Open 42 - Friends and Enemies - (Game Over) before 495

[Phate]

Hello. I'm Phate, replacing AlSleet, who failed to pick up his prod. Welcome me.

[Phate]

Mod Edit: Vote Count

Sammich[2](Samruc, Shanba)
Phate[2](ChaosOmega, Simenon)
Shanba[1](Sammich)
Lemming1607[1](Jex)

Not Voting[3](Phate, Lemming1607, Per)

I welcome you Phate, who is replacing AlSleet, and forgot to pick up his prod

Ah-ah-ah. The way you phrase is simplified to "I welcome you, Phate, and forgot to pick up his prod," with the clause indicating the subtext "Phate is a person who is replacing AlSleet." Setting aside the other grammatical errors, it seems to imply that

I

have forgotten to pick up my prod. Also, there needs to be a comma between "you", which is the object, and "Phate", which is the clause defining "you". You're also missing end punctuation.

The corrected sentence stands: "I welcome you, Phate, who is replacing AlSleet, who forgot to pick up his prod."[/englishmajor]

A big, fat =P to you: =P!

Also, I'm currently working on making a post analysis of each player and list of who's scum and who's not. I will have it up either tonight or tomorrow.

[Phate]

The following are my notes on every player. It's basically me trying to get up to speed, as well as sharing my opinions. Feel free to comment - in fact, I expect you to comment. Anyone not responding will be hung by their underdeveloped testicles (or labia; we're equal-opportunity) until dead.

EmpTyger - makes a huge show of leading the town (which appears pro-town, but isn't, necessarily - I'd be ecstatic to be a Mafia playing town leader) and voting for lurkers (which ISN'T pro-town, although some think it is - better a warm, silent body as a townie than an actively posting scum). Asks Sim's opinion (since I believe that ET/CO is scum, this is suggestion that Sim is also scum), who basically replies "Not scum. Duh (Since they're on the same wagon, this is really the only answer for Sim whether he's town, scum, or Mason)." Whether town or scum, that seems a dumb play on ET/CO's part. Perhaps I'm missing something. He spends the remainder of his time agreeing a lot with everyone, asking questions that lead to (IMO) wild goose chases, and discussing the probability of finding Masons with Simenon, while keeping his crusade against lurkers, fading into the background, and eventually leaving (Why is it that the ones who go after lurkers are almost always lurkers themselves?).

Conclusion: Suspicious. Maybe scum. I'd have to see more to know more.

ChaosOmega (replaced EmpTyger) - doesn't make filler post (admirable). Votes Crub and FoS's Sir T in first post, accusing Crub of trying to reveal the Masons and Sir T of bandwagoning. Next post: changes his vote to Samruc, implying that real townies vote instead of just accusing. Next post: revotes Crub with no other reason than that Simenon wanted him to die. (At this point, I am 72% that he is scum. Three votes and one FoS in three posts, including two flip-flops based on public opinion. His accusation to Sir T of bandwagon is paling in comparison to his own behaviour.) Sammich notices this, and confronts him. CO backpedals, saying Crub was his main suspect all the time, and that he just voted for Samruc "to see his response," and also, in essence, admits that his only evidence is Crub's perceived failure (he calls all of Crub's responses appeals to emotion) to defend himself after CO calls him out on mentioning the Masons (Is this particularly damning? I think not. Crub strikes me not as scum, but as a newbie, or unskilled, townie. Turns out I was right.) Casually mentions that Sammich is his first choice for scum (with no justification - this is essentially another completely unfounded FoS based on public opinion), but instead votes for AlSlee simply "because he hasn't posted in 9 days," and because he wouldn't like to be accused of setting up for a hammer. Someone remarks that CO isn't much better. CO curtly defends himself and vaguely agrees that he'd like to hear more from people.

Conclusion: S-C-U-M. In my initial skim, I thought Sim should be the lynch, but as of right now, CO is damned to the Mafia in my opinion. He definitely confirms my suspicious of ET.

Guardian - Nice sense of humour. I appreciate his scenewriting.

Jex - randomvotes Khelvaster. Votes Crub for putting YogurtBandit at L-2 (Hmm.) When Crub OMGUS's him, he tries to set the foundation for a case against Crub. In his next post, he says he's "doing a PBPA of the first person on the list (alphabetically) which just happens to be crub:" (Please. Whether you're scum, town, or Mason, there's no "just happens to be" when every post since your second has targeted Crub.) His PBPA is the beginning of a weak case on Crub that, coupled with Crub's refusal to defend himself, will end in a mislynch. Finally, he notes that Crub is lurking. Crub points out that Jex is on his fourth post, one of which is a randomvote with no explanation. Jex apologises. He remains silent until public opinion sways against Crub, at which time he pops back up and leaps onto the bandwagon, all the while reminding that he's been on Crub since the beginning. His eighth post, on Sep. 14, I really don't like. He responds to Crub's fatalism by saying such fatalism "wreaks [sic] of scum." (This could be a honest mistake, but if so, it's a giant one. At best: Townies aren't afraid to die to help the town win. A 1-for-1 trade is beneficial to the town, and that's what Crub wanted out of this one. At worst: WIFOM. But it's hard to interpret this as reeking of scum.) He apologises for inactivity, saying that he'll "stay up on the game," and defends his vote on Crub by saying that his gut instincts are always right. (O RLY?) Day 2, when Sammich notes that Jex and Sim had been pushing for his lynch almost the whole Day 1, he pleads ignorance by saying he wasn't reading the thread (*eyeroll* That's a cop-out if I've ever heard one. Request replacement, remove your vote and your opinions, or stay up-to-date.) He claims to have done a readthrough and votes Lemming, although mentioning that he also is looking at Sammich. His justification is the hammer on Day 1 (You were VOTING for Crub. If you didn't want him susceptible to a hammer, unvote.) He kind of defends Sammich against Lemming's accusation of spaghetti, and suffixes it with essentially: "but by the way, I'm not saying he isn't scummy." (It seems to me that he wants the easiest lynch, Lemming, but to be able to claim that he's been after Sammich if public opinion sways. His "case" against Lemming is disturbingly familiar - it reminds me of his "case" against Crub.) In his last post, when Shanba says the questions and the phrasing of Sammich's questions are scummy, Jex agreed with that, too. (Told you.)

Conclusion: I'm not certain of his scumminess, but I do believe that he is probably scum, and would support his lynch.

Khelvaster - votes Shanba. Votes Lemming, with little reason other than Samruc's FoS. Leaves.

Conclusion: Could be scum. Could be Mason, too. Not enough content to analyse.

