Mini 499: Just Your typical Mafia Game GAME OVER!!!!!!!!

[pwayne66]

Vote: Cicero

B/C it is hardwired into my DNA.

[pwayne66]

So it looks lke AlyG and cicero are the early bandwagons...

Appeal to

Mod

if you haven't replaced Cicero already, I'm fine with him staying.

I'd like to hear why the asian is eager to bandwagon as well.

[pwayne66]

terse? nice... anyway, this thread has PDS (post deficiency syndrome) We have poster who haven't posted in two and three days. We have posters who don't answer questions. In all, this doesn't bode well for our chances of nailing scum...

[pwayne66]

Is it me, or is AlyG at lynch -2?

[pwayne66]

yeah, that 3 random votes. 1 vote that seems legit but might be OMGUS. 1 vote to "generate coversasion"

ChocolateAttack, daedalus & theopor_COD- are your votes still random or do you have reasons for them now?


Cicero- It seems that there is some rule that the third one on a bandwagon is likely scum, I imagine that this only applies when 4 votes are required to lynch as the 3rd vote forces somebody else the dubious honor of hammering and still sets the stage for a lynch. It is very likely that I am wrong, if so, somebody correct me.

[pwayne66]

Thanks, I turn 30 today, so I have to resist the urge to lynch anything that moves. Might not be a good day for playing mafia...

[pwayne66]

Sorry, theopor I missed that. False alarm on the Lynch-2 then. I blame old age...

[pwayne66]

agreed. I think both of us are just reminding each other that this is a new game and letting each other know that there are no hard feelings...

[pwayne66]

It is unfortunate that CLA has become suspect #1. I don't think he is a big fan of posting. Could be a long day 1 if we have to wait for responces. Oh and

lynch -2

on CLA.

[pwayne66]

also

MOD

, can we see about getting a prod on Borchmore.

Already done, he has just over 24 hours to post in-thread before being replaced.

[pwayne66]

Cicero is still a random vote. So

UNVOTE:Cicero

Regarding the orlowski wagon. Sure, Orlowski's actions were odd as hell and do deserve scrutiny. If it wasn't a mistake, then what are you claiming it was? A scum attempt at a quicklynch? I doubt it. I am satisfied with his explanation. If you aren't why not ask him some pointed questions about it and build a case. Saying that you are sticking with a vote does not make that vote more legitimate.

The CLA wagon seems justified. The town isn't working cohesively to sniff out scum and I blame the unanswered questions leveled at CLA and Borchmore absence. Scum or not, CLA is hurting the town at this point.

[pwayne66]

So I am I to understand the cas against Cicero is this:

1) Only scum want to save their own skin
2) Cicero wants to save his own skin

therefore Cicero is scum.

Really?
Lots of people don't want to be lynched. Vanilla townies don't want to be lynched for several reasons: 1) they have to stop playing the game. 2)pride 3) it hurts the town.

Doctors and Cops don't like being lynched either.

Scum is a role assigned by the mod and in no way determines the level of comittment they have towards their own self destruction.

[pwayne66]

Just finished rereading the CLA bit from Shaka. As near as I can tell, nothing CLA does has any purpose. It seems that if everything is CLA's arsenal is random, why is his explaination of Cicero's innocence the exception?

I guess what I am saying is this: CLA doesn't appear to care what is going on in this game therefore I doubt he is concerned with helping his scum buddy.

I agree with you that we need a prod though.

[pwayne66]

Is this guy for real?

[pwayne66]

You.

You said: "Not that I have any problem with you suspecting cheeky little asian, but why exactly does his weirdo non-logic implicate me?"

If you learn 1 thing from this game, it is that no decent townie would say "not that i have a problem with you suspecting player x". An accurate definition of what you are hinting here is:
"I'm happy that you are voting for someone other than myself, but i'd rather you didn't implicate me atall."

Cicero doesn't have a problem with anybody voting for CLA. Defending CLA should not be a prerequisite for towniness. If it were you would be scummy too.

A decent townie WOULD have a problem with suspicion on Player x,

if

said decent townie didn't think the reason was good enough.

The bold was added by me. It is the operative word here.

You claimed not to have a problem with a player suspecting CheekyLittleAngel. On one side of the coin, this

could

easily be seen as an attempt to be non-commital. Going further, your post also

hints

at defensiveness. The only characters in the game who are going to cherish their own life over anyone elses, are the scum. You basically fuelled the suspicion on CheekyLittleAngel,

whilst at the same time, trying to look like you werent totally for such a vote.

Again, bolds by me. Yes it could mean that. It could mean that he suspects CLA also...
The last bold is to ask a question: Where does cicero try to make it look like he not for a CLA vote?

Suffice to say, your whole post reeked of scum, and i'm happy to see you bite the dust today

And it's not scummy to hope somebody gets lynched on 1/2arsed logic?

Your comment suggested that as long as people went along with lynching CLA, you werent going to criticise them.

Yeah, if you dig and prode and try hard enough. More directly it suggests that he, too is suspicous of CLA, and again, I am still waiting for your defense of CLA in order to prove that you are not scum.

with regard to the 'wierdo non-logic' bit, its not the words as such that i find scummy, but the overall meaning. The whole sentence had the putred stench of blatant distancing.

CLA said his logic was weird. Saying somebody has weird logic doesn't mean they are distancing themselves... I think you have weird logic, but I think we both know that we are not scumbuddies.

In conclusion, your comments can at BEST, be attributed to lack of experience with the game of Mafia, or a general lapse in concentration. At worst, it is a blatant exhibition of how inexperienced scum can slip up.

which is it?

This is over the top pretenious tripe and a false dilema. To put a player in a position to either admit that your play is more solid and their's stinks or they are scum is pathetic.

I think your attacks on Cicero are inconsitant, distracting, weak and patronizing. Only scum would want to lynch somebody on such weak evidence.

Vote: Battle Mage

[pwayne66]

2. the obvious inference from that point would be that Cicero is trying to distance himself from a wagon on a townie.

..by being on that same wagon? How is that distancing himself?

I asked once and did not receive an answer, so I ask again "Where does cicero try to make it look like he is not for a CLA vote?"

OMGUS post for my buddy... or maybe its...

A decent townie WOULD have a problem with suspicion on Player x, if said decent townie didn't think the reason was good enough.

But take it anyway way you like.

[pwayne66]

I guess if there is an area I have been confusing, It is here: I don't know what distancing you are talking about. It seems that all three of the following have been argued.

1) CLA distancing himself from Cicero- Which I have addressed.
2) Cicero distancing himself from CLA- Which I cannot find.

and now it seems that you are saying:

3) Cicero distancing himself from the CLA vote: which I cannot find either.

I have a feeling that most of this would be cleared up if I knew which of the three we are talking about.

[pwayne66]

Vouch in what way? What do you know that the rest of us don't?

[pwayne66]

oh... that makes sense. I forgot that he subbed in... he has posted more than most of the full time players.

Your sub-theory is an interesting (if not self serving) observation.

As far as his scumminess goes, I think his attack on Cicero is fueled by bad logic. He has promised a retort, so I will be reserving any further judgement until then.

Oh, and welcome to the game.

[pwayne66]

when did i promise a 'retort' to Cicero?

i'll be back to respond to more of this crap later.

I don't know what crap you are refering to though.

[pwayne66]

I've decided just to play my own game, and let the rest of the town make their own mistakes.

...

[pwayne66]

Ohgoodgodnotthisshiteagain.

[pwayne66]

everybody gets accused in this game. (that is the nature of the game). only about 1 in 20 take there ball and go home. I wasn't ready to lynch for anything else, but I sure as hell am ready now.

This doesn't prove you are a townie, it just proves that you can't handle your shite when the town will need you to.

[pwayne66]

That is lynch -1 on prof. guppy. Just so we are all on the same page.

[pwayne66]

BM! unless I miscounted that's 7!

[pwayne66]

nevermind lynch-1

[pwayne66]

I counted from the Vote count... shaka was already on it so he got counted twice. We are cool.

[pwayne66]

I'll explain my reasons in detail if anyone cares to hear them. However i stand by what i said about not posting unnecessary hints.

Let's hear them...

[pwayne66]

ok, so you obviously have strong reason to believe Guppy is town right?
in which case, would you be so good as to explain your view, rather than let him die?

...obviously....

Confirm Vote: Battle Mage

[pwayne66]

...wait. I think I might actually see where BM is coming from...

[pwayne66]

This from the guy who inveted the brilliant cicero scum test... anyway. I would like to hear Gorgon's answer as this time you might actully be on to something.

[pwayne66]

I don't know. This was the first thought I had when you reacted the way you did. It just seems that you had to be pretty damn certain that Guppy is town to respond that way. I having a feeling that the gupster is town, but I don't know if I am anywhere near that certain.

[pwayne66]

@Guppy. What is the case against you? I would look at the case people have thrown at you, simplify it and answers those charges. Don't get mad, don't take it personal. If somebody is voting for you and you don't know what their case, ask them. There should be some specific questions or charges being made though.

[pwayne66]

Oh, dang. Now I'm confirmed innocent. Now I'm due to get NKed. Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted. I really need to learn how to be ambiguous. How do you spell that?

I think that the confirmation is still under question...

[pwayne66]

Oh, I wasn't clear. When I said "This was the first thought I had when you reacted the way you did." I was refering to being shocked and not wanting to end D1 without some more dialogue. BM's question caused me to react to this fact as it seemed to be an attack on your reluctance to lynch. I realised immediatly after posting my confirm vote what it was the BM was getting at and it grabbed my attention.

I cannot say that your answer satifies me, then again, I cannot imagine an answer that would. I still think it was fishy, but acknowledge that it could be, as you say, an emotional and pessimistic reaction.

[pwayne66]

@BM- I'm sorry that you feel that you get lynched because you are you. If this was just a a game of logic or most loudly shouted argument, this probably wouldn't be the case. The connection you seem to fail to make is that the game is about a lot more than that. It's about team work, politics and popularity. It's about having the social skills and enough understanding of people to know that shouting "you guys have crappy logic" or "BS reasoning" doesn't help convince anybody of your case, in fact, it has the opposite effect.

Now, as far as I can tell, you have one vote. Not a bandwagon. You have that one vote for stated reasons. What exactly is the problem here?

[pwayne66]

As scummy as it seems I HATE EMOTIONAL PLAYERS. They cry and cry and cry and have such a defeated, my life sucks attitude, it just pisses me off. This is the internet for Petes sake.

Is this an emotional post about emotional posters?

[pwayne66]

Color me confused gup. From what I gather:

1) you aren't feeling the flea wagon
2) you think theo is scum
3) you think theo is covering for flea
4) you unvoted theo
5) you voted for flea.

how do you reconcile this? It seems that theo is your #1 and you have doubts about flea but you are voting for him.

[pwayne66]

Ah Cicero...

Some good points are made that ought not be ignored. I'd like to see flea address this. While we are at it: Guppy, you have some explaining to do yourself.

[pwayne66]

I'm out until Monday. I will catch up then.

[pwayne66]

Yes. I agree ^^. I feel like we did our best to tolerate him while he was here and help him through his game. He is a douche, but at least he is gone and we didn't have to lynch his punk ass.

[pwayne66]

howdy all...

[pwayne66]

dido

[pwayne66]

I was surprised to see a post from him as well. I was so confused that initially I was angry. I thought that he had been replaced in another game that I was playing, only to replace into this one.

[pwayne66]

Mod

can we get an update vote count. The one at the top looks off.

thanks

Corrected, thanks

[pwayne66]

Feeling guilty about my lack of posting. Here are some random thoughts:

White- great kick start, just as I expected and as we needed.

ssf- poster child for active lurker. we might need to crank up some heat...

AlyG- priority #1 as far as the lurkers go. His last post didn't sit well with me at all.

cicero- accused of being too chummy with me and I with him. posts a lot of theory...

Closing thoughts?

Unvote, Vote:AlyG

that's three! (unless I am wrong and then feel free to correct me)

[pwayne66]

A little Metagame here...

Sept 7th AlyG posts that he will stick with his Orlowski vote.

he posts 25 other posts to different threads.

Sept 14th AlyG posts that he will post more later

he post 23 times to other threads

Sept 25th Says that he is waiting for someone else?

I could probably go back further, but do I need to?

Seriously.

[pwayne66]

White asked him to claim. It is an interesting claim too. I am almost inclined to believe it... (who fake claims backup?)

But then again, even if we do lose a protown power role, what good is a backup that isn't following the game?

[pwayne66]

...on second thought, it seems that backup is pretty safe claim... (who counter claims backup?)

[pwayne66]

I would say it is the kind of claim that won't get contradicted, which is the only kind he COULD make on day 1 if he was scum.

this is my thinking as well

I highly doubt AlyG is so interested in this game as to fake claim backup.

though this is true as well.

I have to remain absolutely suspicious of this claim though.

[pwayne66]

uh oh... deja vu? I'll have content tomorrow... I promise.

[pwayne66]

If AlyG is replaced, it might help clear this up. It would be nice to have something else to focus on for a day 1 suspect... but then again... who? There has been pushes for SSF, Cicero, and Kakeng.

SSF- has been aggravating. I've not Meta'ed his gamestyle, so I am not sure if this is normal.

Cicero- I have (by circumstance) meta'ed Cicero's gamestyle. This doesn't seem to be inconsitent from what I have seen from him.

