynch (or preferably ALMOST one) is what I was hoping. I was going to bed and wanted to see if any of the usual suspects were going to jump on while I was asleep.

Vote: Quailman

[Turbovolver]

Unvote: Quailman
Vote: Don Gaetano

It's been more than a few hours now, so even my detractors should support this move.

[Turbovolver]

So umm yeah, I'm pretty sure of Sotty7 being scum now. That was a pretty weak response if you ask me - she basically admits she misrepresented me, tries to strawman by returning to the original argument and ignoring the other points I raise. She also attacks me for suggesting there is a link there - I'm sorry but if I was scum I would have nothing to gain by pointing out a link because either of you would just turn up town upon death anyway.

She really doesn't want to be linked with this Stewie guy, and she's using scummy arguments to try to sever the connection. I feel there's only one conclusion that can be made about their alignment here.

Unless of course snowmonkey turns up scum. Then, I look pretty bad

Bump.

PS: snowmonkey didn't turn up scum.

I think there are some good points here, please comment on them people (even if that means calling me an idiot again).

[Turbovolver]

I don't think I called you an idiot. I just don't agree with you on a whole lot of things.

I never said you did
I'm expecting the REST of the town to do that for you.

So first of all you fail to deny that you left out something I said to make me look worse.

What did I leave out? If it's the fact I am the only one that Stewie defended then no, I think that I covered that point.

If you are going to say it's all because Stewie defended me, then that blows up in your face too. You say yourself his defense was solid, basically he made valid and true points as to why most of your attack on me was baseless. How is that suspicious?

Did it ever cross your mind that Stewie has only defended me because your reasoning

was wrong

? If the logic of someones attack is flawed it's players right to point that out! It's just plan commonsense, to correct someones mistake. If he hard augured against your valid points, making no sense, then yes, then I would understand there to be a link between us. The fact he did not do that and yet you

still

insist on this link is baffling to me.

I feel this does apply to Stewie so far only really defending me.

Apart from pushing the snowmonkey lynch, Stewie did nothing but defend you, despite saying that he thought a lot of the stuff I had said was "over-reasoned". I don't see how you pointing out Stewie's defense was reasonable addresses that point. That is what I meant by the misrepresentation and strawman stuff though, so if people feel that you have addressed that point then the strawman/mispresentation stuff is invalidated.

I believe that the arguments you made against me that Stewie defended against were weak and reaching and that your logic in reaching those conclusions was wrong. I believe I have said this at least four times now, but you won't just concede this point.

*ahem*

152: Defends Sotty7. Fair enough.

I've already conceded the point, AT LEAST once. Don't misrepresent me.

I'm happy to admit that his defense was sound, I'm just saying that a sound defence from one scummy player to another is still notable. We've been over this. You have agreed this point is fair enough, and even quoted it in your latest post.

And look at the last sentence, you claim that the fact I still link you two even though his defense was fair enough is baffling even though I've already explained myself on this point and you "grudgingly admitted" my response was OK.

Your response here is a whole bunch of quotes explaining why you got suspicious of me. Either way, I don't see how it explains why you found something baffling that you'd already acknowledged an explanation to.

Oh, so you don't deny that you've misrepresented me? Pointing out "big holes" in my logic doesn't really count when you make your arguments with only half the facts.

I don't think saying you have big holes in you logic and misrepresenting you are the same thing.

This quote doesn't even suggest that. It suggests your case against me is craplogic, due to a misrepresentation.

In essence, I feel you said I am scum because Stewie defended me. I say that anyone would have defended me because your points against me at that time were weak.

Yeah, right. I haven't been on your case at any other stages of the game at all, have I?

I understand looking back now, how it would increase your suspicion in both of us if one defended the other if you believed both of us to be scum. I believe I got so caught up in the game yesterday that I just brushed that away, and figured your reasoning crazy, for that I apologise.

OK. I guess this means the point above doesn't really apply then.

I will ask though, as to why you find me scummy. The reasons that you gave (that I can remember of the top of my head) were the Snow vote, that we disagreed on, and the whole timing of the game. Can you give me any other reasons, apart from the fact that we pretty much disagreed on every turn?

#27: A small attack on me, but I was kinda jumpy so it's fair enough. Strange that she decided to ask me a question based on the FOS I'd admitted to being not serious about, instead of questioning my actual vote on PJ. (-1)

#40: Accepts my reasoning for voting PJ, asks another question which is a bit dodgy, considering he's already answered it AND she answers it as part of the question (-1).

#79: Another question, and this one I really don't agree with. What, he's not allowed to express suspicion on anyone but who he votes for? It's the scum that think they only have to express suspicion on those who they vote for. (-1)

#84: Sotty7 fails to realise I buggered up the links here. I don't care what anybody says, I think she would point that out if she did notice, and the fact that she didn't notice means she wasn't genuine (-1).

#144: The paragraph I had explaining why this post is craplogic is actually based on another misunderstanding (I thought we were talking about OMGUS as in snowmonkey lists Ranger as suss and Ranger responds with a vote), so it's actually not a very good case. However, the fact remains that being hypocritical isn't much of a scum tell in my books. I still don't like this post justifying her vote, and seemingly trying to push the lynch (-1).

#163: The convolution continues (the fault of both of us, probably) in this post. The points she raises I have no problem with, but I was rather suprised she didn't defend against the dot points. She's later explained why, but there's still the chance she's lying. Because I consider strawmanning a significant scum tell, I'm going to give (-1).

#169: I don't really know if I am any closer to understanding... I think I've actually weakened my case by arguing so fiercely but I do think there are some suspicious things Sotty7 has done. Most of this post is fair enough, though she doesn't really address the logic hole the dot points express (-1). I'll put that in my next post, so it can be dealt with.