Sammich (replaced Khelvaster) - First thing he does is FoS Shanba, making a weak case backed up through faulty logic. Disagrees with a policy lynch of YB. Goes on to vote ET, with a mediocre base of evidence. Maintains pressure on Shanba, but votes Sir T for a lack of "Town-love." (The fuck? What kind of evidence is that?) Surreptiously asks for a hammer. When Sammich notices this, he responds with, basically, "nuh-uh. If I was asking for a hammer, I would have been harder on him." (If that had any logic to it, it would be WIFOM; since it doesn't, it's just stupid. If he was telling the truth, if that's the case, why even mention it?) Then he OMGUS FoS's Samruc (he also votes himself, but I think he was trying to quote Samruc's vote of him). Shanba picks up on this, and votes Sammich. He backpedals and tries to defend himself, finally (though he denies it and "backs it up" with "reasons") OMGUS votes Shanba. His famous (it is now) "Opportunistic scum, take notice" dissuades anyone from voting for him, and gives him time to jump on the Crub wagon. His last post on the 29th - "I admit it. I would vote anybody except me right now." is ridiculous (Is he attempting to convey paranoia? I don't get it. That's a decidedly anti-town stance, and I can only guess that it's tongue-in-cheek). When Sim votes him, he responds with "What the hell?" (If they're both scum, that could have a double meaning.) At the beginning of Day II, Samm and Sim start out at each other's throats (Odd timing. Maybe trying to make people believe they're not connected). FoS's Sim, Lemming, Shanba, and Jex. The majority of his questions are so loaded as to invalidate them. Sim's question was, Shanba's question was ridiculously so, and the "cases" against Lemming and Jex were weak (Did he plan it that way? WIFOM). EVERYONE picked up on this, and he voted and FoS'd the people who called him out. When his attacks played out, he kind of just faded into the background.

Conclusion: I think he's scum. I'd put him second on my list.

Lemming1607 - Jokes around a bit. When Samruc accuses him, he defends himself. Is generally inactive, remains in the jokevote stage after everyone else has left it. When he asks for a votecount, ET (and Sir T? Unclear) jumps on him. Lemming wtf's in response. He begins to contribute, and I find his analysis on the mindset of the game to be up to par. Unvotes Crub, taking his "it was a joke" defense. Remains steadfast in his belief that A.) talking about who will be killed is WIFOM and B.) talking about the Masons is bad for the town. Votes YB, with unfortunately solid-looking evidence. Questions Shanba's reluctance to lynch YB. Responds to Per's analysis. After a tense period during which YB was at -1, Lemming unvotes. His post 26, on Sep. 13, 1:23 am, was a very well-reasoned case against Simenon, and one with which I can't help but agree. He continues his glorious crusade against unexplained bandwagoning during the initial Crub wagon. He kind of misses Simenon's point about "methodical bandwagoning," as does everyone, I think. His response to "opportunistic scum, take notice" ("hey guys I'm scum and I'm going to make it look scummy to vote for me so that no one will and I will continue to live") was astutely accurate. To no avail, he tries to get people to actually discuss their thoughts. When no one does, he hammers Crub in frustration. Is suspicious of Sammich, but I don't think the suspicion is founded (yet). Game kind of dwindles. He welcomes me with incorrect grammar (scumtell!!!!).

Conclusion: Townie. He uses logic to make his votes, and even if I don't agree with his logic sometimes, it's not bullshit. Furthermore, he's automatically suspicious of those who don't do the same. I think he's townie.

Per - makes detailed analyses when he's on, which is not often. I like his logic, and he notices everything - I only wish he'd post more often.

Conclusion: Townie, and furthermore one who needs to post more often. I like this kid.

Polter

Crub (replaced Polter) - Randomvotes Yogurt Bandit. OMGUSvotes Jex. When Jex immediately pounces on that and attempts to cast suspicion on him, he defends himself with basically "wtf? it was a joke." Oddly, in that post, he mentions the Masons where no mention was necessary or beneficial (Possibly trying to make people believe he's a Mason?). His next post also mentions the Masons, and he claims to have a grasp on 2 or even 3 of them (Guess he wasn't trying to make people believe he's a Mason. Suspicious or more likely noobish, then. Or is this reverse psychology, a la "First person to claim that they're not the doctor is probably the doctor"? This seems more likely, but we'll never know.) When Per raises his figurative eyebrows at this, he says that this was a hint for the masons to be more careful. Oh, and he jumps on the SirT wagon without commenting, something Per also picks up on. (Per seems to be a perceptive player, but it seems more like he's trying to throw suspicion off of Sir T than actually scumhunting. Mason protecting a partner was my first impression, and Mafia doing likewise crossed my mind next. Sir T's death proves that neither is true, however. Perhaps one of the two trying to associate themselves with someone else? Per strikes me as more Mason than Mafia, but I think Mafia would be more likely to do this. I also could be seeing connections where there are none. I'll reserve judgment.) Crub makes an admittedly lame defense (I can definitely see how you guys could mislynch him). When Jex tries to divert the mob from a lurker to Crub, saying Crub is also lurking (Mafia hiding a buddy? I'd count this as a possibility, but since the possible buddy is YogurtBandit, prepredecessor, I know it to be false. Then why? Foreseeing the wagon running out of steam, and switching to an easier target? Possible, but unlikely. Trying to associate YB with himself? This doesn't strike me as advantageous. WIFOM - would a scum do that? Still, though, this definitely doesn't fit my Jex-Mafia profile. I'm less certain of his scumminess.), Crub responds with what is, in essence, "NO U." He welcomes CO. It quickly becomes apparent that public opinion is in favour of a Crub lynch. Crub resigns himself to lynchitude, repeating that when he turns up town, Sim is the next lynch and expresses his (false, in retrospect) belief that Sir T is also mafia. He implies (correctly, I believe), that the scum are all on his case. He makes an unclear post in response to Sammich's "bandwagon"; when Shanba calls it appeal to emotion, he agrees. When Samruc tells him to make himself useful, he votes Sammich. In a noble/lazy play by his part, he plays the martyr to the bitter end (bonus points for the word myopic).

Final Bandwagoners: ChaosOmega, Jex, Lemming, Shanba, Simenon. Probably, all of the scum are on this wagon. At first glance, the incredible speed (5 votes in 4 days, the last 2 less than 2 hours apart) makes me think that it's possible that not all of the scum had time to jump on. On second thought, the scum probably account for the aforementioned speed. The Masons know beyond the shadow of the doubt three players that are not scum (leaving 8 potentials). The Townies know only one (themselves), leaving 10. The Mafia know who the scum are, but know 8 potential Masons. Thus, Masons are 20% more likely to vote for any given non-Mason, and the Mafia have a 20% chance of correctly guessing Masons, all circumstantial evidence aside. So I'd estimate, out of those above, at least two and probably three Mafia are on the wagon, but at least one and possibly two Masons are on the wagon as well.

Samruc - after we move out of the randomvote stage, he becomes suspicious of Shanba, then Crub, but isn't sure enough to lynch Crub. He spends the next several posts nailing Sammich with impeccable logic. Day 2, he wtf's Lemming's hammer, but maintains pressure on Sammich.

Conclusion: Townie, and someone I'd trust to use correct reasoning.

Shanba - past the randomvote stage, I have to say: he agrees with people a lot, but he never really hardcore pushes a lynch. He votes Sammich, who accuses Shanba of scumminess (and seems to be grasping at straws to justify this) and OMGUS's him. He defends himself capably. After being persuaded to join the Crub wagon, he returns to Sammich.