Kakeng- I'm looking back over Shaka's case here.

More to come...

[pwayne66]

Shaka's case against kakeng seems solid enough though it is based on 2 main things:

1) BM's odd game play
2) Kakeng lurking.

I get the impression that BM always plays that way. I was quick to vote for her (its a her, I was thinking it was a him) after the cicero case b/c I was convinced that only scum would act in that way. On top of that, BM suspected me, Theo, CLA, Gorgon and cicero. Only kakeng can help clear this up.

Which brings us to 2. Meaning that I won't be ready to lynch until kakeng post some content. That being said, if we were going to lynch a lurker for lurking, at least there is a case against kakeng.

[pwayne66]

White- I read townie here and at the very least a good kick starter
shaka!!- same thing. admits mistakes when he makes them contributes ideas and presents evidence.
somestrangeflea- with a little convincing I could lynch this guy
theopor_COD- BM though his early game reeked of scum, I don't recall seeing this, but I will check up on it.
Erotomachia- I've got enough rope for two or three lynches...
AlyG- no need for now. May be some sort of weirdo back up but until he is replaced I see no need to push the issue.
ChocolateAttack- I've got nothing new here. Seems ok.
Kakeng- Shaka's case carries some weight.
Gorgon- Despite the slipup when he thought guppy was lynched, I find myself thinking town.
cicero- just as I remember him.
Jalyn- call me an optimist, but I find myself believing that she will post something soon...

so I'm for lynching (in this order)

1)Kakeng
2)Erotomachia
3)Jalyn
4)SSF
5)AlyG

[pwayne66]

Welcome Jester. To answer you question as best I can without metagaming, If I remember right I had promised my wife a weekend without computer uses... needless to say, I failed at it.

The chumminess between me and cicero will have to come to an end eventually. The fact is we have similar play styles and neither are willing to concede a point. It ends up being a terribly distracting, nitpicking snark infested quibble fest. This is the reason I have avoided confrontation. BTW Cicero has improved from the last game, so I am hard pressed to find anything scummy about his play yet.

[pwayne66]

May I ask, metagaming??

I tend to call any excuses or references to RL, metagaming, accurate or not.

[pwayne66]

Howdy skitzer.

[pwayne66]

I thought about admitting that I hadn't noticed the menu's before, but I thought it made me look like a raging noob. I feel better now saying this: I didn't notice them either but was pretty excited to find out about them.

[pwayne66]

Who

was

skitzer and why was I voting them?

Unvote:skitzer

[pwayne66]

SSF's play is anti-town in that he's not posting about the game or asking other players questions, and he's avoiding questions directed at him when he himself agrees that avoiding questions is a scum tactic. That, currently, is enough for him to draw my vote.

Agreed 99%. The trick here is determining whether SSF in inefficient town or inefficient scum. Either way, we could do worse than lynching SSF. I would urge him to answer some of the questions asked of him by jester.

So who was on the Guppy wagon? Why wasn't he lynched? He was an ass, scummy, unhelpful to town

Again, agreed 99%. All the above is true, but like SSF, is he bad town or bad scum? I think PG was likely town, as I can't see scum benefiting from his actions. It can be WIFOM, but I didn't sense that PG was clever enough to confuse us in this way.


With all of the above we run into a huge problem I have with mafia in general. Scum tells are the ONLY method we have for lynching day 1, yet in most every game I have seen, the player that exhibits the most scumtells and gets lynched day 1 turns out to be a just a bored townie. 99.9% of these scummy bored townie lynches have a careful scum on their bandwagon.
.

[pwayne66]

All right. These are the choices as I see them.

Lynch Kakeng. I understand the frustration behind this movement. I'm not sure that I like the idea though. On the other hand, bringing in another replacement, giving them 4 or 5 days to read 25 pages, and starting over again is not desirable either.

Lynch Skitzer- A claimed power role. Correct me if I am wrong but the original case against AlyG was lurking. And then a bizare and safe role claim. The fact that skitzer confirms the role proves nothing in my opinion. (after all, what's he going to do, say AlyG was lying?)
But really, there is no case against him. Only a suspicion that his roleclaim is a lie. I can't bring myself to lynch on this.

Lynch flea- An active lurker. Got rope will hang. This guy...

Short form: the only two cases I see are flea and kakeng. Where are we at on the vote?

[pwayne66]

I count:

Kakeng(4)- Gorgon,Shaka!,White,Cicero
SSF(1)- Jester
Skitzer(1)- theo
Cicero(1)- SSF
shaka!(1)- Skitzer

So I ask the Kakeng wagon: Are you lynching Kakeng to avoid replacement, or are there other factors? Shaka! and Cicero seem to have indicated they aim to avoid replacement.

[pwayne66]

...I forgot that Kakeng replaced BM. That said:

Vote: Kakeng

That's 5 by my count. Somebody should verify.

[pwayne66]

I doubt Kakeng is going to claim. I'm not even convinced that he is playing anymore. He is crossed out on the game list.

[pwayne66]

Unvote

there is no need for lynch -1 until we are all up to speed.

[pwayne66]

White
Skruffs
Skitzer
ChocolateAttack
Jester

These people (as near as I can tell) have not weighed in on the kakwagon. They should, before we go any further. A claim would be nice as well.

[pwayne66]

Where is CA?

[pwayne66]

I noticed that you post in strings, which is very strange. Others just post in one big post. Its like for you, each sepearte subject needs a post.

You will have to connect the dots on this for me... how do you go from this to an FOS.

Your vote is still on shaka!!. Do you still feel shaka is the most scummy player?

[pwayne66]

FOS to everybody not on the shakawagon. Trying to kill the mod is the scummiest of scumtells and there is no excuse for giving shaka a pass...

[pwayne66]

Interesting! pwayne, anything to say about this?

I did notice this comment. I'm not sure what to say. I hadn't intended a change of play styles. If there are changes I would attribute them to environmental conditions. When Cicero and I played together, it was a newbie game with 7 players that had zero replacements, everybody contributed consistently and I was scum. Apples and oranges...

[pwayne66]

I said in the game that cicero is referencing that I thought being scum was a lot easier than being town. I wouldn't say that I liked one more than the other, just that they require different considerations and that I have more confidence as scum.

I will say this: I was playing that other game in conjunction with this one (it has since ended) and did devote considerable more time to it because it was day three and pretty intense (not necessarily b/c I was scum). By comparison, this game has been anything but intense. We are in a constant state of waiting for replacements or waiting for replacements to catch up or what have you. We have 11 players that have quit. I barley know who is who anymore. I don't think my passivity is significant in light of this. Of the original players: me, SSF, shaka, theo, gorgon, cicero, and CA, I feel confident in saying that I have been more active than most (at least more so than SSF, theo, and CA).

[pwayne66]

He doesn't need a link. He's just jacking around.

[pwayne66]

This is the way I see it: scumtells do more than tell us who is scum, they enforce a code of conduct. For example: Using faulty logic to lynch somebody is a scumtell. This is not to say that only scum use faulty logic or that everybody that does is scum. This primarily means that using faulty logic is scummy as it does not benefit the town.

I understand where Cicero is coming from (and agree with him to a large extent), but lynching players that hurt the town is good for precedent if nothing else. It establishes an atmosphere where people know that using faulty logic will get you lynched. It removes a tool from the mafia's arsenal.

...this is good in theory anyway... In practical application, I have found that there are always 3 or 4 people that do scummy things and they are never scum. Maybe I am playing with the wrong crowd.

I guess my mottos are "For a good town, lynch anti-town" and "If you want to make an omelet..." ...was that a scummy thing to say?

[pwayne66]

Lynching skitzer kills a claimed power role and still leaves us short a kakeng going into day 2.

Vote:Kakeng

[pwayne66]

I have my doubts about the claim too, but I am starting to doubt we are going to find anybody to replace into a 30 page read of an increasingly stagnating game. If we lynch skitzer, are we still going to have a kakeng problem tomorrow? Can this game survive waiting for a replacement? If skitzer turns out to be telling the truth, we could lose three townies, skitzer, a scum NK, and kakeng (if we can't replaceand he is town). What does everybody think about the odds of replacing kakeng? Should we lynch before the replacement? Do we have a choice as it seems that we are still on a deadline. These are the things that I wonder about.

[pwayne66]

I've found the post that you are referring too... It's like a car wreck up in here... I don't think it proves that he is town... but I can see why you would lean toward thinking that.

UNVOTE

...with the understanding that we need to have a serious talk about how to salvage this game.

[pwayne66]

Give me some time to collect my thoughts, do a mini read through and I will be backi with some content.

[pwayne66]

Not to continue the "chummy" perception there is between cicero and I, but I agree with his conclusions about the mafia, the SK and the Vig.

His conclusion about Jesters are interesting as well

"I think his death points squarely at Gorgon, Flea, Theo and White as very probable bad guys who felt threatened by Jester's play. "

But it really only reminds me: Where the hell is white? 10 days no post. He posted on the Vacation/ Limited Access thread that he will be back by the end of this week, here is hoping we here from him soon, and since I know he will be asking, I'm going to post a scumdar Monday.

[pwayne66]

This quote stuck out to me - “Gorgon- Despite the slipup when he thought guppy was lynched, I find myself thinking town.” Then he appears in 568 to make a case against SSF and one on Guppy, but then states that Guppy is likely town?

Are you saying that my post contradict one another? I don't see how. I thought that Gorgon's reaction to the "lynch" of guppy to be curious. He explained his actions near as he could to my satisfaction, and I found nothing else to suggest that he was scum. I didn't make a case against SSF as to say, well...

The trick here is determining whether SSF in inefficient town or inefficient scum. Either way, we could do worse than lynching SSF. I would urge him to answer some of the questions asked of him by jester.

Likewise I said this of guppy:

Again, agreed 99%. All the above is true, but like SSF, is he bad town or bad scum? I think PG was likely town, as I can't see scum benefiting from his actions. It can be WIFOM, but I didn't sense that PG was clever enough to confuse us in this way.

Which is to say that I think that guppy and SSF are either really crappy town or really crappy scum. I go on to say that I think that guppy was just really crappy town.

If I am missing the contradiction, please let me know.

[pwayne66]

Fair enough on both accounts. Poor wording on my account. I've been consistant of my criticism of SSF, and don't feel that I need to justify falling into his wagon. There isn't a waffle as near as I can see. Consider:

[quote ="pwayne"]somestrangeflea- with a little convincing I could lynch this guy [/quote]

[quote = "pwayne"]Lynch flea- An active lurker. Got rope will hang. This guy... [/quote]

[quote = "pwayne"]SSF- has been aggravating. I've not Meta'ed his gamestyle, so I am not sure if this is normal. [/quote]

I don't think that Johnnie Cochran could make the case that I have waffled on this issue. As far as your accusations of ambiguous conclusions and weak scum hunting, didn't you just finish a long post that said basically:

...any of these 6 players might be scum:


You left off you (understandable), CA and Cicero. Why no analysis for them?

Anyway, I would still like to hear from White. I'm going to reread the last couple of pages (lots of theories that require some research...) Expect some content tomorrow.

[pwayne66]

White- I was only able to find one instance where Gorgon says that White is town ( I might have missed the other admittadly) and that was somewhere along the lines of "white...I'm thinking town" and was posted more as a response to what orlowsi and HH had done than on white's actions. I admit though; Gorgon does have a peculiar amount of agreeability toward nearly everything white says.
Gorgon's first post following White's entarance into the game states that White has played well as scum in the past.

somestrangeflea- Interesting post from Huck regarding ssf. His case against him seems stronger than his case against white. It's no seceret how I feel.

theopor_COD- I still get a town feeling here. At the very least, I don't see anything pointing to him as scum.

Skruffs- Seemed to nose in on Gorgon right away. Made several mentions that both him and I were scummy and urged that we get more pressure. Despite this puts his first vote (seems to admit that it was a pressure vote to boot) on white. He then puts his vote on Cicero. Two posts later, it was Kakeng. And then Skitzer. During this whole time, the most interesting comments are these:

Generally speaking you don't lynch power claims. PEriod.

Explain it, because someone needs to be lynched, and if it has to be Kakeng, even with your town tell, then it has to be.
Vote : Kakeng

I am voting him because I checked the wiki for 'generic optional backup' and could not find that as a normal role. So I think it's a fake claim that shouldn't be in a normal mini.

ChocolateAttack- unvotes AlyG (town) after he gets to 5 votes. Makes alot of contentless posts but sticks to his guns when pressured by me (over his orlaski vote and then white (over his meek scumdar). A quick look at his postings show very few posts and a large amount of them are the "I'll post tomorrow" or "My computer is broke" variety.

HackerHuck- Responded quickly with his reread and gave a geniune and complete take on his perceptions. Battle Mage bugged me, as did Kakeng. Never got a pro-town vibe from them. I was convinced for a short period that BM was scum. Since then I have seen nothing overly scummy aside from some lurking.

cicero- 6 pages of post from him that amount primarily to theory and defenses of his theory. Can't say that I am totally adjusted to his playstyle, but I do sense so sincere curiosity from him.

Vote Skruffs

[pwayne66]

MOD?

Could we get a prod on White please?

I think that it has been 13 days of no posting.

[pwayne66]

...actually 15 days....