Those are the points I had a few pages ago. Since then it's been mostly arguments I haven't agreed with IIRC, and your refusal up until now to accept a linking between you and Stewie.

I'm sorry but if I was scum I would have nothing to gain by pointing out a link because either of you would just turn up town upon death anyway.

Couldn't the same point be used with Stewie defending me? As in scum have nothing to gain by defending each other because if you lynch one and they're scum, the town will just turn round a lynch the other?

That is nowhere near the same point. First of all, if scum defend scum then they might be able to avoid the lynch in the first place. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the scum partner will be lynched after one goes down.

On the other hand, linking two townies together will achieve very little, unless of course it's by trying to suggest one was scum trying to ingratiate themselves with a townie. I'm willing to promise that if either you or Stewie dies and comes up town, I won't be talking about ingratiation.

Lastly, I'm also not trying to say that just because I'm pointing out links I'm town - that would be WIFOM. I am only saying that there's nothing to be gained from doing it if you are both town and I am scum, and hence it's not really a good reason to be suspicious either.

[Turbovolver]

-Post 200:

Turbo

tries to clarify that Snowmonkey it Vanilla Townie. I think is because

Turbo

would rather have lynched a power role than Vanilla Townie (hence defenses of Snowmonkey later)

snowmonkey said all the information was already given to us. Assuming he was telling the truth, that makes him vanilla. Because he was being shifty with the truth, I asked him to clarify. I'm rather suprised at the conclusions you draw here

-Post 213:

Turbo

acknowledges the trap, says that Pablito will mention it (?)

Hehe. He pointed out before that he thought the "question to the town" I posed (way back when I was arguing with cropcircles) was a trap. So I threw that in as a reference to earlier events.


There's a lot of other stuff there, though most of it seems just a summary of events... if there's anything you specifically want me to respond to point it out.

I'm not going to try to deny that pablito and I have been friendly this game, and if he's scum it doesn't look good for me. Thing is, I don't really see why you think he's scum. On my quick read through your long post, I didn't really see much indication of pablito's scumminess, just an argument of us being linked.
My thoughts on pablito is that he is similar to another Don Gaetano... generally agreeable and a "voice of reason"... a good way for scum to play but there's no real slip-ups to investigate that I've seen.
The way he put the second-to-lynch vote on needs looking at - I'll go check that out.

And yeah, I've put a bit of hate on Quailman without much in the way of vote/FOS to back it up, and I suppose that could be seen as suspicious. But really, I think he's gone way beyond lurkerscum status - it's not like he's avoiding drawing attention to himself by not posting for a week or whatever.


I'm suprised that you're more sure that pablito is scum than me, considering how supposedly scummy I've been compared to him, and given the way you talk about me "trying to lynch power roles". (What, is that revenge for the "kills at night" comment? )

I do have another question for you Turbo – why the vote on Don? He wasn't on your list of top suspects and the whole thing about “even your detractors should support this move”....doesn't really make any sense.

He's posting in other threads but not here. The comment about my detractors was referring to the fact that I was hammered for suspecting you and petroleumjelly because the thread hadn't been open for long, but now it's been open a bit longer and still no sign of Don despite him returning to the forums (I think on several occaisions, even). Kenji has said he's going to be prodded soon though, so perhaps it's not a good home for my vote.

Unvote: Don Gaetano

I'm still liking the looks of my "big 3", so first one of them to get a vote I will also vote. 8)


PPE: Oi, PJ! (So that's how it feels ). I've been here writing this up the whole time. Well, actually I was also playing some Lemmings.

[Turbovolver]

-Who are your top 3 picks for scum?

You couldn't tell?

Stewie, Sotty7, petroleumjelly (not in order, btw)

cropcircles next, then probably Quailman

-Who are your top 3 picks for pro-town (not including yourself)?

This one's harder...

Sineish's lack of posting seems genuine, considering he hasn't posted anywhere on mafiascum in 12 days. As I said, I got a slight pro-town from the posts he did make.

Don Gaetano I'm actually rather suspicious of, but it's all gut-feeling/paranoia. In terms of his actions, he's pretty clean. So I guess he would go on this list.

Last place would go to either pablito or RangeroftheNorth... I cant really pick between the two.




I seriously get the feeling PJ is asking me this question just to try to find stuff to pick apart in my replies... sounds like me >.>

You still haven't explained why pablito is suspicious, PJ.

[Turbovolver]

I'll wade through that later, I've leaving for dinner now.

[Turbovolver]

I have explained my suspicions on Pablito, but I will condense them down for Turbo.

1.) Pablito began with a random vote on Quailman [5], and later retracted it because "Quailman had not acted scummy"[32]. At that point in time, Quailman had hardly posted at all, so as noted earlier, such a vote and unvote looked mechanical to me.

OK, so there's slight evidence of a Quailman/pablito connection.

2.) Pablito just so happens to have a lot of coordination with Turbo this game.
<Examples>

Yeah, there's evidence of a Turbovolver/pablito connection. I'm happy to admit that.

3.) Pablito has also shown verbal connections with Turbo, and vice versa.
<Examples>

See point 2.

4.) [270] Pablito had to find an excuse to put his vote onto Snowmonkey. First unvoted Stewie, “slept on it”, and placed the sixth vote on Snowmonkey, even though he had earlier defended Snowmonkey as likely being a Vanilla Townie.

This is suspicious, I agree. I didn't post it before when I checked out his voting reasons because I wanted to see if it was part of your reasoning or not.