Conclusion: Townie. Somewhat indecisive, but she's right on the money about Sammich.

Simenon - Consistently votes without any justification. When he's called out on this, he pushes a cryptic question: Is it a coincidence that he's always the third onto the wagon? I think he may be trying to suggest he's a Mason (the third Mason, no less), but I don't think he is. He also may be suggeting that he's methodically bandwagoning to apply pressure systematically, but if that's the case, why does he stay there and lynch, rather than pulling out when it becomes apparent no information is forthcoming? He really doesn't provide any reason for me to think he's anything but scum. I'm amazed that you people voted him over Crub - compare their responses to attacks.

Conclusion: Scum. Not certain, but fairly sure.

Sir Tornado - getting tired of writing analyses. He's dead. What can we learn from his death? Not a hell of a lot that I can find.

YogurtBandit - Made a grand total of two posts.

Alsleet (replaced YogurtBandit) - Obligatory "I exist" post. Mourns YB's suspicious (or at least, interpreted that way) play (which is understandable, since we're a vanilla townie). Notes short-lived argument between Shanba and Sir T and gently implies a connection (in retrospect, Sir T's vanilla status invalidates this line of reasoning, although it was weak from the beginnin). Notes that the last three posters (Sim, Jex, and Sam, in ascending order of included "logic") are gung ho to lynch Crub on what he feels is substandard evidence. Elects not to vote just yet. QFT's Sammich responding to Simenon, opining that Simenon wants to kill Lemming with no evidence he plans to share. Suspects Simenon, but reserves vote or FoS. After Simenon replies that he would prefer to lynch Crub first, with no supporting evidence, and Crub cheerfully threatens that Sim will be next to be lynched, and Jex drastically misreads Crub's behaviour, Al makes an unclear post. He comments that it blows "Answer the question" out of the water, and accuses someone of double standards. QFT's Samruc's opinions on CO's opinions on Sammich, expressing that Sammich is worth examination, but Simenon is scummier, still withholding vote/FoS (Why??). Apologises for lack of activity, finally actualises opinion with a vote. Reiterates his reluctance to wagon on Crub, and expresses equal reluctance for Sammich. Expresses that his "prime candidate is actually Shanba," citing erratic play (odd switch. Does it have merit? Only time will tell).

Conclusion: Cautious townie. Reluctance to bandwagon is admirable - could indicate Mason, but I know otherwise. Doesn't offer much, but sees through bullshit logic for what it is. Reluctance to vote is slightly suspicious and could indicate Mafia, but again, I know otherwise.

Phate (replaced Alsleet) - Replaced in. Jumped all over bad grammar. Made a priority to post this.



Ok, now that that's over with, I'd just like to say this - I have made mention to the Masons in the above analysis, but as best I can, I have not shared my opinions on who they are, or referenced them except to distinguish them from the Mafia where it was strictly necessary, to help avoid a Mason mislynch. But that seems to me like an easy way for scum to say, "He wants to out the Masons! DEATH!"

So if someone criticises my mention of the Masons and gives no reasons that I have not just responded to, beware, they're just looking for an excuse to lynch me. But if someone criticises my mention of the Masons (or anything else), and gives actual evidence to back it up, then listen to them, and if I don't respond well enough, goodbye, Phate.

[Phate]

Ok, before I go on, I'd like to quote myself, so my position is not misconstrued:

Conclusion: Scum. Not certain, but fairly sure.

I don't know you're scum. I suspect you're scum. I am almost certain CO is scum. Next on the list is Sammich. Third: you and Jex.

I demand an explanation for why this makes me scum.

To me it looks like you're trying to subtly twist what I'm saying. Perhaps it's just an overreaction to what you perceive as an accusation without due evidence, but it's worth a thought.

Huh, interesting. Why as scum would I try to claim that all the wagons I've jumped on have had two other mason buddies on them?

That simply isn't logical. Think before you type.

Why wouldn't you? If I, as scum, was able to convince the town that I was a Mason, and thus anyone who defended me (my mafia buddies) probably was too, I would be ecstatic. Are you going to grace us with your REASON why it isn't logical?

I haven't been "suggesting" anything. Read my posts. I've laid out everything I want you to see.

I can't figure you out. Maybe you always play this way, but to me it looks like you're deliberately withholding information. Since there are no investigative roles, there is no emperical information you are capable of possessing (unless you're scum). So in that case, you could only be withholding an opinion (unless you're scum). The only opinion I can see that is worth withholding is the identities of the Masons. That has little to do with defending your votes.

So I'm going to call your fucking bluff. In response to "Why did you vote X," you asked, "Do you think my 'methodical bandwagoning' a coincidence?" I'll answer you: the nature of the question suggests that it is not. So no, for the purposes of this little game, we'll say that I don't think it's a coincidence. Your turn: Why are you voting the people for whom you're voting?

You haven't really provided any reason other than I have deliberately dodged not giving a reason for my votes...

You're right. That + the way Crub was treated for behaving in a similar fashion strike me as very odd.

...which you haven't provided a reason for backing that up in the first place.

Clarify. I don't understand this. Are you saying that I need to provide a reason why unexplained bandwagoning is a scumtell?

Also, you claim not to be a mason, so you have no grounds to assume that I'm not.

Maybe you are. Maybe you're not. It's possible that you are, but I doubt it. In any case, I haven't assumed anything about the identities of any Masons. Where do you think I have?

This:

Reluctance to bandwagon is admirable

is laughable.

*shrugs* Laugh if you like. Perhaps I was unclear, but I believe that reluctance to bandwagon without due evidence (which is what I meant) is admirable.

I also find it incredibly interesting that the first on your list is the person who is voting you... Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not first on your suspicion list. That would instead be CO, who is also voting you.

I'd like to say first that this is screaming for a snide comment like "Think before you post." Then I'd like to go to the actual logic. So I will.

To be honest, I hadn't even looked at the vote count when I made the analysis - I started it when the mod pm'ed me telling I was probably going to get the replacement. That's why I have an analysis of each player (I did it in alphabetical order, meaning I analysed Alsleet first, but I organised it in alphabetical order of original player, with replacers chronologically after their replacee).

But you know, what? I find that interesting too. Very interesting. Let's go look at those posts, and the reasons for voting AlSleet.

Because he hasn't posted in 9 days, and I'd rather not put Sammich at L-1 yet, even though he's my first choice for scum right now.

In Simenon's TooMuchScum, ALSleet lurked before eventually asking for a replacement.

Both voting for a lurker with no reason other than that he's a lurker (and both within a page of each other). Tell me: who benefits more from seeing a lurker (assuming the lurker is of undetermined status) killed? Town loses a warm body. Scum comes 1 step closer to the win. So yes, I think it's very suspicious that two people I find scummy happen to be voting for a lurker, one I replaced. And I'm not surprised at all that you showed them the surface of this, without digging a little deeper to the reasons behind the vote.

Everyone please pressure Phate.