[pwayne66]

Second botch: he spent later posts trying to dissolve his own convictions. Why?

I don't know.

So you are agreeing that me and jester both found gorgon suspicious.

...but I agree with his conclusions about the mafia, the SK and the Vig.

....meaning that I agree with:

Normally the stabbing represents a serial killer attack. A vigilante normally shoots. We can assume that the mafia did not shoot gorgon since he as mafia. Therefore we assume that the vigilante shot gorgon.

We therefore deduce that the Mafia shot Jester and the serial killer stabbed him.

You later on say yourself that I was actively pushing for a gorgon-pwayne possible teamup. Gorgon is now dead and known as scum. So I was at least half right.

and

However, even after acknowledging that, you decide to take my vote for the claimed power role as your reasoning for putting a vote on me.

Yes coming out the gate. You never nosed any more than to imply you thought he was scum. A decent distancing strategy is to state a suspicion of your partner that is actually weak but seems sincere. The fact that you seem to suspect him without too much evidence, or trying too hard to lynch, is why I am voting you. I think that you could use some pressure. The powerroll thing was merely an additional inconstancy. Your defense is noted though.

[pwayne66]

I will be gone until monday. I'm taking a three day weekend.

[pwayne66]

Also, why is it you only ask for prods of players you aren't voting? You didn't ask for a prod on White until you changed your vote to me, and then you didn't ask for a prod on me, either. Small small scumtell.

This will be my last post of the weekend and I will address the rest later:

white was gone 15 days. You were gone 6. I was never voting white, so this doesn't demonstrate what you are accusing me of... at all. I mean it wasn't like I was voting white, changed to you and then asked for a prod of white.

BTW "I was suspicious of him, when he was considered one of the more town players, and therefore it is likely I am distancing?"

-likely was your word choice...not mine. Mind telling us how why you suspected Gorgon so quickly?

Anyway have a good weekend.

[pwayne66]

Would that be a present of the OMGUS variety? Instead of being defensive perhaps you could just explain your suspicions of Gorgon (I feel iky having to ask again, but inquiring minds you know...) that seems like a much more reasonable response to a question. I have now interest in lynching good players. Evasive players that threaten to vote for people that ask questions... well, that is a different story... I say, lynch away.

[pwayne66]

Skruffs- I missed the 2nd half of post 811. Apologies for the evasiveness comment. The way I saw it, I asked some legitimate questions about your suspicions of Gorgon. I left town for the weekend and just read the latest posts and it seemed that you responded by saying "I'm going to vote for you now". I didn't go back and finish reading what happened before I left.

However, if you think it's generically more likely that scum are bussing than that town is accurately scum hunting, more power to you.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. You had nothing to do with Gorgon dieing did you? If not how am I accusing you of busing? I am, in fact, accusing you of not busing. I am saying that you cast some very weak and less than passionate accusations at Gorgon and then voted for 5 (or 4, I can't remember) other players. Gorgon turns up dead and you seem to take credit for it and reduce my accusation at you as attacking you for good scum hunting.

One of the biggest backers behind the gorgon-pwayne scum team was how both of you reacted to what you thought was BM's hammer on P. Guppy. You both acted surprised, you first, Gorgon second, treating BM's action as if it were a mistake.

I don't see anything there that suggests scumminess. This might require some clarification.

[pwayne66]

Unvote

for now. White, shaka!!, somestrangeflea, theopor_COD and ChocolateAttack all need to post something/be prodded/be replaced, so that we can get some fresh perspective here.

[pwayne66]

Pwayne-
Are you asking me if i am the vig???

No.

I am more just curious why you side with cicero and gorgon on a lot of issues and were trying to lynch the one person who was publicly suspicious of the known scum rather than saying ' wow, skruffs was right about something.'

I don't get this... first, what issues do I side with Gorgon and Cicero with? Second, who are you talking about that we were trying to lynch? Third, you were suspicious of at least 7 players. 5 that you voted for and two that you never voted for. You get no praise from me for being right when the odds were that you would be.

And finally and must importantly, do you think that stating suspicion of a player, then voting for 5 other players is suspicious? When that players turns out to be scum, should people ask questions about it? If so, why are you threatening to OMGUS me for doing what I am doing?

One of the reasons I'm also adding Cicero to the mix is because of the way you were so nervous about a possible lynch-2 on Cicero early on in the game. Somethign about yoru reactions to him was very strange.

I don't remember cicero being at lynch -2, let alone being nervous about it. I do remember BM's case against him and defending him. If I am wrong, please point it out to me.

Also, while you thought P Guppy was likely town (Cicero was also suggesting the same) when he was acting very scummy, you have changed yoru mind when I replaced in, someone who (supposedly) is more experienced and a better player.

This is inaccurate. You suggest that it was your subbing in that caused me to change my mind. This isn't true (I'm not sure how you could think that it is) I have stated very clearly why I suspect you and what triggered this suspicion.

But both of your opinions of me have remained identical through the game. You bhoth thought P Guppy was likely town, just a douche, and you both are suggesting I Was distancing from a scumbuddy, today.

True. Again, I think the distancing question deserves to be asked. It really is you subsequent reactions that cause me to keep pushing it. You just now got around to dropping the victim act long enough to address the real allegation.

However, what's really strange is that two other people who were TOWN were also suspicious of Gorgon yesterday. They could NOT have been distancing from him - right? So why would you therefore say that I am? Presumably, if any of them were alive, you would be saying the same thing about the two ot them, right?

I would have asked (like I did you), maybe voted for them (like I did you). I would have expected them to answer my questions and understand that suspicion is par for the course. If they could handle their shite, and answer the suspicions, I probably would have dropped it and moved on.

[pwayne66]

I find it very interesting that Pwayne has now gone out of his way to hunt scum. I'm not sure if he's reacting to my case because he's scum or because he's town and realises that we need to hunt scum. Let's say that the jury is still out...

[sarcasm]But doubtlessly it was because of you...thanks HH![/sarcasm off]

[pwayne66]

I don't get this... first, what issues do I side with Gorgon and Cicero with?

[pwayne66]

...also, I get that cicero and I have been buddy buddy. Gorgon was buddy buddy with everybody. You have said this yourself. Considering this, the fact that Gorgon and I had a non abrasive relationship is insignificant.

And yet you, flabbergasted at Gorgon being scum, have yet to reconsider the way he and pwayne buddied up to you day one.

And day two.

This is an odd quote. It seems as though you are accusing Cicero of not considering the fact that him and I are scum buddies. What is your position? That Gorgon and I are scum buddies and buddied up to cicero for giggles, or that Cicero Gorgon and I are all scum buddies together?

[pwayne66]

I have focalized my suspicions about pwayne/cicero. Why are you asking me if i think it's one or the other, pwayne?

Mainly because you are all over the place. You seem to be throwing anything that you can and seeing if it sticks. It seemed as though the referenced quote represented a shift in position. That's all. If you don't believe me, consider, Since I had voted for you, your OMGUS tirade against me includes:

Anyways, this is about you, not cicero. In your first post in response, you agree with cicero "at the risk of seeming chummy" (may have misparaphrased). So you are agreeing that me and jester both found gorgon suspicious.

Of course this was clarified.

However, even after acknowledging that, you decide to take my vote for the claimed power role as your reasoning for putting a vote on me.

This, too was clarified.

Also, why is it you only ask for prods of players you aren't voting? You didn't ask for a prod on White until you changed your vote to me, and then you didn't ask for a prod on me, either. Small small scumtell.

I have asked you to explain this "scum tell" but you haven't.

A lot of my suspicion of Pwayne, Cicero, and Gorgon comes from
Page Four, continuing through Five

Ditto here. I can't find anything scummy and I have asked.

Much like cicero yesterday, you seem interested in lynching good players and ignoring scummy ones.

I may be wrong, but Cicero is voting and suspicious of SSF. He has never voted you. I am not voting you now, as my orginal questions and suspicions have been satisfied. You seem hyper defensive and intent on mischaracterozing the situation.

One of the reasons I'm also adding Cicero to the mix is because of the way you were so nervous about a possible lynch-2 on Cicero early on in the game.

I have asked about this as well but haven't recieved an answer.

I am still happy with voting cicero, though pwayne is high up there now.

I am having trouble understanding this. What is the case on Cicero? It seems that his case depends on me and mine on his.

Despite all of this, your case stands as follows:

1)Cicero and pwayne have been chummy.
2)Gorgon was chummy with everybody.
3)Gorgon was scum
therefore- cicero and pwayne are scum as well.

Cicero and I have been respectful of one another for explained reasons. I defended Cicero from BM's BS case. Cicero and I have both asked you questions about your suspicions yesterday. Are these similarities indicative a mafia plot?


So, a new round of questions for you:

1) Was the relationship between Gorgon and me more chummy than that of gorgon's relationships with everybody else? This is important. This is the keystone to your case, so you should really answer this.

2) Was I wrong to defend Cicero against BM's case?

3) What have cicero, gorgon and I agreed on?

[pwayne66]

@cicero- I don't get why your death points to SSF.

[pwayne66]

Not to quibble, talk too much about theory or be too WIFOMy, but you could add to your list:

4) Highly suspicious townies that were likely targets for investigation. This, in effect nullifies the cop's power for 1 day.

[pwayne66]

I'd like to hear his case from your POV. I don't know if there is anything besides active lurking IMHO. I'm too lazy to do a PBPA right now(even thought it would probably only take 10 minutes...) but I could do one tonight. What is your case?

[pwayne66]

nevermind...I'll do a PBPA...still I'd like to hear though...

[pwayne66]

6- Random Votes pwayne
20- Votes AlyG for:

Why did you feel the need to random vote when you actually had a suspect for what you claimed were real reasons? That looks to me as though you're trying to "fit in", and Town shouldn't have to try.

27- asks CLA to explain his cicero vote
34- Tells AlyG that he should vote instead of random vote + FoS
35- Explains why he is voting AlyG
80- I ain't lurking!
82- FOS CLA

CLA has come under fire simply for not responding to posts directed at him. IMO, there are situations where a lurkervote is acceptable. However, I don't want lynch-1 on page 4...

123- Won't comment until CLA does
196- "apologies" for being quite...conversational game...blah blah blah
213- Votes Cicero. For saying that SSF is pushing a bandwagon.
asks guppy why he is voting for him
223- I'm baaaacckk
225- Some scum have a tendancy to buddy up to townies (skruffs? is that you?)
Gup is unoriginal and a OMGUSer. Votes Guppy. Admits it was OMGUS on his part.
231- Suspicious that Gup didn't reply to any of cicero's comments. Asks gup to reply to cicero and theo
236- Tells gup to answer the question and stop buckling
237- rephrases this ^^
243- Thinks gup is an ass
263- Tells cicero that if he doesn't like lurking, then prod.
You don't have anything on me aside from lurking
Unvotes
268- inconsistancey is fine.
284- Waiting for Jalyn
294- Pings!
331-

Unvote
Vote: AlyG
Lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk, lurk...

351- Are you a backup of a specific role?
354- Normally backups are specific
361- White said that, not me
379- Doubts that Alyg will post more, following AlyG vote of him.
390- Stands by his reason's for lurking
395- AlyG isn't inactive! He's not contributing and avoiding replacement
400- Cicero has no case on me. He finds a reason to mention me all the time
Vote:Cicero
405- Says he will stop OMGUSing and start scumhunting. Ask Cicero for some specifics
407- Game theory and general arguing with Cicero
410- Emotional post?:

cicero wrote:
No. You really haven't. Do you mean you are planning to?

No, I mean I have, you're just annoyed because it's you that I'm going for.

cicero wrote:
Because your case against Aly was ridiculous.

Is this a widely held viewpoint?

cicero wrote:
Discussion: Who we should lynch.
Irrelevant Response: I like pizza
Relevant Response: I haven't stopped suspecting Flea.

No...

Discussion: I don't think AlyG would fakeclaim.
Your response: Let's lynch flea.

Discussion: You want to lynch an uncountered power role?
Your response: Yes. Also, here's something Flea said, that is unrelated to Aly's claim.

White wrote:
Of course not. You wouldn't vote for White until he voted for you. After that though, he'd better watch out. You're the OMGUS king, dude.

Precisely, because White hasn't bombarded me with bullshit.

shaka!! wrote:
Flea was the Obv OMGUS remark after your vote referring to yourself or Cicero?

It was about myself, but was a sarcastic reference to the fact that cicero believes that everything I do is OMGUS, hence the wink...

445- Thinks BM is scummy but has a hard time reading him.
467- Sarcastic "really??" about pwayne observations of Cicero.
478- Opens don't count as minis
506- Answers question from jester:

1. During this period, IIRC, nothing was actually directed at me.
2. "Breaking into" a conversation which is advancing at such a rate isn't as easy as you might think, and nothing really caught my eye enough to entice me into trying...

532- Gup's play was scummy. Replacements haven't contributed. Sides with white in white v. cicero. This game has volitile players (me,cicero,white,bm,&pg)
535-Clarifies a statement for cicero
539- More clarification
541- Sarcastic "S**T!" towards white's post count padding comment.
581- Answers some questions from jester. Gives post 410 as an example of him not being calm.
607- Sarcasm for pwayne's "got rope. will hang". Votes Kakeng

We've got rope, and we're bored...