5.) [264] Even though Pablito voted for Snowmonkey, he asked that we look at the first five voters on Snowmonkey if Snowmonkey turned up pro-town. For the record, those five players were:
-RangeroftheNorth
-Stewie
-Sotty7
-Don Gaetano
-Jimmy the Rez (confirmed Mason)

Funnily enough, neither Turbovolver, Pablito, nor Quailman happened to be within those five players.

OK, so this is more "connection" evidence.

6.) [284] Pablito votes for Sineish for “not being around”. This does not tell anybody where his suspicions lie, and gunning for a lynch on an inactive does not sit well with me. Further, Quailman has not been around either, so selectively choosing Sineish for a vote without consideration of Quailman does not seem pro-town to me either.

Possibly suspicious, or perhaps after I voted for Quailman he decided he'd vote for the other inactive player. You'll notice Don Gaetano has also expressed desire to go after inactives today, and that Sotty7 has also targeted Quailman.

It hardly gets better than this. Also, I can easily imagine one of two people being scum with Pablito: Turbovolver and Quailman. I think this is more than enough to indicate his scumminess. I may have a seventh reason to believe he is scummy soon.

It hardly gets better than this? All you've got is that his reason for his lynch vote was dodgy. Yes it's suspicious, but so are so many other things in this game. The rest is all connection-based evidence, which is good to look at but not a sign of scumminess in itself.

Hell, I just realised Don Gaetano HAD posted in this thread, and just before I voted him for lurking . That ALONE is probably more suspicious than anything pablito has done. (Now I see why Sotty7 felt she had to ask why I voted >.>)


OK, that's my general response to PJ's post. Now I'll pick apart the individual things.

[Turbovolver]

*[55] Turbo only gives Pablito a “IGMEOY” instead of a FoS or vote, while adding a “” . Further says that Pablito seems pro-town, but if he turns up scum, he must have been trying to ingratiate himself with Turbo.

Why would I vote/FOS him for saying he thinks I'm pro-town? He's right. But you have to be careful with people who do that, hence IGMEOY.

*[81] Pablito says that Turbo’s play is “odd”, but not “scummy”. Says Turbo looks more like he is “spraying bullets”, and then finished up with that he hopes he did not misrepresent Turbo. Finishes the post by “fishing” at Turbo’s role…
*[82] And Turbo answers Pablito without pointing out Pablito was fishing.

Well, I didn't really see it as fishing. I mean if I said "townie" and meant it as "vanilla townie" then I would've been claiming then and there - pablito asking "did you just claim?" wasn't going to release any extra information.

*[120] Turbovolver says that Pablito is the only one who understands him. Of course, if Pablito is scum, he must have been trying to ingratiate himself.

Umm, yeah? I'm pro-town, so either pablito was townie or he was scum ingratiating. What's the problem with saying that?

*[127] Turbovolver tells Snowmonkey that either Turbo/Pablito could answer a question: why nobody else?

Ranger linked pablito and I together, and snowmonkey claimed it was an inconsistency. I was addressing this point when I said that: it was a point dealing with me and Pablito.

*[282] Turbo practically votes or FoS’s everybody in the game except for Pablito.

The HELL? I vote a lurker and FOS the other lurker. I mention my suspicions from yesterday. In total it came to 6 players, which is hardly "everybody but pablito". And only 2 players were voted or FOSed. This is one HUGE stretch of the word "practically".

*[319] Turbo says that Pablito mentioned one of Turbo’s traps earlier. Last I recall, it was me who pointed them out, not Pablito.

Correct, I misremembered who said it.

I'm not going to try to deny that pablito and I have been friendly this game, and if he's scum it doesn't look good for me. Thing is, I don't really see why you think he's scum. On my quick read through your long post, I didn't really see much indication of pablito's scumminess, just an argument of us being linked.
My thoughts on pablito is that he is similar to another Don Gaetano... generally agreeable and a "voice of reason"... a good way for scum to play but there's no real slip-ups to investigate that I've seen.
The way he put the second-to-lynch vote on needs looking at - I'll go check that out.

That looks like a pretty blatant defense of Pablito to me.

Funnily enough, we seem to agree on the list of things pablito has done that is suspicious. That is, NOTHING except for a dodgy lynch vote. The rest of your suspicions were all linking evidence, except possibly that tiny Sineish thing (point 6).

*[321] Suddenly, when asked top 3 pro-town players, Turbo gives me:
A.) Sineish (who was FoS’d by Turbo on the first post of D2)
B.) Don Gaetano (who was just recently voted by Turbo this D2)
C.) RangeroftheNorth / Pablito (who just yesterday had the most pro-town score according to Turbo, and now has suddenly dropped to a difficult tie for third even though Turbo has never voted or FoS’d Pablito, nor has shown any real suspicion towards Pablito until I drew a connection between Pablito and Turbovolver).

A) I voted one lurker and FOS'd the other, to try to get them to post. Sorry for wanting people I think are pro-town posting.

B) I thought he was lurking too... that was a mistake on my part.

C) Yep, because I went back and noticed what he said when he put the second-to-last vote on snowmonkey. I'm also sorry here for never voting/FOSing someone I think is in my top three pro-town list

PS: If my analysis of top three pro-town players is supposedly so inconsistent with my actions, why are you still after pablito and not me? I'd say THAT's inconsistent.



So yeah, I think petroleumjelly's case against pablito is pretty much crap, and there were some conclusions drawn there which I don't agree with.

Also, PJ has (as far as I can remember) never voted for Sotty7 or Stewie, and now he's calling them both innocent. OMG!!

Seriously though, that analysis was NOT objective in my eyes. Still happy with a lynch on any of my three.