Call it what you like. You're not calling for pressure any more than you were for Crub. You're calling for a lynch. Pressure is designed to gain information. A lynch is not. If you had wanted to pressure Crub, you wouldn't have let him go to L-1 and be susceptible to a hammer. That's true of everyone on the wagon.

Why? If you're protown, it could mean you feel threatened - otherwise, you've given no reason (seeing a pattern here) to label me scum. If you're Mafia... well, you could feel threatened.

Care to respond?

[Phate]

Lolwut?... =\... Not really.... What the hell?... Weak?... Wtf.

Now that we have those out of the way, let's move on to the ones that give something to respond to.

It wasn't mediocre. =\... It wasn't an OMGUS, but if you see it that way, I'll refrain from headdesking and yelling... My only comment to this is that you suck.

Matters of opinion. =P Of course, so is almost everything in a Mafia game, but without any evidence to back up your statements, I feel no desire to change them.

Well, maybe the famous quote'll give me a custom title or something. =\

Put it in your signature. "Wth? I think there's a bandwagon beginning to form on me. Opportunistic scum, take notice." Maybe it'll work.

You're ridiculous. I don't know how you're analyzing this stuff, but this is BS.

Your communication style reminds me of a friend of mine. You misunderstand me. I'm not using that statement as a reason to consider you scum. I'm just saying it sounded so ridiculous it had to be a joke, but it was a poor one. In other words: "Lolwut?"

[Phate]

At the beginning of Day II, Samm and Sim start out at each other's throats (Odd timing. Maybe trying to make people believe they're not connected).

Are you trying to link us together as scum or something?

I think that at least one of you and maybe both ARE scum. So yes, I'm searching for possible connections between you in the hopes of finding a link.

[Phate]

To me it looks like you're trying to subtly twist what I'm saying. Perhaps it's just an overreaction to what you perceive as an accusation without due evidence, but it's worth a thought.

Sorry, but I don't put in the work if you don't. In fact I find it very necessary that you justify that in order to see where you come from.

Fair enough. To clarify (/justify) what I mean: If you're town, then the difference between "Phate says he suspects Simenon is scum" and "Phate says Simenon is scum" is minimal, and the difference is likely due to an overreaction (IMO) on your part. But if you're scum, then the difference is huge. If I suspect you and give reasons to back it up, that's fine; if I say (stating it as a fact) that you're scum, then no proof is enough. Short of being scum, or being a Mason when all the vanilla townies are eliminated, or being the only townie left with three other players, I can't KNOW who is scum. So it is untrue to say that something "makes you scum," which implies that the evidence is both completely damning and beyond reproach. If I were perceived to have said that, I suspect that it could be used against me.

Happy? Why or why not?

Edit: just saw your next post. There you again with "makes me scum." Are you doing it just to throw it in my face?

When a townie votes, it is because they think the person they're voting for is scum (usually; this is a generalisation, but you catch my drift). They have a reason for doing so. When scum vote, it is because they want a townie to be lynched (again, a generalisation, but again, you catch my drift). They need no other reason to desire this, so unless they invent reasons or agree with the reasons of those before them, they vote without justification. Thus, in my opinion, voting without justification (especially when repeated, and leading to a mislynch) is a scumtell, because townies will always have a reason, whether flawed or not, (the reason they think the person they're voting for is scum), but scum don't need a reason to want a townie to be lynched.

Good enough? Why or why not?

I didn't vote ALsleet just for lurking, but rather because ALSleet tends to flake as scum.

What do you mean by "flake"? Does AlSleet "flake" as town?

Now that I've "put in the work," I've got a questions for you:

Why are you "methodically bandwagoning," i.e. voting for people without revealing your reasoning?

[Phate]

Oh, and btw, I'm not voting yet because I'd like to see those I've accused respond to this before I make any decisions.

[Phate]

I'll respond to the last question first, because it colours the rest of my post.

Phate how new are you to mafia?

Well... actually... this is my first game. But I had some friends who liked to play, and I've checked out the Wiki, and watched some games, and I pride myself on the logic.

Because I would be claiming two mason buddies that aren't actually mason buddies. Convincing the town to an extent possibly, but the town can just look back at my voting record and lynch me instantly.

I see, and concede the point.

I'm voting you for reasons already stated. I voted the people I voted originally because they had votes on them and I didn't think they were not town (with the exception of one very special vote).

Didn't think they were not town... *puzzles that one out* So, if by "town," you mean "townie," then you thought they were either Masons or Mafia. If, by "town," you mean "protown," you mean you thought they were Masons or townies. So why would you vote them? I have some ideas, but... hmm.

Crub had a very different tendency to omgus all over the place and overreact, to the point where it looked like he just gave up.

*thinks* That may be true, but I still think your reactions were similar, but your treatment was different. I'll file that away for future reference.

For reactions, to speed up the pace of this generally slow game, to shorten the length of day one (scattered one wagons tend to make games longer by losing their focus), so that someone could ask this very question, and finally a super sekrit recon that I'll state after the game. I can assure you thought it's not rolerelated. All of those answers about equally.

Maybe so. That doesn't completely excuse you in my eyes, but I'm not anywhere nearly as certain that you're scum, after you actually began to answer my questions.

Let me start at the first conclusion: that voting without reasoning is a scumtell. By far, the scum I've seen (and indeed my play in general) vote with giving a reason to try to appear town, and town vote without reasoning (for reasons I can discuss later). I can point out many, many players who vote without reasoning, and indeed I can name many players who always vote without reasoning. They obviously can be both town and scum. Therefore my experience has led me to conclude that this is not a scumtell but is a tell for playstyle. In fact, you can tell a scum by their demanding to give reasoning- something that makes them try to appear town (not suggesting I think you are scum because of this). I can back this up by naming the players and linking their past games, but come on. Search for a game three years ago and you'll find most players simply voted for no reasoning, or if they did state it, used bandwagoning to justify it.

So to sum up the points herein as I understand it:
It is not uncommon or unnacceptable for townies to vote without giving a reason.
Scum are more likely than town to demand reasoning.

Can anyone else validate this? The second point seems nonsensical to me - as a townie, I can say for damn sure that I want to know why people are voting like they are.

Your second conclusion I need further information about you. Do you recognize any positive arguments for voting without reasoning?

I'm trying to make people think for themselves, which is strangely something my hands-off playstyle has evolved to do.

Now try reading what I just said in context of lemming's interrogation. Can you see why I made that statement?

The teacher role, if sincere, is appreciated, and I would definitely enjoy discussing this with you after the game. Until then, though, playing the mentor doesn't grant immunity. Turning around an accusation with a Morgan Freeman-esque "You tell me, grasshopper" doesn't work. If I can't find a valid reason, you can just look wise and say, "keep looking." If I can, you can smile and nod, having just manipulated me into letting you off my own hook.

But yeah. Notice to everyone: Since there appears to be a bandwagon on Sammich, and since I think he's scum, and since he's failing to defend himself, I will hereby vote for him in +- 20 hours unless he provides me with a satisfactory response. That will put him at L-1, unless someone votes for him, in which case it will put us at Day 3.