630- Accuses Cicero of poor play and not searching for other suspects.
644- admonishes shaka for lynching jordan.
650- questions skitzer's "bad wagon" comment.
693- Is caring less and less about this game. cicero is tossing his name around unneccarilly. Continues to vote for cicero b/c cicero is more and more scummy.
711- Votes Kakeng. Doubts he can be replaced
725- Votes Skitzer to move game along?
727- Apologies for "surely you must know" comment. Thinks that skitzer is rolefishing? (INTERUPTION:WHo is thesp anyway?)
739- I'm using the idea of 3 backups to refute skitzer.
747- Skitzer was gonna swing anyway.
752- Normally Modkills end the day
764- requests thoughts from HH
794- Sorry but I will be gone a while.
821- I is back! Gorgon was vigged and jester was killed by scum and SK. Limited shot vig?
I'm not sure what this is about:

Skruffs wrote:
you are voting me for incorrectly out-guessing the mod.

To be fair, I don't see that as a particularly bad reason to be voting for someone. You pushed a point which eventually turned out to be false, which is what the Mafia are trying to do.

825- Clarifies statement for skruffs.

Actions by somestrangeflea:

* somestrangeflea votes pwayne66 in post 6
* somestrangeflea unvotes in post 20
* somestrangeflea votes alyg in post 20
* somestrangeflea suspects cla in post 82
* somestrangeflea unvotes in post 213
* somestrangeflea votes cicero in post 213
* somestrangeflea unvotes in post 225
* somestrangeflea votes prof guppy in post 225
* somestrangeflea votes count in post 225
* somestrangeflea unvotes in post 263
* somestrangeflea unvotes in post 331
* somestrangeflea votes alyg in post 331
* somestrangeflea unvotes in post 400
* somestrangeflea votes cicero in post 400
* somestrangeflea votes count in post 400
* somestrangeflea votes kakeng in post 607
* somestrangeflea votes kakeng in post 711
* somestrangeflea votes skitzer in post 725


Enjoy.

[pwayne66]

@SSF- What I see right off the bat is intentional lurking and a flippant attitude towards it. Several "joking" OMGUSs also. These are basic scumtells but you seem to do them deliberately. Why?

[pwayne66]

3-??? What have me and Chocolate Attack agreed on? I don'tunderstand the question.

Is refering to this accusation.

I am more just curious why you side with cicero and gorgon on a lot of issues

PWayne, you yourself stated that PGuppy was probably town, and you yourself still voted me. If the 'tells' you had on P.Guppy (despite his scummy behavior) convinced you he was town, why are you so willing to 'forget' about them when the player behind the role changes?

To be honest, I never made the connection that you and Gup were technically the same person. I was doing a read through, found something interesting and acted on it. Voting may have been hasty, but I find it can be an effective tool sometimes. I don't think that it was in this instance, so I regret that.

My reasons for believing that guppy was town was this: he was exhibiting classic scumtells. It's been my experience that nobody exhibits classic scum tells as stupidly as gup unless they are morons or bored and want to generate discussion. I have never seen somebody that is blatantly wishy-washy turn out to be scum. I have never seen a a blatant wagon hopper be scum. 9 times out of 10, these activities are done by either newbie townies that don't have a clue or scummy veterans that are bored and want to mix it up. Newb scum are overly cautious. It seemed obvious to me what category gup fell in. This doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to change my mind. Had I made the connection between you and gup it might have affected my perspective. But I still would ask questions.

[pwayne66]

My thoughts are that he intentionally lurked early on and he had several OMGUS votes. As I expressed earlier about guppy, these are "classic scumtells" and with nearly 1000 posts, I guess I imagine that SSF falls into the bored vet category. I would still like him to answer my question though.
It is worth mentioning that while doing his PBPA, flea is responsible for 3 of our 35 pages. Nearly 10% and more than his share of the 12 people would require. But compared to me (5) pages and Cicero (7), SSF is lurking. No I can't measure the content of his posts. Either way, I get the distinct impression that Flea isn't giving this his all. Cicero has laid out this case (correct me if I am wrong).


-deliberate lurking.
I have addressed this.
-I wasn't impressed at his reasons for suspecting AlyG early in the game.
This is a toss up. At the time I think that it SSF's case made sence to me. Reading cicero's arguement aout it does cause me to reconsider, but it does little to show that there was malicous intent on SSF's part.

-In the first few pages AlyG was basically told to put his money where his mouth was, and if he didn't he must be scum. I disagree completely.

I am reluctant to follow this line of thinking. The earliness of this play (SSF votes right away and only makes a few posts justifing his vote, he didn't push the issue) cause me to believe it was early game pot stirring.

-He could have voted for Theo and been accused of impetuous OMGUSsing
This is true. And a good point. Had SSF pushed for AlyG's lynch with any vigor, I would agree that this conudrum was exploited for scummy intentions. I didn't see that happen.

-SSF's OMGUSing. This strikes me a curious. He knows that he is acting scummy in these instances. I'm not sure if he thinks by stating "obvOMUG" he is dismissing the scumtell or he really doesn't care.

-Jester's death. I'm kinda Meh, on this point. Both Cicero and Jester were pursuing SSF. If they both lived, then SSF didn't NK because it would be too obvious, Jester dies it is because he was onto SSF and I imagine the same would be said if Cicero were dead (but was still alive enough to make the argument...). Also, Jester gave a lot of guys a hard time, none as hard SSF, but still, a good number of people could feasibly have benefited from his death.

So my feelings of SSF. I wish he would play with purpose. I don't see too much that is really scummy, but then again, if you don't do much, your not going to anything scummy. I pushed him on active lurking earlier. And I have asked him about this. That being said, the active lurking and the OMGUS votes are the only case that seems to exist against anybody. I could go for a lynch here if the act doesn't stop, but I really want to hear from our other guys/replacements first.

[pwayne66]

Gorgon came out of nowhere at one point to defend SSF, but later on SSF showed up as scum in Gorgon’s list. Out of that scum list, SSF is the only one I could see Gorgon trying to bus. Looking at Gorgon’s interactions with SSF is also somewhat telling. At one point Gorgon chooses to “let SSF off the hook” and then turns around in that same post to ask BM what he thought about Cicero.

I forgot about this... Ill want to reread these exchanges before I commit to an SSF position.

[pwayne66]

^^^interesting theory. If cicero and SSF were not mafia together, but rather scum and sk, this would make sense. I couldn't buy SSF and cicero being scum together.

[pwayne66]

...on the other hand, I'm still waiting to hear compelling Ciceroscum arguements.

[pwayne66]

Welcome TS! and Please stay Shaka. Nobody has a clue what the hell is going on here so you are not alone. Now, onto business:

Pwayne - what is the reasoning behind your defense of cicero throughout day one and so on?

You'll have to be more specific... I've explained my defense of Cicero so you either need to elaborate your question or quit being deliberately obtuse.

I mean, why are you pushing so hard for 'proof' of cicero -

The answer here doesn't require a PhD. We need proof prior to lynching to avoid a mislynch. Why do you want us to lynch without proof? ...is a more compelling question.

why aren't you even considering it? Your last post "Looking for compelling reasoning" tells me you have no interest in looking at cicero

I'm not sure asking you what makes you think that he is scummy means that I am not considering him. I know that you have an aversion to answering questions, but please- what makes you think that I am not considering him? I haven't said that I don't think he is scum. And why, instead of defending your position, do you vote for the person that asked you to? Are you trying to bully me into believing that I am scum with Cicero? That's weird... Why not ask everybody else why they don't think so?

- that you want to be told how and why he is scummy, that you have, again, cleared him. Why?

Your the one with the raging hard on over a pwayne/cicero scumpair. I think that means it is your responsibility to prove it, b/c I don't see it. You haven't, you can't, and now you refuse to so instead of trying, you vote for me.

And BTW, how does me saying that I doubt Cicero and SSF are scum together mean that I cleared him? Clearly I have said that I can see either Cicero as scum or SSF as scum.

If you have a case, lay it out. Tell you what... I'll do it for you:

1) Gorgon was nice to pwayne
2) Scum tend to be nice to each other
3) Gorgon is scum
therefore pwayne and gorgon are scum together

and then:

4) Cicero and pwayne are nice to each other
5) scum tend to be nice to each other
6) pwayne is scum
therefore cicero is scum


Is this your case?

[pwayne66]

Then after I die the town can see who pushed for my lynch. And as people push for my lynch, I remain on the attack, so that the town can clearly see who might have more reasons to lynch me. That's my vanilla strategy and I won't change it.

This works if say, townies don't have a good reason to suspect you. Thing is, if you get lynched for pushing a lynch with crappy or no logic, and turn up vanilla, we have another quandary... deciding whether those on your wagon were scum, or just townies reacting as townies ought to respond to a scummy move. Your logic here fails. We learn nothing from your lynch.

[pwayne66]

You seem to be ignoring the case I have made and using the 'gorgon, pwayne, and cicero never directly talked to each other' part of it.

Wha what? Are you going to present your case or are you going to keep insisting that I am scummy for not understanding what you are saying and ignoring everything I said? This is getting old. If you have questions ask them. If you want me to defend myself, present a case. If you are just in need of attention, you will have to shift gears because I am the only one that is giving it to you... and that is about to change.

Now I presented a case that I think that you are trying to make. Is this, or is this not your position?

[pwayne66]

Pwayne, your 858 isn't an analysis.

You are right. HH already pointed this out. To which I responded with 871. That is analysis.

[quote="SSF"I don't think it's fair to pick out 2 specific people to compare me to. Compared to the game as a whole, I'm fairly active, you said so yourself. Why is it that I'm scummy simply because I haven't been keeping up with you and cicero?[/quote]

You must have misunderstood. I used Cicero and myself, two of the heaviest posters, to justifiy why we might think that you are lurking. I point out, however that you have contributed more than your share so that that perception (that you are lurking) might not be that acurate.


There seems to be several people concerned with your lurking and your OMGUSing (at the very least, cicero, HH and I). Your best defense is to say: "Find me specific votes you're interested in please!" I'm curious about them all.

[pwayne66]

THere's more. Lots more. ANd most of it has been said. Instead of acknowledgin it, you''re demanding it be said again. Which, again, jsut goes to show that you have no intentions of looking at cicero. And that's scummy.

All right. I suppose that the first reason that I have not considered your arguements against cicero is this: A good deal of it seems to be new to this post, at the very least, I can't find a mention of it in the last month. The majority of your posts have been directed at the connection between me, cicero and Gorgon.

Doesn't want to lynch "TOwnspeople" - Gorgon was a townsperson. (Nickname, not role)
Goes ahead to vote "townperson". Drops thoughts that "Obvious fruit" (read: easy lynch) is town when obvious lynch is replaced by more experienced player - and then begins to want to lynch that player for actions that he previously stated was coming from town player.

I agree that this is odd. It's not new to me, as this seems to be an extension of Cicero's philosophy in our previous game... where him and I fought, among other things, about his insistance that scumtells are not a good means to find scum. This position just struck me as him refining his position. I'm not defending him and I don't necassarily agree 100% with him, but I don't see it as evidence of a mafia conspiracy. Incidently, I haven't ignored this as being your case. I went back and the last mention I saw of this was three weeks ago. I don't see how not responding to a comment made 3 weeks ago is scummy.

Maintains vote on Day 1 lynch while 'pleading' with them to give a 'good' reason for him to unvote. Player claims role due to Cicero's taunting.

I'll have to look back to see what you are refering to here as far as a needing a good reason to unvote. I will have to review the roleclaim as well. I don't recall feeling that Cicero was to blame, but I might be wrong.

Clears Gorgon day one: Day two, avoids discussion even though he is one of the main points after beign slapped for craplogic re: me, and goes back to a wagon that seemed strong day one. Doesn't take alignments of dead players into account, ignores speculation.

Again, I need to review this. I know he cleared Gorgon, but I can't remember him avoiding discusion. I assume that you meant the fleawagon. A wagon that Cicero practically built and maintains. I don't see that as a strike against him. The rest, I need to check on as well.

I don't die, which would have led back to Cicero. Instead, someone Cicero stated was

I have addressed this one. I have said this issue seems to be a strike against cicero either way. If you die it leads back to cicero. If you don't die, it leads back to cicero. This isn't evidence this a booby trap in disguise.

Cicero's explanation for his chumminess with you:
"The other thing to address is the "chumminess" with Pwayne. Truth is there really is none. We were in Newbie 436 together. Fought a lot. Largely over my noobie play. Then in our very next game ended up together. Both of us have a social and strategic interest in avoiding starting off being antagonistic even if play ultimately puts us there. So some burying the hatchet went on. We aren't suspecting each other right now because I dont think Pwayne has shown any scum tells and my play in this game he finds consistant with last game where I ended up townie. "

Town should be more worried about FINDING SCUM, not 'appearing town'. That's maybe my own personal opinion, but it will be on SCUM'S mind to 'fit in' - just look at Gorgon's play.

I'm not sure where you get "even if play ultimately puts us there." this nugget. I'm quite sure that the exact opposite was stated.

THere's more. Lots more. ANd most of it has been said. Instead of acknowledgin it, you''re demanding it be said again. Which, again, jsut goes to show that you have no intentions of looking at cicero. And that's scummy.