[Turbovolver]

For the record, Turbo, when I said that you had "practically voted or FoS'd everybody" by [282], I wasn't kidding. By that time, the only people you were missing were Pablito, Don Gaetano, and yourself, but you voted for Don Gaetano and yourself quickly enough after that post.

You didn't have the word "by" in the original post - it sounded like you were trying to say I voted/FOSd eveyone in that post. That is why I objected.

People Turbo has not voted/FoS'd:
-Jimmy of the Rez (dead)
-Snowmonkey (dead)
-Pablito

So far two people I've never voted/FOSd have turned up PRO-TOWN... is it so hard to believe the third might be as well?

[Turbovolver]

Teehee, your connection towards Pablito is only being strengthened Turbo.

I think he's pro-town. Connect us all you want.


Also PJ, pablito's got you with post 59. You say you don't like to put much weight in statements like "if one is scum, the other is probably scum", and yet you build a whole case almost solely around that type of reasoning?

Vote: petroleumjelly

PPE:

town

indeed

PPE2: Woah, defensive.

[Turbovolver]

*Yawn*

All right. I don't necessarily agree with the percentages above, but I almost never like it when I hear such phrases as "One of these people is probably scum", "If one is scum, the other is probably scum", or "If it turns out X is telilng the truth, we lynch Y". I may just be paranoid of scum setting up double lynches, but I usually do not put very much weight into those types of statements, and I try to avoid them

unless I genuinely feel it to be true.

I genuinely believe this one to be true.

*shrug* OK.

Unvote: petroleumjelly

Back to voting for the first person of the three to get a vote.

[Turbovolver]

This connection is not as "genuine" as the first, but I would like my suspicions known on the off-chance I die in the near future.

But you're only allowed to make statements like that if they are "genuine"... at least that was your justification for the earlier inconsistency.

Vote: petroleumjelly

(still happy to move it to the others though)

[Turbovolver]

I suggest people hold on to their votes for the moment, I just want to hear what everybody has to say. This is still the weekend directly after this game opened up, so I am more than willing to wait for input. There is certainly no rush on this Day 2.

Heh, I'm sure my one vote won't be lynching you anytime soon. Oh how I wish it could though...

Guess this had better be my last post for a while... give the others a chance.

[Turbovolver]

Okay, pablito's been irking me for a bit, and this game needs to get going

somewhere

. So

Vote pablito

Okay, cropcricles recent voting has been irking me.

FOS: cropcircles

(His last two votes have both joined bandwagons, without any reasoning)

Hell, he can join my Big 3 and make it a Big 4!

[Turbovolver]

And with that Cropcircles climbs up onto my "very likely innocent" list. This game gets pretty easy when you just use the opposite lists made from somebody else.

Daykill: petroleumjelly

Or more seriously, check cropcircles out. You're quite welcome to suspect Pablito and me and possibly Quailman or whatever, but it shouldn't blind you. After removing himself from our argument with "OMG I'm not going to respond to you just claim", he's done very little but lurk and join bandwagons without reason. I don't think he's really connected to the "big 3" at all, but I would be in no way suprised if he was scum.

PS: If you are so sure that Pablito and I are scum, you should probably be voting for me. I think there are a lot more people who think I'm scummy than pablito.

PPE: You have a "very-likely innocent" post? You talking about the big analysis on page 8-9?

[Turbovolver]

My reasons for voting Pablito are obvious: vote Pablito and you will defend him.

As opposed to voting me and having pablito defend me?
Perhaps you made a crappy argument deliberately, because you knew I would rip it to pieces and you could accuse me of "defending my scum partner"... whereas it would be unlikely pablito would do the same thing.

I could tell by your playstyle that you would try to divert attention away from Pablito if I attacked him, especially if I drew connections between the two of you.

This makes no sense to me.

I'm pretty sure my playstyle comes across as aggressive and hyper-analytical. Everytime I see something scummy I point it out (and probably overstate it), and it usually ends with huge back-and-forth arguments.

i.e. I haven't been acting any differently now (after you started your campaign against pablito) as I have been for this entire game.



*whispers to pablito* Psst, attack our scum partner, Don Gaetano. Then PJ will think him innocent

[Turbovolver]

Enough people in the town are willing to lynch you that Pablito would probably be forced to say he wants you lynched as well. This is precisely why I voted for Pablito instead of you.

You are basically 100% sure we are both scum, by your own admission. Wouldn't you vote for the person the rest of the town also agrees is scummy?

You cant claim you were trying to prove a connection between me and pablito, because I've freely admitted we are rather linked.

Your actions don't add up.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I beg to differ. You have not "ripped my argument to pieces" at all: in fact, the only thing you have managed to do is strengthen it by this continued argument.

Care to address this point then, if it's not a serious case against your "pablito is scum" argument?

Funnily enough, we seem to agree on the list of things pablito has done that is suspicious. That is, NOTHING except for a dodgy lynch vote. The rest of your suspicions were all linking evidence, except possibly that tiny Sineish thing (point 6).

PS: cropcircles also had a dodgy lynch-vote reason, and arguments could be made against several other peope's voting reasons too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have tried to (unsuccessfully, I might add) draw links between myself, Stewie, Sotty7, and now Cropcircles, on extremely weak evidence

First of all, I just said that

I don't think he's [cropcircles is] really connected to the "big 3" at all, but I would be in no way suprised if he was scum.

So no, I'm not linking cropcircles with anybody.

Secondly, my evidence is hardly "extremely weak". You point out I've never voted pablito, but you've never voted Sotty7 or Stewie either. You point out that I gave pablito plus-points on my analysis, but you claimed you couldn't see anything suspicious about Stewie. You've since proclaimed them both innocent. Sotty7 was also defended by Stewie, which suggests a connection, especially when you consider that it's basically all Stewie has done all game.