[Phate]

*blinks* That was fast.

Simenon, you remember what I said two posts ago about the possibility of scum subtly misquoting me and then using the misrepresentation of my opinion to cast suspicion on me? I believe I said:

Fair enough. To clarify (/justify) what I mean: If you're town, then the difference between "Phate says he suspects Simenon is scum" and "Phate says Simenon is scum" is minimal, and the difference is likely due to an overreaction (IMO) on your part. But if you're scum, then the difference is huge. If I suspect you and give reasons to back it up, that's fine; if I say (stating it as a fact) that you're scum, then no proof is enough. Short of being scum, or being a Mason when all the vanilla townies are eliminated, or being the only townie left with three other players, I can't KNOW who is scum. So it is untrue to say that something "makes you scum," which implies that the evidence is both completely damning and beyond reproach. If I were perceived to have said that, I suspect that it could be used against me.

That in mind, let's watch how my opinion evolves as ChaosOmega goes on. First, here's a quote from me:

Crub strikes me not as scum, but as a newbie, or unskilled, townie. Turns out I was right

Then here's CO's spin on it:

The wording suggests that you were playing and you felt that Crub was a townie, but you weren't even playing day 1. It just seems like you're trying to word it in a way as to make it obvious I was wrong.

And by the end of the post:

Considering you think the Crub lynch was a bad one since you knew he was a newbie townie...

Interesting how first, I note that my opinion differed from CO's (which is his focus, but really my opinion differed from the majority of the players - I didn't mean this as a jab at CO for being wrong, but a question of, in retrospect, whether his case was strong enough for a lynch, based on the information he had at the time. If not, it warrants further investigation.)

After his analysis, it WAS a jab at him specifically, with no other purpose, and furthermore presumptuous of me to disagree. And by the end, I KNEW that Crub was a newbie townie (but I only THINK the Crub lynch was a bad one - Incongruous?). This is called "twisting my words."

Another example:

Looking over your list, I'm happy with my vote on you. Let's put your summaries of all players in a list:

ChaosOmega: definite scum
Jex: probable scum
Khelvaster: could be scum/could be mason
Sammich: scum
Lemming1607: townie
Per: townie
Samrus: townie
Shanba: townie
Simenon: fairly sure scum
Phate: townie (obviously)

It looks like you're trying to do the same thing Sammich is, which is to suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks. So there are 4 people who you are at least fairly sure are scum, in addition to another person who believe could be scum. And surprisingly, the person who hammered day 1 is not in your long list of suspicions.

*winces* Ouch. That sounds BAAD, doesn't it? It's easy to just look at this and take CO's word for it. I mean, his sarcasm and negative phrases are tearing my arguments apart. Look at some of the language: "suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks," "long list of suspicions," and saying that I believe 5 people may be scum.

5 scum? It's unreasonable for someone to think that, isn't it? After all, Sammich was suspected for four! So five must be even scummier! That's more than half of the remaining players! But there's a little problem with that:

I never said this. I'm being blatantly misquoted.

So with that in mind, let's go over the post and separate the actual content from the propaganda.

My first post, I voted Crub for the mason comment that stood out to me. It was just my initial suspicion at the time. Next post, I vote for Samruc to get an answer on something. Third post, I'm satisfied with his answer, and I go back to the person I was initially suspicious of, now with me being more sure because of his comments leading up to my third post.

If you're town, that's correct.

But what if you're scum? What would you have done? Hmm. For the purposes of this little scenario: You're looking for a Crub lynch, because he's not defending himself well and he looks like an easy lynch. Some of the townies agree, but one of them, Samruc, doesn't vote. You attempt to pressure him into a vote ("You suspect Crub, but won't vote him, so I'll vote you to

make

you vote Crub"). Afterwards, when the Crub wagon is picking back up, you jump back on with no more than an "I agree."

That seems much more likely to me.

The reason why I voted with every one of my posts was because of the

The reason why I voted with every one of my posts was because of the fact that I wasn't posting too much day 1. I'm not saying it's a good reason, but with all that time in-between the posts, my viewpoints on things are bound to change.

Not sure how significant this is, but it's interesting that Jex, one of the other people I suspect are scum, used this same reason to justify the opposite behaviour. Which is it: lack of activity causes more change of opinions, or less?

Oh, and how is my behavior "paling in comparison" to that of Sir Tornado? He wanted someone lynched for reasons that have nothing to do with the current game.

This doesn't just miss my point, it sidesteps it and clotheslines it on the rebound. He accuses Sir Tornado of bandwagoning without sufficient reasoning. Next post, he votes Crub, who's being wagoned (reasoning: one post that commented on the Masons). Next post, he votes Samruc to try to get him onto the Crub wagon (reasoning: If you're suspicious, why don't you vote?). Next post, he jumps back to Crub (his entire post was: "I agree. Vote: Crub." This was in response to Simenon's post, quoted in its entirety here: "That's :badvoting:. We should be voting Crub.") Sir T, on the other hand, jumped onto one bandwagon and pretty much stayed there, citing a valid metagame decision - in his experience, the town tends to lose games when YogurtBandit plays. I'd call that "paling in comparison."

Him talking about the masons I thought was suspicious. I thought he was scum because of that in combination with his response to the votes he received.

I maintain that both Simenon and Sammich now have similarly failed to defend themselves, with different results (looks around). Well, different for Simenon, anyway. Sammich seems pretty sunk.

In response to your list, I'd like to make a more accurate list.

ChaosOmega: S-C-U-M. In my initial skim, I thought Sim should be the lynch, but as of right now, CO is damned to the Mafia in my opinion. He definitely confirms my suspicious of ET.

Jex: I'm not certain of his scumminess, but I do believe that he is probably scum, and would support his lynch.

Sammich: I think he's scum. I'd put him second on my list.

Lemming1607: Townie. He uses logic to make his votes, and even if I don't agree with his logic sometimes, it's not bullshit. Furthermore, he's automatically suspicious of those who don't do the same. I think he's townie.

Per: Townie, and furthermore one who needs to post more often. I like this kid.

Samruc: Townie, and someone I'd trust to use correct reasoning.

Shanba: Townie. Somewhat indecisive, but she's right on the money about Sammich.

Simenon: Scum. Not certain, but fairly sure.

Phate: Townie (obviously).

Now look at the difference between my list and his. Yes, he made "I think so" statements by me into absolute statements. But what's the biggest difference?

Oh, right. He added a player that was replaced. So when I have Khelvaster (maybe scum), followed by Sammich (probably scum), that's only one person. But I guess he didn't notice this. Well, I'm going to stop this accusation in its tracks. There are 3 Masons, 3 Townies, and 3 Mafia left. Having four people you suspect are scum isn't unreasonable - obviously, you're not right on every one of them, but you could be right on the 75% majority.

Suggesting that you suspect 5 in a game of 3 Masons, 3 Mafia, and 4 Townies is a lot different, though. I'd hate to have a misquote make people think I said that.