When I go back and do the reread of the Cicero accusations, I'm going to note when you last stated them (it seems to be nearly a month ago) and note who else responded to them. I think this will clarify everything. Had you reiterated your case when I asked you to, rather than calling me scum for not going back a month ago to weed through your feelings of Cicero, I doubt we would be having this quibble.

[pwayne66]

... also don't like something cicero did around page 10, but it has slipped my mind. Dadmn, oh, now i remember

asking how many mafia re in a mini fos fos fos. First of all, there's no set number - and asking that strikes me as an attempt to look like an innocent newb who has no idea...

Okay.

Cicero- would you just like to have a mass claim? You seem to be rolehunting more than scumhunting.

My biggest beef against Cicero is the contradictions he seems to do, obliviously, at almost every turn. Here's a couple of them, but I am sure, if I looked harder, I could find more.

Skruffs lists a contradiction (it seems odd) that cicero has with SSF:


SSS-"I find it quite poor that you've actually stopped looking for any other suspects, and further evidence against me, and have simply begun "parking" your vote on me when you have nothing else to do."

Cicero-"This could SO TOTALLY be an important and relevant (if easily rebuttable) criticism if it had come from someone who had deigned to do any scumhunting at all."

Skruffs thinks that this is contradictory because: "This is contradictory by it's very nature. I would consider that statement by SSF to have some relevance - and so would you, apparently - but you are discarding it because you don't think SSF is scum hunting. But if you think it's relevant, then you do think he's scum hunting. So why did you disregard it? "

...okay? I might be capable of seeing that cicero didn't address this issue ...so ask him again. If you think that cicero is just parking his vote on SSF ask him about it. You never mentioned it again.


You go on to make two more example neither of which you follow up on, nor mention again and both seemed to be using over extended logic.

How do you know what would make the game balanced or not? You used that as a reason, you used the 'backup backup backup doc' idea, and you seem to be insinuating that it's skitzer's fault he's being lynched while at the same time being supportive without giving him and options to redeem himself. If he turns up town, I will be going after you tomorrow.

I don't really understand what is being said here...

Mafia could have killed me (that's what skitzer said Cicero-scum would do) and put a target on cicero for it. Course, that might also be too obvious. Also, if cicero IS mafia, that would be bad for him to do. Not liking Cicero's backtracking re: gorgon.

I never got around to asking, why does it matter what skitzer said cicero would do if he were scum? What backtracking are you talking about.


So now that you have revamped your case, lets look:

Doesn't want to lynch "TOwnspeople" - Gorgon was a townsperson. (Nickname, not role)
Goes ahead to vote "townperson". Drops thoughts that "Obvious fruit" (read: easy lynch) is town when obvious lynch is replaced by more experienced player - and then begins to want to lynch that player for actions that he previously stated was coming from town player.

Stated. Addressed. Ignored for three weeks. I am scummy for ignoring this weak assed arguement... and so is everybody else...hell Skruffs, by your definition everybody is scummy but you. Interesting...

Maintains vote on Day 1 lynch while 'pleading' with them to give a 'good' reason for him to unvote. Player claims role due to Cicero's taunting.

Skruffs never brought this up until now. Now I am scummy for failing to read his mind.

Clears Gorgon day one: Day two, avoids discussion even though he is one of the main points after beign slapped for craplogic re: me, and goes back to a wagon that seemed strong day one. Doesn't take alignments of dead players into account, ignores speculation.

Never did find this except the clearing of Gorgon... of course skruffs has no interest in backing his case up...

You have tried to lynch cicero for every stupid thing that you can find, none of which amounts to jack. The only thing you have ever followed up on is his chumminess with me and Gorgon and his not lynching town thing.

You have snarled and tortured everybody that has disagreed with you, or asked you to clarify your position.

You have never expressed any interest in me until I voted for you. Now I am the cornerstone of your case. That is OMGUS at its best.

You have insisted that I have ignored your case where in reality, you have never said half the things that you say you have said.

You have said that I am scum because I don't agree with your case. I see nobody agreeing with your case. Yet you don't accuse them of being scum.

Vote: Skruffs

You are being distracting. You have used crap logic to justify your vote on me. You are OMGUSing me. You are inconsistant with applying your scumtells. You were suspicious Gorgon but voted for everybody but him. You voted to lynch a claimed power role after you said that we shouldn't. You are the scummiest player in the game right now.

[pwayne66]

And your second seems to be because

And my game is eroding?

You are being distracting. You have used crap logic to justify your vote on me. You are OMGUSing me. You are inconsistant with applying your scumtells. You were suspicious Gorgon but voted for everybody but him. You voted to lynch a claimed power role after you said that we shouldn't. You are the scummiest player in the game right now.

I, unlike you have expressed exactly why I am voting you. I, unlike you have discredited every claim you have leveled. You, unlike me, have no reason to speculate, reiterate, paraphrase or otherwise guess at my intentions.

[pwayne66]

Skruffs. I have not cleared cicero of anything. the fact that I am not moved by your accusations indicate that I don't think your case has any merit, not that I am not considering cicero as scum. This is the distinction that you refuse to make. The only point I stood up against with BM was that his case was weak. Nobody seems to disagree with that. The only point I have stood against you is that your case is weak. Nobody that isn't you disagrees with that. I am not saying cicero is town. I am saying that your case does not convince me that I should vote him and it certainly doesn't convince me that he and I are scum buddies.

I stand by me right to have to be convinced to buy into accusations. I stand by my belief that any case needs to be based in logic. Any amount of bullying, voting, OMGUSing used in order to dissuade me are wasted, because I will not budge on this point.

You fail to convince me to vote for Cicero. Cicero has failed to make me vote for SSF. HH has failed to make me vote White. And Shaka has failed to convince me to vote for HH. There is no mystery. no conspiracy. I have laid it all on the table. You want my vote, you have to convince me.

[pwayne66]

umm I'm voting for skruffs and I've giving my case. care to elaborate?

Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but the "burden" you taken upon yourself at convincing us that white is scum has not really been that impressive...

[pwayne66]

I am posting a case, and you are building your case off of the flaws of other people's cases. Very passive aggressive, a good way to try and make people nervous about going out there.

I am responding to your case against me. I have no interest in searching for flaw's in your case against Cicero beyond your allegations that I have ignored them. You have been making your case for a month now and I have been content to ignore it as it didn't have merit. You accused me of ignoring it, and I stated why. You then accused me of defending Cicero.

As far as making "people nervous about going out there", OMGUSing people that has the same effect.

Why are you so absolutely sure that Cicero shouldn't be under suspicion today?

I'm not, and I have never indicated this. This is a prevelant misconception in your case against me. I don't think your case has merit. Period. I probably would have continued to ignore it had you not accused me of being scum for doing so.

You and Cicero have also both stated being in another game together as part of the reason why you are so chummy.
Were you in another game with Gorgon?

no

You were in another game with Flea, but you're not nearly as chummy with him. Why? You were scum in that game, he was a regular townie, but you nightkilled him. Aren't you eager to bury the hatchet with him, too?

Yes. I have explained why I am "chummy" with cicero. It is not simply because we were in another game together. This is another misconception in your case against me. SSF subbed in and was night killed by me. We didn't fight and I had no expectations that he might have hard feelings. I believed that Cicero might. So no, there never was a hatchet that needed burying.

I mean Cicero was lynched day one in the game you two were in. Why this impulsive need to be nice to each other?

This has been explained several times.

Were you in a game with Gorgon? If not, then why didn't you put any attention on him?

No. I found little that was scummy.

I just don't buy that as an excuse to avoid considering each other mafia, at all. And sayign that someone has to prove someone is scum before you will start considering them scum, Pwayne, that's not pro-town at all.

Agreed. Of course I never said that... but misconceptions abound!

[pwayne66]

Toaster Strudel- Seems to pride herself with illogical play. I hate this because it A) forces the town to pay her undue attention if she is town or B) provides cover for TSscum if the town ignores it. This is decidely anti-town. Saving grace is that I never found White that scummy.

shaka!!- Posting has dropped off. Remains tunneled on Borch/BM/Kakeng/HH. I don't think that this is scummy, but it isn't Very helpful either.

somestrangeflea- Have posted at length my feelings toward him in the last couple of pages.

Skruffs- Little research is required to determine how I feel here. I feel that his actions have been the most scummy today. He has, however indicated that he has done quite a bit of meta-research. I find it hard to believe that scum would do so. I also (as I have indicated with shaka!!) don't think that tunneling is scummy, just unhelpful.

UNVOTE

ChocolateAttack- I don't have as much as I would like to have on CA. I browsed through his posts and nothing really jumped out at me ( I might need to do a more thorough reread) Somebody could make an issue on his stance with Theo, but I think it is just as likely a townie mistake as it is a mafiaploy.

HackerHuck- Shaka has a case against the collection of posters that has become HH. I would like to review this. As far as HH himself goes, I found his White vote odd, considering his post made SSF sound far more suspicious. He is voting for me for what seems to be a failure to scum hunt.

cicero- Obessed with SSF. Like CA, I don't know that the Theo situation is that conclusive. I am reluctant to comment too heavily as it seems that anything I will say will either be twisted into chumminess or distancing...

[pwayne66]

Can somebody that isn't me please ask the following questions, it seems that this forum has a new "ignore user" function:

@skruffs-

1) How am I playing behind the scenes?
2) You really need to eloborate who I defended and what they are claiming.
3) When did I indicate that I refused to consider anybody
4) When did pwayne push the CLA wagon?
5) You have been accused of mischararterizing pwayne. Rather than addressing it, you continue to say the same things. Why?

[pwayne66]

Same deal with HH. Ask him:

1) Why did you ignore my question about your vote?
2) Would you answer it now?
3) You were suspicious of me because I wasn't scum hunting, and then because I was. Despite this change of opinion, you voted for me for not scum hunting, but now you seem to be saying that you are voting for me because I am. Which is it?

[pwayne66]

"Could be a long day if we have to wait for responses" followed by a reminder he is at -2. DId you vote? No. Did you expound on the case? No.

Unlike the AlyG wagon, where you questioned if the votes on it were still random, the CLA you make no attempt to hinder. And the "Man day will take a while if we have to WAIT for him" is a subtle goad to encourage people to lynch him (without you getting your hands dirty).

So, I defended on confirmed townie and I didn't defend another confirmed townie. That's pushing? To tell the truth, I did a quick meta of CLA and determined that this was a pattern for his play. I didn't vote because he was at lynch -2. I didn't expound on the case because there was none. This post was a deliberate challenge to CLA to post and a warning that he was at L-2. I thought he needed pressure.

Is this scummy?

and then

Tell me, had I venomously defended CLA, would you be saying that I was scummy for doing so? Why or why not?

I ask because it seems as though most of your scumtests indicate scumminess if they turn up true or false. These are all positions that you have taken:

If Skruffs is NK, then cicero= scum
If Skruffs is not NK, then Cicero = scum
If pwayne defends a townie, then pwayne = scum
If pwayne does not defend a townie, then pwayne = scum pushing for his lynch
If pwayne defends cicero, then pwayne = scum defending his scumpal
If pwayne ignores skruffs case on cicero then pwayne = scum

^^^Can you see why I feel like you have a vested interest in nailing me, whether I am scum or not?

You then work to dismantle the Orlowski wagon, makign your own opinions about him with NO knowledge to back it up.
"He may be acting scummy as hell, but I like him, so build a stronger case if you want my support" is the general equivalent of what you are saying,

How did I work to dismantle this wagon?

and then

Even if I did, how is dismanteling a wagon scummy, unless you believe I was defending my partner?

then you push the CLA wagon *more* with "The CLA wagon seems justified. The town isn't working cohesively to sniff out scum and I blame the unanswered questions leveled at CLA and Borchmore absence. Scum or not, CLA is hurting the town at this point."
So even in this post, you are saying that people who defend themselves are fine, people who don't talk are good to lynch, and people who attack people who are acting scummy, you just turn a blind eye to.

Please point to the post where I say "people who defend themselves are fine, people who don't talk are good to lynch, and people who attack people who are acting scummy, you just turn a blind eye to."

If you can't, please add this to the list of things that you have mischaracterized about me.
Anyway, as I said, I do think that the wagon was justified. CLA needed pressure. I didn't want him lynched.

Do you disagree pressuring CLA was justified? Why?

2 - You deflected the case on Cicero off of him, yesterday. Are you not aware of this?

I didn't know that Cicero had claimed, this might explain my confusion and why I wasn't able to answer. I don't take BM's case seriously, so I don't see that I deflected a case as much as tried to flush out scum trying to use crappy logic.

Do you think that BM had a serious case?

and

Do you think that crappy logic is a scumtell that ought to be questioned?

3- You wrote off my case on Cicero today, and said you were not goign to CONSIDER HIM as scum unless we had a better case on him.

First, correction: not "we had a better case" but rather "I had a better case". Anyway, peep this:

I'm not sure asking you what makes you think that he is scummy means that I am not considering him. I know that you have an aversion to answering questions, but please- what makes you think that I am not considering him? I haven't said that I don't think he is scum. And why, instead of defending your position, do you vote for the person that asked you to? Are you trying to bully me into believing that I am scum with Cicero? That's weird... Why not ask everybody else why they don't think so?

and

Skruffs. I have not cleared cicero of anything. the fact that I am not moved by your accusations indicate that I don't think your case has any merit, not that I am not considering cicero as scum. This is the distinction that you refuse to make. The only point I stood up against with BM was that his case was weak. Nobody seems to disagree with that. The only point I have stood against you is that your case is weak. Nobody that isn't you disagrees with that. I am not saying cicero is town. I am saying that your case does not convince me that I should vote him and it certainly doesn't convince me that he and I are scum buddies.