Notice the way we have similar evidence for connections, but I freely accept connection with pablito while you and your buddies insist upon denying its existence and denouncing said evidence. It's very telling.

[Turbovolver]

Whoosh!

*disappears*

[Turbovolver]

With that said though....Turbo, why are you so sure that Pablito is pro town? I have re-read your post were you detailed everyone and their actions to date but that was back in post #42....a lot has happened since then. There is no way that I would defend someone in thread so vigorously unless I was absolutely sure of their alignment. As of right now, I don't trust anyone here and there is no way I would go to bat for anyone, unless their arguments on that person were fundamentally wrong. From what I gather PJ has legitimate reasons for suspecting Pablitio (if I am right to believe it's based on the vote switch if not please correct me)

I'm not so sure that he's pro-town, and now he's only third on my "most pro-town list" if at all. I agree his snowmonkey voting reason was rather off.

You yourself are asking PJ why he suspects pablito... the fact is there isn't really much against him (apart from the snowmonkey vote) that I can see... and my "defense" of pabilto has simply been pointing that fact out.

I am not making too big a deal over the snowmonkey vote because several other people (cropcircles, at LEAST) did the same thing. It's suspicious, but I think we have better places to look.

The fact that you are so insistent that Pabltio is pro town is making me feel uneasy about the two of you.

petroleumjelly's also insistent that you are town

Looking back at his "almost positive" list, he also says that I have attacked Sineish? What the? I think Sineish is pro-town with a whole lot of limited access. I'm pretty sure I've only ever voted him in attempts to get him to post.

[Turbovolver]

You weren't kidding PJ when you said Turbo was “spraying bullets” but can't this be linked more towards a townie with no information? Turbo has defiantly been aggressive and has annoyed me on more than on occasion (no offense Turbo )but the fact that he has been bouncing around like nobody's business could point to the fact that he is just reacting to what's going on in the thread.

sup pablito?

Keep talking like this and PJ will think you are scum

Haha, I better check if you ever said pablito's post that was basically the same was suspicious, or if that was just PJ.

[Turbovolver]

Haha, I better check if you ever said pablito's post that was basically the same was suspicious, or if that was just PJ.

Nope, some (admittedly quick) searching suggests you never commented on that post.

[Turbovolver]

Which post do you mean? I'm lost.....

You were pointing out my "spraying bullets" as possibly being pro-town. It's similar to post #53, where pablito sort-of defends me (after the argument with cropcircles). Also post #81. PJ loves that post

Right now I'm mainly looking at turbo, because he keeps getting into silly arguments (see PJ argument at the beggining of the day) but I think that we need to get rid of Quailman and Sineish, by either making them come out to play, or by replacing them. I want to see a vote count first though.

Sineish hasn't posted on mafiascum for 15 days (when I checked his posting out last ,anyway). I think he needs to be replaced.

Quailman hasn't posted in 11 days, didn't respond to a prod in another game. Probably another replacement case.

So that leaves me. Go on and put your vote where your mouth is

Oh, you want a vote count. I'll do an unofficial one, next post.

What I

genuinely

believe is that Pablito is scum, and by connection, Turbovolver is scum.

Since I can very easily imagine Pablito being scum with either you (Turbo) or Quailman (or both)

genuinely

indeed

LAL

[Turbovolver]

Quailman - 2 (Sotty7, Don Gaetano)
pablito - 2 (petroleumjelly, cropcircles)
petroleumjelly - 2 (Turbovolver, pablito)
Turbovolver - 1 (RangeroftheNorth)
Sineish - 1 (pablito)

I believe the votes lie something like this.

Frankly, I'd say either you buy PJ's rather warped analysis and get hating on pablito, or you realise how subjective it is and get hating on petroleumjelly. Our lurkers will (hopefully) be replaced. Alternatively, the people after pablito would probably also be happy killing me off, so I'm another possible target.

Yep, that's a bit of a false dilemma - I don't care. If you don't want endless arguments between the more vocal players then get on here and put your vote somewhere that counts.

[Turbovolver]

OMFG.

I'm screwed here

And if PJ's telling the truth, I also suck at finding scums. Then again, half of my recent suspicion came from how SUSS his analysis was (along with going after Pablito and not me), which now makes sense.

Unvote
Vote: pablito

I'm happy to test PJ. But given the way he's acted,

NO LEPTONS

.

If PJ appears to be telling the truth and pablito is scum, I recommend cropcircles. Of course, you're probably all going to go through me first

[Turbovolver]

Is that 5 out of 6 for pablito?

[Turbovolver]

EBWOP: Hmm, cropcircles joined on with pablito early... I guess that makes him a little less suspicious.

I'M TELLING YOU ALL, IT'S THE DON!!!

[Turbovolver]

Nah, I still think we have scum in cropcircles.

You're probably all going to kill me, but I suggest looking at him after I die.

I'm really not scum with pablito though. I guess you'll all learn that soon.

[Turbovolver]

Haha, 5 posts after this revelation looks mighty suspicious, doesn't it? 8)

[Turbovolver]

We still need some discussion today I think. Turbo, I do not want you to claim today (so perish the thought if it occured to you).

I planned to claim tomorrow, if pablito turned up scum.

I'm rather suspicious of PJ still. He just said that investigating me would be a waste (reaffirming his previous statement that he's sure I'm scum), but then he says "I don't want you to claim today". Who cares if someone 100% scum claims or not?

Hmm, I suppose it could be to stop me drawing out a nameclaim from someone else, but how helpful are nameclaims going to be this game? Wouldn't have picked languages as masons (at least not the first one), or drama as a cop. I would've thought maths would have been a cop for its analytical thinking.