It looks like you're trying to do the same thing Sammich is, which is to suspect a bunch of people and get on the one that sticks.

Let's break this sentence down. The first part of it is an attempt to link my behaviour with Sammich's behaviour. The second part is an accusation.

So first let's deal with the first part: The difference between Sammich and I is that I actually provide reasons rather than just accusations. Search my posts for loaded questions, or for cases so baseless they don't even require an answer. Get back to me on that.

Next: If I know there are three scum, and I've narrowed it down to 4 potential people, any of whom I would support the lynch for,

why is that a bad thing?

I'm curious as to why you're not suspicious of Lemming1607.

This has the most merit of anything so far in this post.

I already responded to it, though, in my analysis of Lemming. He strikes me as hammering out of frustration and lack of activity. I don't think it's a good idea, but his behaviour makes me think he's completely town - indeed, the only thing I can find that ISN'T town is the aforementioned hammer. So I'm willing to overlook it for now - but never think I've excused it, only that I have other people much higher on my scumlist.

Like you.

P.S. Since I really don't want to put Sammich at L-1 just yet, and because he says he's going to work on a response, I'm going to hold off on my vote. If no defense is forthcoming, though, expect my vote around this time tomorrow.

[Phate]

You know what's really frustrating? Putting hours into an analysis only to have no one read it.

Shanba, Samruc, anyone who hasn't responded yet, do you think my logic is sound?

Also:

I haven't really done much during D2 yet. More will come on Saturday.

It didn't. I really hope it will soon.

Mod: Prod Per, please.

[Phate]

*suspicious WTF*

WTFF, Lemming? It's nowhere near time to put someone at L-1. We want discussion and no quick lynch, don't we?

I personally also support Sammich's lynch, as I think he's scum, but this is way too fast. Quick lynches are NOT GOOD FOR TOWN. Even if we knew he was scum, his responses and other players' responses can give us clues to our next lynch.

Someone else who thinks putting someone at L-1 this soon is insanity, unvote please.

[Phate]

Is it really early enough to put someone at *L-1*?? I think Sammich is scum. I'd vote for him. But I don't think we've given him adequate time to respond.

Sammich, if I were you I'd talk fast and well.

Anyone else who thinks this is too soon, unvote please.

And btw, Lemming. Up until a second ago, I was willing to write off your hammer as frustration. But we're what, 3 pages in? L-1??? This is highly suspicious

[Phate]

The gist of what I was trying to say is - phate, I don't think your reaction is warranted.

For the record, I agree that it is too early for L-1. But you said you would make an L-1 or even a hammer vote (!!), but then, when someone else does, you condamn him for it. You are making a very sharp, very fast U-turn here.

I changed my mind.

Since there appears to be a bandwagon on Sammich, and since I think he's scum, and since he's failing to defend himself, I will hereby vote for him in +- 20 hours unless

he provides me with a satisfactory response

.

Now, while the response is far from satisfactory, he is at least presumably trying. And while I doubt that he's going to give us much more than what he is now - greatly flawed analysis - it's at least worth a shot. More valuable than his response at this point (assuming he's going to keep giving us this diarrhea in place of logical defense) is the responses of others: for example, Lemming's setup (or my threatened setup/hammer, if you want to count that; there's no reason you shouldn't, but I don't) is suspicious to me. I was willing to overlook his D1 hammer, but he's just moved up to number 4.5 or so on my scumlist.

Also, on a more psychological note, I'm OCD and a complete control freak. It doesn't bother me to hammer someone. But if it someone else hammers without my permission, it stresses me out. =] <-- Not a good reason, but true.

Thank you, Sammich, for the "vote analysis." Although it's not a vote analysis, it's a vote record. Analyses imply commentary. So... yeah. I'll maybe figure out a way to use that hopefully. Doesn't contribute anything to your defense.

Let's look at Sammich's "points."

Point 1 - Jex Incongruity - I think Shanba and Jex adequately defended Jex on this one.

Point 2 - Agreement with Phate - The fact that you may agree with me on someone else I think is scum has nothing to do with your defense.

Point 3 - Response to Phate's Analysis - As Shanba pointed out, bolding one unimportant line and calling it WIFOM is not a valid defense.

Point 4 - Phate's Mention of the Masons - As Shanba pointed out, I already explained this.

Point 5 - Simenon's Request for Pressure on Phate - Per mentioned this. Actually, I don't think that's unusual. I'm a new player in the game whose allegiance is uncertain. Simenon has some sort of pressure-bandwagon fetish going on, so it's only natural that he would apply it to me immediately.

Point 6 - Comment on Samruc's Comment on Pressure - Agreed. You ARE under pressure, Sammich... but you're not defending yourself. And I don't think you can, because I don't think you're town. But if you are, and if you can, this is about your last chance.

Point 7 - Response to Lemming's Vote - And a merry WTF to you too.

Point 8 - Response to Phate's Urge of Caution - I DO want to lynch you. Just not yet. And I'd say soon. I'm willing to give you about one more post worth of soon.

Point 9 - Response to Shanba's Comment on Wasted Time - A valid point. Losing long posts sucks.

Point 10 - Final Thoughts - Why do you think Shanba is scum?

Point 11 - "When I die..." - See Crub, Day 1.

That was a complete waste of time. Alright, if you don't change my mind within 24 hours, I think I'm willing to vote you.

Yes I was voting for Crub, but lemmings vote on crub was merely because he wanted the day over. He hadn't found crub scummy the entire day then suddenly hammers. I find that attitude anti-town.

I maintain my point of view. If you're part of a wagon that has someone at L-1, calling someone out for the hammer is probably hypocritical.

Glad to have you back, Per.

OTOH means On The Other Hand. Here's a useful resource - http://foldoc.org/contents/chat.html - great for those who don't understand ASCIIbonics.

I think that's everything.

[Phate]

*writes Sammich off as scum who refuses to try to defend himself*

Ok, here's my proposal.

We're reasonably sure that Sammich is scum. I think that at this point, Shanba, I, Per, Sammich, Lemming, and maybe some others would be willing to lynch Sammich.

Let's put that aside for a moment, though.

I propose that we accept Sammich as the vastly most likely lynch for today... and then leave his lynch on hold and explore other routes for the following days. Better to discuss this before a townie is NK'ed than after. Then, tomorrow and forward, we'll have foundations to build upon.

I'd specifically like to explore possible cases on Jex, CO, and Lemming, although anyone is welcome to contribute anything.

I'll start with Lemming, because I think it will be the shortest - Lemming, why did you hammer Crub? Why are you in favour of a quick Sammich lynch? I don't think you're scum, but I'd like to hear your detailed rationales for both decisions, if you will.

[Phate]

Err... when I listed Sammich as someone I think would be willing to lynch Sammich, I meant SAMRUC as someone I think would be willing to lynch Sammich.