Here I deny the claim that I am not considering Cicero, twice. The fact that you keep saying that I have said I won't even consider him is one of the points that I consider a mischaraterization to be addressed later.

Why do you continue to assert that I am not considering cicero? I have not voted for or expressed any real suspicions of Shaka either. Do you suspect that I am not considering him?

One of the biggest frustrations and suspicions I have about you being scum with him is your reluctance to consider him as possibly being scum, even going so far as to 'bury the hatchet', publicly, in a different game from the last one, which makes ties between you. Then to say that that's all it is, and to SAY you have no idea what Cicero is, but to then continue to strike down other people's arguments and NOT offer any observations of your own, which is DEFENDING him, I am confused why you even feel like you have to ask this question.

I don't know what question you are refering to. I only "publicly buried the hatchet" when asked about our friendly banter. Again, I have considered Cicero and continue to do so (in fact, the ploy with shaka and TS is pinging quite a bit). What you are really frustrated and suspicious of is the fact that I don't think your case holds water. I was not defending cicero from your case until you called me out for ignoring it. I said jack shite about it for a month.

Do you feel that the fact that I had ignored your case for a month, is consistent with your claim that I am defending Cicero, my scum buddy?

If I was interested in defending my scum buddy, I would not do so when they had 1 vote based on a cracked case. This goes for you and it goes for BM. Neither of you were even close to convincing anybody to vote for Cicero.

So why would I come to my scum buddies defense? How is this consistant me "playing behind the scenes"?

Accuse me of WIFOM if you want, but this picture is hugely inconsistant.

5- Please explain where I have mischaracterized PWayne? I will be happy to counter with examples where he has mischaracterized me.

A prime example is above where I mentioned the "not considering cicero" thing. I have called you out twice but you keep insisting this. If you feel that I have mishcharactirzed you, tell me where, and I will acknowledge that I did (if I did). The point is that this is a heated debate and mischararizations will happen.

You keep demanding that *WE* need to *CONVINCE* *YOU* who to vote, which takes the buden of responsibility (conveniently) off your shoulders.

I do? It seems that I voted BM on my own accord. I voted AlyG on my own accord. I voted You on my own accord. Doubtlessly you are refering to the post where I told you that you needed to convince me to vote for cicero and that cicero needs to convince me to vote for SSF. You miss the point of that post. It is this: If you think somebody is scum, and nobody else sees it, it is your responsiblity to convince them by building a case.

Do you disagree?

I say so because to suggest that townies that fail to see the connection are going to magically connect the dots seems silly. I know it can be frustrating to "know" that somebody is scum, but nobody else can see it, but you have to try. Berating people for not seeing it is counter productive.

However, the bulk of your arguments seeem to be refuting teh 'validity' of cases. With the COP dead, there is NO WAY To 'prove' someone scum, there are only cases, which are built on CASES. You are aware of this, because instead of actual scum-hunting directly, you are only scum-hunting by way of reacting to other people's attempts at scum hunting. Your entire 'playstyle' seems to be to discredit scum-hunting without actually being proactive yourself. And then you whine about the days going on forever and ever. Hmmm.

Did I whine about days going on forever?

Different strokes I guess. Example: It seems to me that you like to find people that strike you as weird and then try to build a case around them. I perfer to anaylsis what everybody else is doing, who they choose to target, anaylize there reasons, detect deliberately weak logic and ask them why they are trying to lynch on weak logic.

Do you think that this is a bad scum hunting strategy?

Post-LAstly-
Maybe I don't answer a lot of questions. To a degree, this is because I post a lot from my cell phone, and havae no real ability to quote or to take notes or to even change pages. IT's *not intentional*.

Noted (hence the bolded questions)

[pwayne66]

I disagree with almost everything Skruffs says, but not the quote above. It's one thing for Pwayne to say "No one has convinced me" but not once in the game has he tried to convince anyone of anything. It is exceptionally passive, keep my hands clean, play.

Ready to bus me so soon? But seriously. In a bout of serious distancing: The FOS of shaka, considering your the one voting for TS, and your kill all lurking townies post, is kinda weak.

[pwayne66]

Your play has been, the whole game, go with the flow and take no chances, press no cases, make as few enemies as possible. You aren't scumhunting, you are surviving till the end.

Fair enough. I do appreciate this from skruff's position as well. My thought process is this: Thus far, my two completed games, I have been scum. Those games, coupled with a few that I read, play out the same way:

1) Everybody jokes around for the first page
2) somebody does something <gasp!> "scummy".
3) A well intentioned townie points it out
4) and scum jump on board and lynch a townie
5) when it's all said and done this scum defends themselves by saying "he was acting scummy!" so I was justified!


I am having a hard time finding a scumhunting strategy that I am comfortable with. I really think that the classic "scumtell" method can easily be manipulated by scum, and as silly as TS's "scum vote their partner in the first 3 votes" is, I am intrigued by it and would like to hear more.

My starting strategy was to watch wagons and determine why they are there. After enough wagons with enough people, I could find patterns and inconsistencies. This seemed more reliable than just saying "Dude!! that was an OMGUS vote! You must be scum!" The problem came with the replacements. Replacements nullify inconsistencies and tear patterns up. I got pretty frustrated and "dropped out" to an extent.

Though I loath to admit it, I think that HH's accusation lit a fire. I did a reread and found Skruffs inconsistent "don't vote a powerrole" quote, and built a case from there. Skruffs was giving me a fairly protown vibe, but I thought that It would at least generate some conversation. If we got lucky, we nail scum. If not, I would move on. I did not expect Skruff's reaction.

[pwayne66]

So - in short: suggestion that because I pushed for a modkill of empty chair, I must think townie life is disposable, is simply not the case.
-----------------------------
If I'm missing a salient point of your flag, let me know.

I was actually referring to this:

Lynch All Lurkers - EVEN if They're Town.

I haven't decide what I think of the Modkill/deadline issue yet.

[pwayne66]

I know that people are annoyed with me attacking their cases but, I agree with all of CA's case and would consider voting for TS, but what do we make of this:

...prolific player who plays dumb to survive and be more persuasive. Really, really dumb. Toaster Strudel suffers not from shame and there is no limit to how dumb she is willing to look to fool people...Doesn't appear to ever pay attention, does not read special game instructions, and logic is almost always faulty.

I hate to excuse her based on play that is bad for the town. If the case against her is that she is dumb, inconsistent and distracting, then she is every game, so this is inconclusive. I have said that I will do a reread of white, and I will do so now. If there is a compelling tell, I think it will be in White's posts.

Mod Edit

1000th Post Vote Count

HackerHuck- 2 (Toaster Strudel, shaka!!)
pwayne66- 2 (Skruffs, HackerHuck)
Toaster Strudel- 2 (cicero, ChocolateAttack)

Not Voting- 2 (pwayne66, somestrangeflea)

5 to lynch

[pwayne66]

1000 posts? Wow...

MOD: Can you prod SSF

please.

Just did.

[pwayne66]

Did my reread of white. here are note worthy posts:

First post (307) Votes AlyG. Claims its a pressure vote, BM is acting different from usual. Most suspicious of BM/kakeng.

Post 318, supports a deadline along with theo.

post 354 unvotes AlyG (thinks scum wouldn't claim BU) Votes CA, for not having opinions

360, asks shaka for his take on Gorgon

387- berates cicero for wanting to lynch a power role.

407- shaka's case compels white to vote for kakeng.

415- SSF is scummy but not lynch worthy.

420- Votes cicero for over reacting, being defensive and tunnel vision.

427-432 Unvotes Cicero and tells him to chill

440-442 "my cicero vote was only pressure" Votes Kakeng


449- Asks for deadline. Pushes kakeng lynch

460- Notes Kakeng is having RL problems and deserves another chance. Maintains vote though.

472-476- weird recoiling at skizer replacing?

479- Objects to skitzer's "shaka vote"

514- defends dealine request

569- "wouldn't mind lynching kakeng or SSF"asks kakeng to replace.

593- skitzer is always usuless in other games that I played with him

640 "BM's scumhunting was contrived" FoS skitz

657- votes skruffs. Pressure vote?

692- calls out skruffs for OMGUS vote

White's reaction to Skitzer is interesting IMO. I don't recall (even after a quick reread) that skitezer was being useless (a little obsainate maybe). White is all over the place with his voting and suspicions but seems to get away with it because of supposed pressure voting. He really didn't like skitzer's shaka vote... that was interesting. Doesn't think that SSF is the right lynch but later supports it with out explaining why.

Continuing with a shaka read...

[pwayne66]

...oh interesting change on his BM position as well...

[pwayne66]

Considering the replacement situation: I would go for an extension until we are replaced.

[pwayne66]

Mod

Has SSF just failed to pick up his prod or has he asked to be replaced. I am just wondering about the odds at sweet talkin' him into changing his mind...

[pwayne66]

Welcome Psychatrog. Thanks for taking on such a big read.

[pwayne66]

"most likely town" = "too easy of a lynch"?

How? Who's targeting your role?

Mod Edit

Vote Count

HackerHuck- 2 (Toaster Strudel, shaka!!)
pwayne66- 2 (Skruffs, HackerHuck)
Toaster Strudel- 2 (cicero, ChocolateAttack)

Not Voting- 2 (Psychatrog, pwayne66)

5 to lynch

[pwayne66]

I known exactly what you are talking about skruffs, It whether you know what you are talking about that I am challenging. You can rest assured, I have arrived at my verdict...

[pwayne66]

EBWOP[/]
When, I say I know, I mean this: People who appear townie are hard to lynch and nobody is targeting you. But I will add this to the list of questions that you won't answer and positions that you won't defend.

[pwayne66]

I've lost my cool a couple of times and OMGUSed him right back, but ultimately, I don't think his current actions are scumtells. I do get really frustrated by the direction this game is taking. I am hoping SSF's replacement injects some new life into the game.

[pwayne66]

...Psychatrog can't post quick enough... I am half tempted to lynch cicero just so we can change the subject...

[pwayne66]

oh goody.

If you are sure that HH is scum (he is the common denomiator in both your theories) why would you risk a mislynch with a wildcard (me)? It seems that the protown action would be to go for the sure thing and not risk.

[pwayne66]

...when opportunity knocks...

[pwayne66]

Cicero, the bright side: when this lynch is over you will be on the bottom of everybody's suspect list.

[pwayne66]

It doesn't make sense. The point was supposed to be that when my role is revealed, TS and skruffs will have to rethink their scumbuddy pairing... but then I remembered that I was talking about skruffs and TS... they don't need good reasons to believe anything...

[pwayne66]

Noted: shaka did not pounce on pwayne66's 3 votes to make it 4, and lynch -1.
Noted: cicero did not pounce on pwayne66's 3 votes to make it 4, and lynch -1.
Noted: pwayne66 big talk, tiny on voting.

Not looking good for pwayne66.

...so now your scumpairing is that any combination of two including me, cicero, shaka, skruffs and HH are scum? I may be tiny on voting, but your a little too big on it. Your effort to legitimize you being on whatever bandwagon that will lynch any player (and then jump to the next one) that isn't SSF or CA is noted.

[pwayne66]

^^^maybe I misunderstood... are you suggesting that it is possible that cicero or shaka are my scumbuddy and were reluctant to bus me? Is that the only reason they would have for not voting me?

[pwayne66]

Cicero has you pegged as SK... but he didn't give you that 4th vote... isn't that odd?

You didn't know that Cicero had me pegged as a SK when you made that post, it appears that you are rearranging your story to match your statement.

To answer your question: No. Cicero has made it clear that he thinks it is more likely that I am town than that I am SK. I had three on my wagon, all for different reasons. There was no cohesive movement to lynch me... just some not so disguised opportunism on your part. I find nothing scummy about Cicero, Shaka, CA or SSF's replacement's absence from that wagon.

Vote: Toaster Strudel

[pwayne66]

I haven't stopped suspecting SSF. Why do you think TS is scum?

[pwayne66]

I asked Cicero why he thought you were scum b/c I thought that his post was weird considering the scrutiny he and I were receiving. Its almost as though he wants it too look like we are in cahoots.

[pwayne66]

Since blackmail and vote carroting are scumtells, I would like to submit:

Moving my vote to you puts you at 3 votes. If you think HH is scummy, and you want to vote for him, or anyone else wants to vote HH, I'll switch my vote to back to HH in a heartbeat.

...to my case against TS. I'm not satisfied with Cicero's explanation of following me into my TS vote. He knew exactly the kind of scrutiny it would generate but it did it anyway. It plays beautifully if Ciceroscum gets himself killed today only to have me holding the bag tomorrow. I wonder if TS is aware of this?

[pwayne66]

I am not saying my cases were 'the best', but I did post them, and pwayne tried to stop all attempts, not so much by disproving, as by saying that it was either crap logic or not enough proof. You kind of hid low at that time, only popping enough to discredit scum hunting (without really adding any yourself).

I have a whole post disproving your case, complete with bolded questions, that you have chosen to ignore and instead unvote me.