Meh, if pablito's scum it's probably not worth being too suspicious of PJ. It's always possible he sold out a partner, but I think that wouldn't be the first place to look for scum.

[Turbovolver]

Unvote

I'm active enough to lynch as required. I'll probably join in the discussion just because I can't help myself, even if it is likely PJ will ignore everything I say.

[Turbovolver]

OK, I'm sorry to pull a Turbo but pablito just logged in, hung around for what I estimate was half an hour and then left again. He's done this before and then suddenly posted from the blue (I checked, he's not hidden), so if he comes back soon and posts a reasonable explanation for the cop results than fair enough.

I'm just holding him to posting - his silence has been noted.

[Turbovolver]

I'm surprised no one has questioned the sanity of PJ yet.

I didn't call it "testing him" for nothing. I think he's more likely to be sane though and that trusting his results is the play for today. Sorry if it turns out you are town... you were a victim of circumstance

[Turbovolver]

I'm surprised no one has questioned the sanity of PJ yet.

I didn't call it "testing him" for nothing. I think he's more likely to be sane though and that trusting his results is the play for today. Sorry if it turns out you are town... you were a victim of circumstance

This post assumes PJ is not lying about being a cop. The only way you could know that is if you were scum.

FOS: Turbovolver

(Yeah, I'm bored and probably going to die anyway)

[Turbovolver]

I'm happy to claim today.

I am

Art

, and I'm a vig.
My role says some stuff about art being worth more when its creators are dead, and that I'm using my experience with death to help out. (I'm guessing the mod had trouble working out how he could fit a vig in with the theme.)

I don't know what my kill method is, but if other people are dying from books in the library or whatever then I'm probably stabbing people with a paintbrush

Night 1 I took no action.
Night 2 I tried to kill Stewie, kill didn't go through.

The following night I planned to kill PJ (and decided to breadcrumb it, check out the last word of every paragraph in #295... THAT's why I put the "kills at night" comment in). Now that he had a solid cop claim, I thought cropcircles was the best bet and said that in #375 (again look at last words).

I'm suspicious of Stewie (of being the Godfather), but perhaps I was roleblocked or he was protected.

I still think the method PJ used to "judge" people's reactions is stupid, because his arguments were so weak. If my computer hadn't crashed I would also have defended Pablito.

*hi-5*

But damnit Don, I swear I haven't been illogical
Just over-eager

[Turbovolver]

Don't be so quick to discount your cop results... It REALLY wouldn't suprise me if I was roleblocked, considering the suspicion I was under. Also couldn't he be an un-NK, appear innocent GF? I'm pretty sure I've seen that before.

We probably do want a claim from pablito (or we could just lynch him now to test you... I'd support that). I think only if pablito comes up town would we want a claim from Stewie. I'd assume if one of your investigations was right then we could trust the other... we'd just have to worry about whether Stewie was a super-Godfater or not.


Does anybody disagree with me vigging cropcircles?

[Turbovolver]

I still need to think about all this junk we've got on the table, so I wouldn't go making plans for Night Three unless we absolutely have to. It almost got me in trouble in another game (see Miyazaki Mafia), so am loathe to take the same risk again.

OK.

Secondly, I am not just going to buy your Vigilante role-claim outright when there is still a possibility of you being SK or scum

Unless the mafia skip a kill or get doc-protected, it should be reasonably clear that I'm not mafia. If I'm the SK, I'm still trying to kill the mafia to earn support, so you should support me offing cropcircles if you think him suspicious anyway

[Turbovolver]

The fact that I have read Newbie #193, though, is not especially helpful to you.

Hahahaha. I was a much more reserved scum in Newbie 163, that's what I mean with the "voice of reason" stuff. And check out Newbie 182 and Newbie 188 for me playing the way I have this game as town.

[Turbovolver]

Yarr, it be true. I'm the SK.

I'm immune if I don't kill, and my original plan was to just never kill... I was growing weary of all the unknowns and wanted to test my suspicions by offing some people, namely PJ and then cropcircles after PJ turned up cop.

Everything I've said this game has been true, I've been playing exactly how a townie would - trying to catch the scums.

Looks like I should've gone with the untargetable townie claim after all... I was scared that you would all just kill me for looking like the GF if I did that though.

I really am Art, btw. I went nuts when all you other fools didn't understand just what it took to create a piece of artwork.


It'd be good if you guys would turn me into a pro-town Vig who dies on the last day, but I'd totally understand if you just wanted to lynch me on the spot.





Does THAT make the game any less confusing for you, PJ?

[Turbovolver]

I will kill whoever I'm ordered to. And like I said before, I understand if I'm lynched. Know that because I have been doing my best to be a townie (best way to play an SK, IMO), I'm rooting for the town here.

BTW, if Stewie is innocent then I think Sotty7 is too. I wasn't lying when I said she'd done stuff that I found scummy individually, but her latest posts have seemed clean and so if Stewie isn't scum I don't think she is. Or should I trust my instincts...?

Think the best bet (assuming PJ is sane) is

Scum: pablito, cropcircles, Quailman?
SK: Turbovolver

I really liked Don's last post, so if he's scum he deserves to stick around for being awesome at this game. 8)



As for thoughts on PJ's plan(s), I don't think we are sure enough in our suspicions to go for 3 players (lynch one, two "vig" kills). Unless of course one of those players is me... I'll vig someone, Ranger can vig me, and we can lynch pablito. That way if pablito turns up town we can try to adjust plans (without communication though, that could be tricky).