[Phate]

Mod Edit: Vote Count

Sammich[3](Shanba, Simenon, Lemming1607)
Phate[1](ChaosOmega)
Lemming1607[1](Sammich)

Not Voting[4](Phate, Per, Samruc, Jex)

Really? You have Samruc as neutral? He's struck me as very town. What makes you think differently?

[Phate]

Simenon - That's why I thought you were scum. Less sure now.

Lemming - Fair enough. That's what I expected to hear.

Shanba - I don't think anything out of Sammich's fingers is going to be worth reading from this point on.

[Phate]

Oh, fuck it.

Vote: Sammich

[Phate]

You may very well be right. I am a vanilla townie (and since we're at LyLo, I would roleclaim if I was a Mason at this point).

But yeah, you may be right about Lemming. I'm going to go read up on that right now.

I'm also going to go see who Jex conspicuously ignores. If, in our current situation, we can use PoE to find the scum, I'm willing to do it/

[Phate]

You may very well be right. I am a vanilla townie (and since we're at LyLo, I would roleclaim if I was a Mason at this point).

But yeah, you may be right about Lemming. I'm going to go read up on that right now.

I'm also going to go see who Jex conspicuously ignores. If, in our current situation, we can use PoE to find the scum, I'm willing to do it/

[Phate]

Whoops, sry for double post.

[Phate]

Ok, after reading the last few pages, I'm not anywhere nearly sure Lemming is scum. He'd be in my neutral range. I have a better idea - let's lynch ChaosOmega. No offense or anything, and I know I was wrong about Sammich too, but you've been wrong twice in a row now, Simenon, and there always is the possibility that you're scum distracting us so you can kill us all tonight. So let's say it's my turn, mkay?

*clears throat and imitates Simenon*

I'm in favour of a CO lynch. Everyone please pressure CO. Voting Lemming is :badvoting: We should be voting CO.

Also, I'm in favour of a mass roleclaim. I claim vanilla townie.

[Phate]

Shanba - How do you see Perscum? I would be willing to lay money down (six cents, to be exact) on Per's alignment, and I think it's town.

[Phate]

*completely confused*

Are you talking to me? You would like me to stop bringing up the possibility that you're scum? I don't think so, especially when I was using it to support a point (my favoured lynch over yours). And counterclaiming mason? No. I'm not claiming mason, counter or otherwise.

[Phate]

Your claim? The only thing you've claimed is town. And I'm saying that since you've been wrong twice in a row, it's possible that you're scum. How that means I look like a nonmason and simultaneously implies that I'm a mason and you're a nonmason is beyond me.

[Phate]

Ah. Completely missed that. I maintain, though - you could be scum, claiming mason. We don't get any more mislynches.

[Phate]

As I understand it, you told me that noting your possible scummitude was stupid because it either made me look like a nonmason or like I was subtly counterclaiming.

My comment was intended to convince the town to try lynching ChaosOmega instead of Lemming. Mentioning the fact that you've been wrong twice in a row now and that we have no more free mislynches helps support my point.

But at any rate, would you support a CO lynch? And while we're here, where IS CO? He should post soon.

[Phate]

I do see your point.

But that's WIFOM. If I were a Mason and you weren't, I might say it to cast doubt on your masonry, or I might not and just press a case against you, knowing you're scum and counterclaiming only when necessary. If I were Mafia, I might say it to cast doubt on your masonry by impersonating a mason and implying you were scum, or I might not because that's what the town would expect me to do. If I were town, I might say it because I didn't think of all the possible consequences and I missed the line where you claimed mason, or I might not because I did and I didn't.

I need a second opinion. I keep bouncing back and forth between "Oh, awesome, he wants to help me" and "He's scum lulling me into a false sense of security." What does someone else think?

[Phate]

Shanbathinks correctly. FoS me all you like - you're only reinforcing my opinion.

Simenon, I do see your point, and I'd like to discuss it further with you after the game.

[Phate]

And I merely made an offhand comment that you hadn't posted. I didn't make a calculated statement, a la "ChaosOmega needs to post, and no one else does. Furthermore, his lack of posting is scummy while no one else's is." I just said "Where is CO, anyway? He needs to post."

Odd that you always seem to misinterpret my words in the most suspicious way possible.

Vote: ChaosOmega

[Phate]

Unvote

Thank you, I missed that. I'm mixed up with another game I'm playing in where there are only two scum.

HoS ChaosOmega

[Phate]

I would rather a CO lynch, but if we can't get that, I'd settle for a Lemming lynch. I could be wrong, but my intuition tells me that Per's lurking has nothing to do with being scum.

CO feels slimy. I'm surprised you have him as neutral and Per as scum.

On the other hand, after trying to fit the puzzle pieces together a la logic puzzle, I'm having the last scum come down to Per or Samruc, and I don't think it's Samruc.

Those who haven't posted yet need to.

[Phate]

Mod: Prod Per, please/

Mod Edit: Done.

[Phate]

I merely made an offhand comment that you hadn't posted. I didn't make a calculated statement, a la "ChaosOmega needs to post, and no one else does. Furthermore, his lack of posting is scummy while no one else's is." I just said "Where is CO, anyway? He needs to post."

Odd that you always seem to misinterpret my words in the most suspicious way possible.

Any response, CO? Or should I take your silence as agreement that you're doing your damnedest to twist my words?

[Phate]

Why not? I'm trying to provoke him into posting.

[Phate]

I'd like an answer, Sim - why WOULDN'T a protown player say this?

[Phate]

No, no, you misunderstand. I'm not using it as an argument. More of a taunt than anything. As I said, I'm trying to provoke him into posting. I'm also implying that suddenly disappearing after I've torn apart his argument and cast suspicion on him is scummy.

[Phate]

ChaosOmega, you need to fucking post. Respond to my post.

Lemming, you too. What do you think about the fact that Simenon is pushing for your lynch, and the rest of the town is leaning toward agreement? Can you respond to the concerns he's put forth?

Shanba, I'm taking up your offer, and I request that you do a reread and muster up some coherence. =P Now that you've said WHO you think is scum/not, say WHY, please.

Simenon, please follow through with your analysis of the voting record now. I'm interested in your interpretation.

Per, you also need to fucking post. Do so. Respond to Sim's suspicion of you. Hell, respond to ANYTHING or

ask for replacement

.

[Phate]

Oh, and Samruc, I'm conspicuously leaving you out because I can't think of anything in particular to ask you, but after a readthrough, my opinion of you is slightly altered. I know hold you and Per both at neutral - I suspect one of you is scum, but I don't have enough evidence to decide which. For this reason, I want you both to start posting.

Hmm.

Samruc, what do you think of Per?

Per, what do you think of Samruc?

[Phate]

Hmm. I don't know. Could be an innocent mistake, could be a scumtell. How long has Lemming been here anyway?

Hm. He's not that new.

I don't know. I would support his lynch at this point, but I don't know whether I'd call that particular post scummy. Shanba, Simenon, Per, CO, what do you think?

Lemming, care to explain?

[Phate]

Happy birthday, Shanba.

[Phate]

What do you mean, using random.org for order? Why would we randomly order our top suspects?