To say that I have stopped ALL attempts is yet another gross mischarecterization. You had a solid month where I did nothing to stop your attempts. So let's add:

Why do you keep lying?

I am not discrediting your case, you are, by refusing to acknowledge serious questions and opposition to it.

[pwayne66]

Also, you said something recently about how ts would see how spurious she was at the end of the game, which, if I remember correctly, someone else said something very very similar, not more than a page or two ago.

TS has also said similar things.

Is this evidence that Cicero, me and TS are scum together?

[pwayne66]

Can you explain how this works? Obv I am conveniently unaware.

Fixed it.

It's just to say that if Cicero gets lynched today and turns up scum, Cicero's obvious "bridge building" paints me into a tight corner. Seems to be a solid reason for his partner to push his lynch.

[pwayne66]

Am I wrong for saying that your revote (I forgot you were already voting TS) seems like a poor play? I can't imagine that you wouldn't be aware of how badly it looked so can only assume that you did so deliberately. The only way I can imagine that you would benefit from this is if you were scum: If I get lynched, you look clean. If you get lynched, I look dirty. For scum, it seems win/win. As far as you sacrificing yourself, I doubt you would have prearranged it, but scum play for team wins, not individuals wins (or they should). If I am wrong, I will admit it (something that this game is in desperate need of...) but I think this should be discussed.

[pwayne66]

As far as lynch all liars go, that is an over simplification. Everybody has a reason to lie except vanilla townies.

[pwayne66]

I fail to see how I allied myself with him. As far as this goes:

Cicero most vehemently attacks the players that challenge him. You don't challenge him

...you say correlation, I say causation.

[pwayne66]

Alright, maybe a little paranoid on my part... I saw Cicero's vote and it immediately struck me as a scum ploy. I began to imagine if Cicero got lynched, turned up scum, that I would be the obvious next target. Since it did seem intentional, I automatically assumed there was a benefactor and concluded that either skruffs or TS have pushed the Cicero/pwayne teamup the most, so assumed it would be one of them.

As far as my allying myself with him: There are three primary reasons (as near as I can tell)for believing this is true:

1) Buddy/buddy play- I had just got out of a game with him where emotions ran just as high as they did in this game. I had hoped to avoid that happening again (no such luck). I also felt somewhat guilty because in that game, I got him lynched by poking and prodding him. The more angry he got, the less believable he became. I feigned anger and frustration to achieve this end. I wanted to be sure he knew that it wasn't personal, so I came out nicey-nice.

2) My defense of him against BM. This one is true. I defended Cicero against BM's argument. I didn't go out on a limb to do so, if I remember correctly, BM was the only one to be voting for him. BM's logic struck me as scummy. I never did see this as a defense of Cicero as much as an attack on BM. Others have come to see it another way.

3) My defense of him against Skruffs. This is not true. Skruffs pushed this case for a month before I even commented on it. I never would have commented on this case had it not been for Skruffs insistence that I do. I did and skruff didn't like my answers, so he accused me of defending Cicero.
Later, Skruffs theory expanded to be me and Cicero were scum together. At this point, I am defending myself, not Cicero.

I have brought several of these points up before, but they have all been ignored. The band keeps playing the "pwayne and cicero, sitting in a tree" song.

[pwayne66]

Apparently there is a new reason that Cicero and I are buddy buddy:

...and attacking whomever he's attacking.

I do?

* cicero votes daedelus in post 33
* cicero votes cheeky little asian in post 74
* cicero votes somestrangeflea in post 198
* cicero votes jalyn in post 301
* cicero votes alyg in post 336
* cicero votes somestrangeflea in post 421
* cicero votes kakeng in post 583
* cicero votes somestrangeflea in post 629
* cicero votes skitzer in post 703
* cicero votes skruffs in post 764
* cicero votes somestrangeflea in post 827
* cicero votes toaster strudel in post 921
* cicero votes cicero in post 1030
* cicero votes toaster strudel in post 1079

* pwayne66 votes cicero in post 9
* pwayne66 votes battle mage in post 112
* pwayne66 votes battle mage in post 169
* pwayne66 votes alyg in post 329
* pwayne66 votes kakeng in post 606
* pwayne66 votes kakeng in post 704
* pwayne66 votes skruffs in post 793
* pwayne66 votes skruffs in post 942
* pwayne66 votes toaster strudel in post 1078

[pwayne66]

YO! TS care to elaborate on me attacking everybody that Cicero attacks? Skruffs, please answer my questions. You have ignored them and played victim long enough. I've played ball, answered your questions. Its time that you guys answer for all mis characterizations and weak logic.

[pwayne66]

For Skruffs:

Is this scummy?
How?
Tell me, had I venomously defended CLA, would you be saying that I was scummy for doing so?
Why or why not?
Can you see why I feel like you have a vested interest in nailing me, whether I am scum or not?
How did I work to dismantle this wagon? a
Even if I did, how is dismanteling a wagon scummy, unless you believe I was defending my partner?
Please point to the post where I say "people who defend themselves are fine, people who don't talk are good to lynch, and people who attack people who are acting scummy, you just turn a blind eye to."
Do you disagree pressuring CLA was justified? Why?
Do you think that BM had a serious case?
Do you think that crappy logic is a scumtell that ought to be questioned?
Why do you continue to assert that I am not considering cicero?
I have not voted for or expressed any real suspicions of Shaka either. Do you suspect that I am not considering him?
Do you feel that the fact that I had ignored your case for a month, is consistent with your claim that I am defending Cicero, my scum buddy?
So why would I come to my scum buddies defense?
How is this consistant me "playing behind the scenes"?
Do you disagree?
Did I whine about days going on forever?
Do you think that this is a bad scum hunting strategy?
Who's targeting your role?
Why do you keep lying?

These are the questions I have asked you and you have ignored. They were all bolded. You have no excuse.

[pwayne66]

For TS... um okay... I misguided you by giving you a post by post count of cicero's and my voting patterns. Sorry. I should have been more subtle...

Care to address the other mis characterizations or do I need to do that homework for you too?

[pwayne66]

...also TS, Cicero and I shared 4 votes out of 23.

Does this supplement your charge that I am attacking everybody that he is attacking[/]

[pwayne66]

Misrepresentation.

You have to account for the fact that the first vote is random, and the first votes randomish.

You have to remove the one instance of cicero voting for himself.

And you have to count 8, not 4 votes. Eight votes out of 20 non-random votes and non self-votes are the two of you in unison. That's 40%.

And that's only counting the votes that you are placing right after the other.

Even then, those numbers do not support your claim, nor are they that abnormal. Cicero and I share 4 votes.

Cicero has 2 votes in common with Shaka, Gorgon, theo, ssf, jester, ca, and you. If not for the last few pages where we have been accused of being buddies, (and our last 2 shared votes occurred) there is nothing significant about our shared 2 votes prior. I have come no where close to attacking everybody that he is attacking. Providing the raw data copy and pasted straight from the Distillery to examine your claim that I am, is in no way misrepresenting what happened.

Again, you have made an allegation, found it to be false and instead of admitting it, changed your position so that the conclusion remains the same.

I don’t give two shits about Cicero. Lynch him. Lynch me… I don’t care. What I find suspicious is the suggestion of a select few/couple that if we lynch one of us, we have to lynch the other…regardless if the first is scum or not… If I were scum, I’d call that a twofer, as in two for the price of one.

I have made a case that Cicero and I are not buddies and it continues to go unchallenged, this forces me to assume that the evidence that we are, is this:

In the last few pages, I have voted for TS and Skruffs, and so has Cicero.

That is it. That is all the evidence I see that can be legitimately considered. If this is enough to buy the twofer strategy, then have at it. Vote one of us and lets do this thing. If not, its time we start considering the source and the effort being put into convincing the town of such a risky strategy and such little evidence.

[pwayne66]

... but not in chronological order!!! What use is that??? Other than to confuse everybody, and pull the wool over their eyes.

They were in chronological order. They were copied straight from the Distellery. The only alterations I made was to remove all the "...votes count". I supplied the data, I am trying to fool nobody.

So I put them in order, and you can clearly see, when you put a figure, that 40% of your votes are in cahoots.

8 Votes out of 24 is 33%. If you want to remove the first four for being random, I want to remove the last four for being emotive, sound fair? That leaves us with 16 votes 4 of which matched that's 25%.

Any way, 33% is higher than any other consistency rate between players in the game. Fine I have given you that. You claim though that I have attacked every player that Cicero has attacked. This isn't true. In fact, until Skruffs began trying to tie us together, Cicero and I had as low (and in many cases lower) rate than many players in the game. The truth is I have attacked you and skruffs and so has cicero. This isn't everybody.

We were both on the AlyG wagon and we were both on the Kakeng wagon. This isn't unusual.

[pwayne66]

Not fair at all! You know damn well the the first don't count. If the last four are emotive votes... by your own admission... then you should unvote. Not remove them from the tally. So it's 40%, not 25%. Any player that has grade 5 math is going to see right through your machinations.

I was joking about removing the last four. I wasn't about keeping the first 4. The first votes do count:

Very frequently, scum will vote for their buddies within the first 3 players they will vote

...and I have tallied everybody else's ratios to include the first four. I won't exclude them so that you can pad your percentage. You can't arbitrarily choose which votes count... they all do.

[pwayne66]

Yes but the cicero votes were in a different colum from your votes, obfuscating the true pattern

That is how they are displayed in the Distillery. I had nothing to do with that. Why do you keep claiming that I am trying to hide something? I opened the door and laid it all on the table in raw data. You accuse my of obfuscating patterns and then try to beef up the percentages by remove votes that are sometimes significant and sometimes not.

I'll find the post skruffs.

[pwayne66]

Questions in post 993.


and from post 838:

This is an odd quote. It seems as though you are accusing Cicero of not considering the fact that him and I are scum buddies. What is your position? That Gorgon and I are scum buddies and buddied up to cicero for giggles, or that Cicero Gorgon and I are all scum buddies together?

In post 843 you incredulously replied:

I have focalized my suspicions about pwayne/cicero. Why are you asking me if i think it's one or the other, pwayne?
That comment to cicero was any analysis of him.

I think it's all three of you

, and he, as town, should be suspicious of the way you and gorgon got along, as well as the fairly heavy defense you gave of him (cicero) day one. As town, he should be.
Instead, he's fairly ambivalent. He's ceded that he was wrong about gorgon, he backed off after his attack on me, and now he's 'defaulted' to ssf. Oddly, gorgon was suspicious of ssf too. Right? I mean, am i wrong?

The quote is a little odd, as it also seems to say that you think cicero is town. The bolded part is clear though. While we are at it, I don't think you ever got around to showing how Gorgon and I were exceptionaly chummy.

Could you do that?

[pwayne66]

TS, you have managed to miss the point of those two posts and only respond to the percentages:

Even then, those numbers do not support your claim, nor are they that abnormal. Cicero and I share 4 votes.

Cicero has 2 votes in common with Shaka, Gorgon, theo, ssf, jester, ca, and you. If not for the last few pages where we have been accused of being buddies, (and our last 2 shared votes occurred) there is nothing significant about our shared 2 votes prior.

Do you agree that prior to the skruffs vs. me and Cicero affair, there was nothing unique about our voting? Why or why not?

I have come no where close to attacking everybody that he is attacking and it is only since skruffs and you have accused us of being scum that are voting has been unusually similar.

Can you show this to be false?

Providing the raw data copy and pasted straight from the Distillery to examine your claim that I am, is in no way misrepresenting what happened.

Why do you keep saying that I am misrepresenting the numbers, when I have told you twice that I have directly copy and pasted them?

I have made a case that Cicero and I are not buddies and it continues to go unchallenged, this forces me to assume that the evidence that we are, is this:

In the last few pages, I have voted for TS and Skruffs, and so has Cicero.

Do you have any other evidence of this buddying?

Anyway, last post of the day (my wife is going to kill me...) I've been working to finish my white/TS write up. I will be done tomorrow.

[pwayne66]

Oh yes, I'd like you to write an essay about why cicero is so town that you should attack anyone that dares say otherwise.

...consider me dead (via my wife) but TS, what do you hope to achieve? are you trying to plant the idea that I have attacked everybody that says cicero is scum without actually saying it? If so, you know that you are lying. You have no intention of backing it up because you cannot. This sort of tactic is indicative of what I have seen consistantly from both TS and Skruffs:

1) Make a vague accusation toward someone
2) Ignore all queries and requests to clarify.
3) Ignore all evidence and arguments to the contrary
4) Make vague accusation again.
5) Repeat until town accepts it as gospel.

I feel like I have played fair and reasonable today, and tried to minimize this pissing contest. I have stated my case, asked questions, answered question that are directed at me, and been respectful. You have done none of this.

@Cicero

http://feesher.com/mafia_parse_2.php

[pwayne66]

When have I ever defended cicero from you?

[pwayne66]

We've got a new replacement and are on extended deadline. Does anybody have any idea when the deadline is.

Mod

If its looming, I think another extension is needed until our replacement catches up.

Unvote: Toaster Strudel

we need to chill on the snarkiness, cliquing and tone down the emotion a bit. TS is still my number 1. I am working on a PBP analysis of her and a couple of others. Until there is some constructive content, posts from the replacement, and CA, TS does not need to be at lynch -2.