[Turbovolver]

Everything I've said this game has been true, I've been playing exactly how a townie would - trying to catch the scums.

Actually, my claim was false (when I said I targeted Stewie). I haven't tried to kill anyone. Now that I'm doing my best to help the town before I die I should put that out there.

PS PJ, when I said it was unlikely you would listen to anything I say, that was because you were sure pablito and I were scum. Well, it looks like we were, but not in the way you were thinking

[Turbovolver]

I don't trust people who claim sk and offer themselves as vigi for the town. Why would you possibly do this? If you are telling the truth, you already lost. Therefore, you are up to something.

I'd pretty much lost no matter what. But considering my approach to SK is to act like I would as a townie (no, really, this is how I act as a townie ), I'm attached to the town and would like to see the scum I've been trying to catch caught. I'm not up to something, but I totally understand if I am lynched.

I wrote up a whole spiel about plans for the night and blah blah blah, and then I saw pablito also claim cop.



pablito, the important part of your role is out there, so I believe I speak for the town (even if they are about to kill me) when I say that we need your rolename, and flavour. I'm really wanting to believe you, because it would mean it's likely I was never wrong about PJ

And what do you mean by the "night zero" comment?

Bloody hell, this game has imploded in complexity. I much prefer to just be hunting scums based on logic and my read on what they say...

[Turbovolver]

To turbo I just have to say that you did a great job convincing me that you were pro-town, but that I think it was very silly of you to admit to being the SK this early in the game, and make it impossible for you to win. I don't like it when my opponents in any game I play don't play to win. It's bad sportsmanship

Maybe it was a little premature, but I was counterclaimed... two vigs is very much a rarity and Ranger is more likely to be believed. Not to mention there's scum in pablito, who I'm linked to. And my claim sucked . Shame the GF crap stopped me from claiming untargetable.

I was playing to win right up until I was counterclaimed and Stewie was investigated as innocent. That kinda buggered things up :p.
Oh, also how Ranger targeted me and I didn't die.

I have to say it's not looking good for pablito, but if he really is the cop then I say NO LEPTONS and PJ dies a horrible death.

If a majority want to end the day, I'll vote for myself.

I think town needs to choose between the informative lynch (pablito) and the safe lynch (me).

[Turbovolver]

BTW pablito, I asked about the night zero stuff because it wasn't obvious to me who you investigated, and I wasn't going to assume anything. Your story checks out for an innocent result on Quailman, but that doesn't mean you're not faking.

PS: The people who don't really try to discuss plans and just go straight for the easy lynch (me) are probably scum.

That is, if pablito is faking it wouldn't suprise me if he picked one scum and one innocent to claim innocent. The scum one is cropcircles

I'll give this game a day. If there's not significant discussion going on I'll lynch myself - I wanna see what happens!

And perhaps Kenji will be willing to "fill me in" with what's REALLY going on

[Turbovolver]

Not to mention the fact that his first vote, although random, was for Quailman (why would you want to start a bandwagon on someone you have an innocent result on?) and voting for me for almost all of yesterday, changing his vote only to lynch snowmonkey (not because he no longer found me suspicious) and then investigating someone else.

OK, I'm going to go on the record saying PJ and Stewie are mafia. I can explain my recent reasons for still believing this if anybody wants, but I must warn you that part of it is stubbornness/still wanting to be right after all that has happened.

I can quickly explain some of my reasoning: they are trying to convince us that pablito is scum. Even though he's almost 100% vigged/lynched tonight. The only reason they'd want to do that is if they were preparing for pablito to turn up town. It'd also explain PJ's repeated comments about being not sure if he was sane.


Is this the most likely explanation? Maybe not. But it's the most dramatic, and it has some merit

I'll be returning at the end of the game to tell you all how awesome I am 8)

[Turbovolver]

Also cropcircles claims Stewie is the best lynch on page 9, but suddenly hammers snowmonkey without explanation... might want to look into that.

[Turbovolver]

Now we have YET ANOTHER ROLE CLAIM we can put on Turbo's shoulders. How is this helping the town?

this is not helpful

[Turbovolver]

Let's get this show on the road, get the next day started before Kenji leaves for Egypt.

Unvote
Vote: Turbovolver

Have fun everyone!

[Turbovolver]

People: please stop claiming! ><

Exept scum. Scum can claim if they want to.

Go on, then


It's funny the way you suddenly become way more active when the town's choices are obvious.

[Turbovolver]

Oh, hush you. If you have truly been using your scumdar this game, it is completely broken.

cropcircles launhed several unjustified attacks against me, and when I asked him to clarify instead just said "no I won't, why don't you just claim".

Am I the only one who found that scummy? No. Since then he has contributed very little to the game, but it seems short posts are his style (judging from another game).

You demonstrated a connection with a player I found scummy. I believe you tried to tell me there was no connection. Then you write up a huge analysis which is not at all objective.

Turns out there was a connection (innocent result) and the analysis wasn't objective because of your guilty result. So I was right, but drew the wrong conclusion... a perfectly natrual townie thing to do.

Stewie we don't know about yet.

And I am not the only one to express concern.

Sotty7 we don't know about yet, but I myself am a bit unsure with her at this stage... I've liked her recent posting.

I think I am the only one to express suspicion here, so if she's innocent you might have a sliver of a point, PJ

.


Compare that to your own record, PJ. You might have been right about pablito, we'll see, but your other big suspicions we haven't both been suspicious of are snowmonkey and Jimmy the Rez.

[Turbovolver]

Thanks for ruining the post I was about to make, PJ

Let's not pull any punches

1.) Turbo, you are the Serial Killer. You have a hidden agenda in that you want everybody dead. Who you "suspect" does not carry as much weight as others' opinions.

How do you know I'm not mafia, like others have suggested as a possibility?

2.) Cropcircles' attack on you, being a partner of Jimmy, was justified: he knew not to attack Jimmy, so he was at least making an informed choice of attacking by going after you. Although he did ask you to claim prematurely, Masons get leeway for otherwise "scummy" actions precisely because they are Masons and can be verified by their partners.

He was in the second group of people you found suspicious (after snowmonkey/Quailman). We've both found him suspicious.

And we didn't

know

he was a mason back then... that's the whole point.

3.) My "connection" with Stewie was that I had an innocent investigation on him. Yes I had a connection, but I would have gained nothing on Day One to have explained that connection. Just because two people are connected doesn't mean they're both scum. It usually means they are Masons, Scum, a Scum ingratiating a townie, or a Cop who investigated and received an innocent result. Even if I had not investigated Stewie, however, I still did not agree with many of the arguments you were trying to make.

Yep, that was the connection. But I found Stewie scummy, so the first conclusion that jumped to my uninformed mind is that you were scum together. That's what townies (and SKs ) do.

4.) My suspicions on Jimmy the Rez were because of one comment: after he explained himself, my suspicions of him dropped. I never had him written down in my list as "scum", although I believe he made a misstep in the comment I attacked him for.

But he's a mason, he's allowed to!
Now do you see how shallow your point 2) is?

5.) My suspicions on Snowmonkey were completely justified: he was playing the part of a detrimental townie. Enough people agreed that he was promptly lynched. A lynch on a complete townie is not a waste, either: we can now go back and look at voting patterns to see who was pushing what agenda. I will probably do a detailed voting summary on Day 3, if I am still alive, especially if I get another guilty result tonight.

There's no sense in arguing this point.

[Turbovolver]

EBWOP: Actually, the second group PJ was suspicious of was the 65% group... cropcircles was at 60%.

[Turbovolver]

Also I can see how this could turn into a "how big is your Mafia dick" measuring contest, so I'm not going to reply to anything more on this issue.

But I wanted to defend myself after PJ called my scumdar broken, or crappy, or whatever it was

[Turbovolver]

You all thought you were free from the crazy SK? MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!


I shall get my revenge... in votecount form!


(When Kenji and I talked about replacements, he said it'd be good if I would do votecounts for him while he was away in Egypt. So here I am! I don't have the setup, so I cant handle lynch scenes or anything).

No votes yet.

[Turbovolver]

I'm waiting for Kenji to tell me what night actions I did the first couple nights.

He's not back for another 8 days or so


Vote Count
------------------

Sotty7 (2) - Akonas, petroleumjelly
Akonas(1) - Sotty7

Not voting: Don Gaetano, BigAl, RangeroftheNorth, cropcircles



Hope that's right.

[Turbovolver]

Vote Count
------------------

Sotty7 (3) - Akonas, petroleumjelly, cropcircles
Akonas(1) - Sotty7

Not voting: Don Gaetano, BigAl, RangeroftheNorth

With 7 alive, it'll take 4 to lynch!

(Just doing this because I left out the alive/lynch count on the other one)

[Turbovolver]

So much for spamming, eh?

Kenji's back on the thirteenth. Though I don't know what timezone

Anyone want a votecount?

[Turbovolver]

Final Day 3 Votecount:

Vote Count
------------------

Sotty7 (4) - Akonas, petroleumjelly, cropcircles, BigAl

Akonas(1) - Sotty7

Not voting: Don Gaetano, RangeroftheNorth

Sotty7

is lynched!

[Turbovolver]

I wouldn't say it is. I wish I had the setup so it could be, but alas...

I suppose I shouldn't have used the word 'Final'.

[Turbovolver]

I was absolutely horrible at finding scum this game


Looks like I should've stuck to being paranoid about the agreeable ones after all... all of the scum were the ones giving off solid pro-town vibes.





I don't think the scum could have played any better this game... I don't know whether that means the setup favoured the town or what though.

[Turbovolver]

EBWOP: At least during the day. Perhaps kill choices could be better, don't feel like analyzing those so no idea. I should note Don's no-kill to support roleblocker claim was nice, but seems like it didn't come through.

[Turbovolver]

I don't think a single person attacked scum seriously in this game. pablito was only done because of an investigation, Don Gaetano was pro-town in everyone's eyes, and nobody was suspicious of Sotty but me (and I attacked like 8 different people, so it hardly counts )

The scum's daytime play was pretty much perfect if you ask me.

[Turbovolver]

I'm of the opinion linking yourself to a townie is a good thing, pablito (as long as people don't find the linking itself scummy).

Which I guess PJ did, considering he investigated you...

So umm, yeah. Carry on.

[Turbovolver]

Not sure about that... Sotty7 was my intended target night one, IIRC

[Turbovolver]

EBWOP: At least at some stages... at others it was probably Stewie. And by night one, I mean after day one.

[Turbovolver]

Yeah... my original plan was to never kill, or possibly start killing only after 3 mafia members were down so I could claim that there must be a 4th (and after I was so helpful finding the others, who'd suspect me?).

Problem was I WASN'T very successful at finding all the others, and I drew too much attention to avoid cop investigations... though it turned out I might have been completely untargetable and not just unkillable (there was some confusion over this).

And looks like Don was only buttering me up about looking pro-town because he was slimy scum


But yeah, I definitely had a chance of winning (based on the setup, I mean).

[Turbovolver]

Really, I was still trying to blow through my c,r,o,p,c,i,r,l,c,e,s posts before I forgot where I was!

I don't remember if I said it in the game, but you and cropcircles' mason breadcrumb was SO awesome. 8)