[pwayne66]

I'm still working on my PBP, real life and studying are catching up with me. Maybe tomorrow, certainly by Monday. Nice summary Hermes. I think TS is at L-2 not L-1, I unvoted. You, CA and Cicero make three.

[pwayne66]

When did CLA become confirmed?

When you got your PM.

Is this a slip?

no.

IS pushing the wrong word?

no.

s the theory apt?

No. It is false and misleading.

If you meta'd him and thought he was town, why would you want to apply pressure?

If I thought he was town I could pressure for an assortment of reasons.

why would you want to focus more attention on him?

I don't know.

Am I interested in persecution?

I believe so.

When they are answered, will my attention move on?

The data does not indicate so. I would have to answer no.

Is posting suspicions scummy?

No.

I don't see the point of putting someone you feel is town close to lynch.
Do you? Explain.

I've seen people put people they feel are town close to lynch for a variety of reasons. Sometimes people will put another player close to lynch in order to get them to talk. Sometimes in order to gauge other's reactions. Sometimes they do not care. Sometimes they are scum trying to get an easy lynch. Sometimes to see how a person will react to pressure.

Define "Crappy Logic", please.

Crappy logic encompasses all sorts of things. Bad inductive reasoning (My dog is a poodle so all are poodles) bad deductive reasoning (If I was a millionaire I would be happy. I am not a millionaire, therefore I am not happy) and the employeement of general logical fallacies.

Would you want to lose the game, as town, because you were being nice to someone that yuo killed as scum in a previous game?

no.

What is the point of you asking this?

It seems to be a key point in your case. In the interest of supporting it, I suspected that you had reasons for believing so and wanted to know what they were.

If you were suspicious of Gorgon for thinking PGup was a townie before he was actually revealed, why were you NOT suspicious of Cicero for the exact same thing?

If I were suspicious of Gorgon for thinking PGup was town, I would be suspicious of Cicero as well.

[pwayne66]

EBWOP:

Is this a slip?

Its possible.

IS pushing the wrong word?

Yes.

[pwayne66]

I gave up on the PBP look. Tried something different. Bandwagon examination (names have been changed to either current name or name when that player died)

The Skitzer random wagon (posts 1-75) ChocolateAttack, jester, herm
The Skruffs Wagon (post 50-250) HackerHuck, cicero, Gorgon, shaka!!, theopor_COD, jester, herm
The skitzer wagon: The sequel (post 325-400)cicero, pwayne66, herm, Theo, TS, SSF)
The HackerHuck Wagon (550-675)cicero, Gorgon, shaka!!, herm, TS)
The skitzer death rattlin' wagon (725-775)ChocolateAttack, cicero, Gorgon, Skruffs, herm, theopor_COD)



Number of bandwagons participated in:

TS- 2
Shaka- 2
hermit- 5
skruffs- 1
CA- 2
HH- 1
cicero- 4
pwayne66- 1
gorgon- 3 (for reference)

I don't know how significant or how accurate the data is (its all from Jordan's edits), but I expect to look into this more.

[pwayne66]

^^^also, did not go beyond post 775. I think there might be a couple of wagons of three that ought to be considered.

[pwayne66]

@pwayne66: is your analysis supportive of Hermit as most likely scum? That's a single criterion, but perhaps Hermit deserves closer examination.

It needs more analysis IMO. The order and timing of the entrance and exit of that wagon should be taken into account and I don't have that information yet. Hopefully by Monday...

[pwayne66]

How are you defining bandwagon, Pwayne?

If any person has three or more votes on them at one time I call it a wagon.

How many people have voted third on a wagon more than once?

This is something I intend to look into.

[pwayne66]

Pwayne, if you're not voting, why not?

I have decided that it is better not to vote for the moment.

[pwayne66]

There is a difference in lynching someone and lynching the right someone. A person that has been on every bandwagon (and every bandwagon except one) has an interest in lynching just someone.

Vote: TheHermit

As far as me not voting, I unvoted in order to bring the conversation back to a helpful tone. I believed TS had been pressured too much and thought if I backed off we might get somewhere. I was wrong, as her posting has dropped off considerably since then.

Had "I just voted somebody" as indicated by a couple of people, TS would be swinging from a tree and I suspect that two current members of her wagon would be happy as hell.

[pwayne66]

@pwayne66: Explain the above please.

Just that you were at lynch -1 without my vote. If I had voted somebody (as cicero had asked) it would have been you. If my current train of thought is correct, cicero and TheHermit would've liked that.

@Skruffs. Yes. My vote on TheHermit is because of my vote count analysis with indicates that SSF has been on every wagon of 3+ that has occurred this game.

I did not vote for SSF because I had not yet been aware of this.

This is nothing like what happened to you.

[pwayne66]

So wait, Pwayne, are you now of the opinion that my intense focus on getting Flea dumped was bussing?

I think this possibility ought to be explored. I don't know if I bussed is the right word. At most, SSF had 4 votes on him when 7 were needed (apparently this is another wagon that I missed when tallying...). Distancing might be more apt, but either way, I'm not ready to make that case yet.

Pwayne - I read your comments on making two people very happy to be quite scummy. I got the impression that you are pretty sure TS is town.

If the two people I thought were scummy are in fact scum, I will be pretty sure that TS is town.

[pwayne66]

How is this useful observation...But how does that move us forward exactly?

It is useful in that it corrects HH's impression. I am not pretty sure that TS is town.

[pwayne66]

skruffs- Wants nearly half the town to claim. Tunneled. Threatens to look into shaka and TS but instead resorts to a lovefest of sorts and returns to his default strategy: Unvote: Cicero, Vote: pwayne....unvote pwayne, vote cicero...repeat as many times as needed.
Selectively reads. Still leaning town on him.

HH- tunneled, lurking and not hunting. Only pops in every once and a while to say "I still think pwayne is scum". If we want to talk about players trying to survive, HH is a survivor. Since it seems to be fashionable to finger the SK (insert dirty joke) this guy is my pick.

cicero- Again, has been on most wagons, but has also been suspicious of most all players in the game. I could say wishywashy buy I think either opportunistic or uncertain is more near the mark. Has turned soft claiming into an art form.
During our round and round with scruffs and TS, I remember being frustrated a number of times when it seemed that he was trying to nurture their stereotypes.
Lynches all lurkers except CA? Could be the other scum.

TS- Tied for two on my scum list and dropping. I've been over this before though.

CA- lurking lurking lurking...and it seems to be working out AOK for him... I am willing to bet he skates by today also.

shaka- I was feeling pretty town about him. Now he is begining to seem a bit wishywashy to me.

hermit- predassor lurked and voted whenever it seemed like he might be able to get a lynch. I counted lynch -2, so I think his defense was exaggerated. Has done nothing really since replacing to suggest that he is scum, but SSF did the dirty work for him. Scumo el numero uno.

Mod Edit

Vote Count

ToasterStrudel- 3 (ChocolateAttack, TheHermit, shaka!!)

pwayne66- 2 (HackerHuck, Skruffs)
TheHermit- 2 (pwayne66, Toaster Strudel)



Not Voting- 1 (cicero)

5 to lynch

5 days till deadline

[pwayne66]

Why is wishywashy a scumtell for you? What does that even mean?

To me, wishywashy is changing positions based upon little or no leading by another player. I think it is scummy as it acts as a means to being opportunistic (ie waiting for a wagon to emerge or receiving validation before stating position). This may not be the definition, but it is what I mean when I say it.

He seemed town when he was singlemindedly focused on HH but now that he's feeling I'm scummy (a fair reaction imho) he seems "wishy washy"?

No. There is no connection, I am not even sure if that is an accurate reenactment of events. He went from HH for nearly 50 pages and in the last two, he has voted for TS, then unvoted and then made (by my estimations) a one sentence remark about thinking you are scummy. That one sentence does not factor into my evaluation of shaka, which does not say that I think that he is scum, or scummy, only that I think he is wishywashy (and that is based only on the last few pages), if I had to say one or the other, I would say town.

How do you distinguish it from uncertain?

Therein lies the problem. At times, I believe that you are geniunely uncertain about who is scummy, so you change your mind. At other times, I feel that you might be jumping to wagons to secure a lynch.

[pwayne66]

How do you factor in the play of Hackerhucks's predecessor and TS's predecessor in reaching your conclusions about them?

There isn't much to factor in:

HH- borchmore? BM was nutty, but it is my feeling that meta gaming makes this a null tell. Kakeng, same thing.

TS- Only one worth mentioning was white, previously I thought he was clean but the play by play I did on him leaves me with some questions. That PBP is, in part, the reason that TS is my #2.

Have you factored in Gorgon's connections to people and Jester's suspicions in your analysis?

No on Jester. You probably remember my attitude towards analizing NK's. This hasn't changed. That's a WIFOMy path.

Yes on Gorgon.

[pwayne66]

That's a fairly inaccurate assessment, all round.

I'm not sure how... I exaggerated when I said you were after HH for 50 pages, but you were pretty intent on lynching kakeng/HH for most of the game. You did vote and unvote TS in the last couple of pages.

Also, I have not accused you of "not doing much".

[pwayne66]

MOD

We need an up to date vote count. I think the last couple have been off. Also, do we get a replacement extension past the 12th?[/b]

@cicero- what do we learn by lynching me?

[pwayne66]

^^^is the hope to pressure CA with 3 days left, or do you feel that he is scum?

[pwayne66]

^^^nevermind... dumb question.

[pwayne66]

...rather than risk lynching CA? Why do you think that is the best strategy?

[pwayne66]

but you want us to fortify the tie at 4-4... that's No lynch.

[pwayne66]

No, I didn't consider that.

[pwayne66]

I guess its pretty obvious where we stand then. Shaka has every intention of unvoting TS (in fact I imagine that he thinks that he already has) HH won't be changing his vote (he'll probably post a confirm vote with little or no other content in fact) or skruffs either for that matter. I'm dead today and in all likelihood, two more townies tonight, and you want me to help increase the likelihood of it being 2-1-2 for tomorrow. No way. No lynch is better. Do your own dirty work.

[pwayne66]

pwayne doesn't want a CA lynch obv.

I don't? How do you figure?

[pwayne66]

Claim? Why? You're already voting for me, therefore you can't hammer. Have shaka, hermit or CA confirm that they are ready to lynch me, and I will be glad to.


As far as voting goes, I voted for Ralph Nader the last presidential election... I don't understand the concept of "a wasted vote". I'll change if and when I am ready. Thanks for the advice though.

[pwayne66]

BTW

Vote:Toaster Strudel

...I'm oppositional defiant too...

[pwayne66]

No you don't. You claim when you are about to be lynched. There have been a couple of players at L-1 so far and we haven't expected them to claim. Right now there are two players at L-1. BTW, we lynch claimed power roles with zero consequence in mini 499... this acts as neither a deterrent or a scum tell for tomorrow. If scum lynch me without me claiming, then you know who is scum tomorrow. But I'll tell you what, if anybody else here is ready for me to claim, I will. It's my opinion that it is too soon. Shaka, CA, or thehermit have not indicated that they are suspicious of me so I have zero reason to expect to be lynched.

[pwayne66]

Did we just lose CA again?

Mod Edit

Vote Count

pwayne66- 4 (HackerHuck, Skruffs, cicero, Toaster Strudel)
ToasterStrudel- 4 (shaka!!, TheHermit, ChocolateAttack, pwayne66)

Not Voting- 0

5 to lynch

Deadline is tomorrow!

[pwayne66]

IS there a reason you would rather nolynch today?

I didn't say that. I clearly said I would rather no lynch than lynch a townie.

Why is pwayne66 not claiming?

This has had been addressed TS, you need to keep up.

Since somebody else asked...

I'm the psychiatrist. Shaka is not SK.

[pwayne66]

Shaka!!, TheHermit or CA are either buddies or dummies for not asking pwayne66 to claim.

Consider that a "threat", pwayne. Better cough up a claim.

Please put in some effort.

[pwayne66]

Shaka, CA are definitely suspicious for not asking for a claim though? HH didn't ask for a claim either...why not him?

[pwayne66]

@ TS- Shaka didn't weigh in either since I was lynch -1... why is HH special?

Mod Edit

Vote Count

ToasterStrudel- 4 (shaka!!, TheHermit, ChocolateAttack, pwayne66)

pwayne66- 3 (HackerHuck, Skruffs, Toaster Strudel)



Not Voting- 1 (cicero)

5 to lynch

Deadline is tomorrow!

[pwayne66]

I felt that shaka was making an effort to be non-confrontational, that is why I chose him. Believe me or don't, I am at lynch -1 and don't need to fear an SK hammer. he/she will just wait until tonight. For the record, psychiatrist is a terrible claim for scum while a sk exists.

[pwayne66]

oh and sorry TS, I missed shaka's post. It just seemed that you were intent that everybody on your wagon was either dumb or scum.

[pwayne66]

@cicero- Not really. The SK will kill me tonight scum or not. I'm dead.

TS's response has been extreme and unhelpful.

I haven't said that she is vanilla town. From a town perspective, I wonder if my lynch is the best thing. Like I said, I am dead tonight, you already have what little data I can offer. The chance that the sk will hit scum still exists. The way I see it, me going into tonight promises two pro-town deaths over night.

From my own perspective, I would like to keep playing and hope against hope that the sk misses sending in his nk.