[Phate]

Oh. *is a dumbass* Never mind.

[Phate]

That was amazing, Shanba. Your analysis has won me over. I had already believed that CO and (lately) Lemming were a scumpair, but your reasoning has decided my tossup between Per and Samruc.

[Phate]

I've been pushing CO's case since I replaced in, and nothing he has done so far has made me anything but more sure of his scummitude.

Vote: ChaosOmega

[Phate]

unvote

I want to hear what the new kid has to say.

[Phate]

What is TL;DR?

I don't understand how I depleted any information. By voting? By unvoting?

[Phate]

Oh. Just figured it out. Too long, didn't read. I've heard someone say that.

[Phate]

Samruc - lame. The fact that Shanba was third out of 6 on the Crubwagon doesn't really lend any support to the theory that he's scum. Nor does the fact that he was first on the Samwagon. If anything, your analysis has confirmed his towniness.

Shanba - I still want to hear what the new kid has to say, even if I don't think there's anything he can do to change my views.

Fonz - I realise there's a HUGE amount of material to go through, but I'm waiting for you to finish and post your thoughts.

[Phate]

Vote: ChaosOmega

for the hammer.

Fonz - try reading my posts, where I constantly, constantly finger CO. The only reason I haven't been voting him continuously is because the others wouldn't yet support his lynch. Now they will, and now I finally get to hammer him. Also, I don't treat Samruc or Per similarly. Objectively, I'm much more biased in favour of Per, because he makes great big relatively helpful analyses, which I like. I did go after Simenon, because I thought he was scum. Now that he's claimed mason and there's no counterclaim, and I'm hopefully momentarily finished with making newbie mistakes, I know he's not. I also went after Sammich, because I thought he was scum. Simenon was acting very secretive, which pissed me off and I read as a scumtell, and Sammich was refusing to defend himself AT ALL, which pissed me off and I still would call a scumtell.

But through it all, in I think every single reference to ChaosOmega, I pushed the case that CO was scum. His responses have only confirmed my suspicion.

Why is my "That was amazing, Shanba" more "blatant" "buddying up" than Simenon's "Why are you so awesome, Shanba?"

I think you're scum. And I think it's too late to change my mind, considering the posts of your predecessor. But you can try!

[Phate]

Oh, you're right. Thought I was. I don't understand - do you think Shanba and I are a scumpair?

[Phate]

Nope. I didn't go out of my way to make it look like I found him scummy. I just found him scummy, and said so, multiple times. I found several people scummy - CO most of all, then Simenon and Jex and Sammich, in no particular order. (on an unrelated note, I've just realised I have a pathetic record, but I take comfort in the fact that Jex and Simenon were masons, and the rest of the town felt the same way in Sammich's case). I believe I said in my first post that I would support the lynch of any of those people. Since the Sammich wagon had far and away most support, I went with that one, while still noting that CO was my first choice.

I didn't suggest you suggested that I treated Samruc and Per the same as ChaosOmega. I can read. Maybe you can't, though; you defy me to deny that and then quote the very post in which I deny it. In case you misunderstood, I meant I'm more biased in favour of Per than of Samruc.

Yes, that fact does remain. After stating my opinions, I pushed the lynch of those I both suspected and thought might actually get lynched - CO wasn't gonna happen on the day I replaced in, and Simenon's play struck me as odd on the second day until I realised he was claiming mason and the town explained why I was being a dumbass for not believing him.

Also, while Sammich may have had a common win condition with town, I think it would be a huge overestimation of his helpfulness and behavour to call him protown.

[Phate]

@ you don't get it - grasp it perfectly. I realise that it depends on truthful town or lying scum. I know that I'm truthful town. So when you make an absolute statement "you made it look like you found him scummy" that implies scum, I'll respond with an absolute statement that I DID find him scummy that implies town.

@ and yet - I listed my top suspects, making very clear my preference for COlynch, but also making it clear that I would support the lynch of any of my suspects. We can repeat ourselves all day here if you like.

@ grammar nazi - my bad.

[Phate]

Get real, CO. Firstly, I don't think I've ever heard you call me town, although I could be wrong. More importantly, if I were scum, a hammer would be the win. So why would I tack two or three paragraphs defending myself from someone else if I could just win the game? And yeah, it is LyLo, and yeah, I would be ecstatic to see you hammered. Because I'm almost positive you're scum.

Vote stands. Hammer would be nice, someone.

[Phate]

Any other lynch would be not only an atrocity but a gameloss, wouldn't it?

[Phate]

*grins cheekily at Simenon's apparent rage*

Gee, Sim, this is the most emotion I've seen out of you this game. Don't hold back; tell us how you REALLY feel.

[Phate]

Translating townspeech to scumspeech:

"Well, I know CO is scum, so I couldn't win today. But if I bus him quick before someone else can hammer, I might convince some gullible townie that I wasn't his scumbuddy, which hopefully increased the risk for a mislynch tomorrow."

[Phate]

Huzzah!

[Phate]

Sim - if you didn't think CO was scum, and we're at LyLo, why didn't you mount a defense?

[Phate]

Oh. *feels stupid*

[Phate]

Ok, whaddya think, Shanba - Samruclynch or Fonzlynch? I'll support either.

Vote: Samruc

[Phate]

unvote

Sounds fine to me.

[Phate]

Process of elimination. I'm sure you two are scum, so I'm sure they're protown.

[Phate]

Better question, Samruc: why do you think we're scum, Phate?

Fonz is trying to cloud the issue by making arguments that really boil down to "if you favoured one scumsuspect over another, why didn't you push his lynch to the exclusion of the others?" which is dismissibly weak. Plus, I've got his predecessor's actions to look at.

Per, although he's lurking like a politician, has been protown when he's on.

I'm town.

As Sim pointed out, you hammered without waiting for Per to post. Since I asked for a hammer, I'm kind of ineligible to put too much heat on you for that, but it is something, and Shanba's look at the voting record really made your alignment fall into place for me.

Shanba has been nothing but protown for the entire duration of this game.

[Phate]

Mod, replace Per.

Fonz, post.

Samruc, respond if you can.

[Phate]

That's true. Good luck. Per, until and unless you're replaced, try to actually participate.

[Phate]

Bottom line.

Samrucscum.

Fonzscum.

I don't need to explain my reasoning, but I will defend myself from attacks.

I think Shanba is protown. Why is this sucking up? I also think Per is protown, and have said several good things about him. Why is this not sucking up? Simenon also thought Shanba was protown, and asked why he was awesome after his voting analysis. Why is this not sucking up?

Ok, everybody ready now? Let's do the chorus one more time, you call, I repeat: "Why didn't you push harder for CO, oh, oh?" "Because I noted thathewas mytopchoicebutwouldalsosupportthelynchofmyothersuspects, whoa, whoa!"

That's not distancing, my dear boy, because I pushed for his lynch, if you'll notice, as soon as the new day dawned, only reluctantly letting off the gas and joyously laying down the hammer (only I then realised I wasn't actually laying down the hammer, to my displeasure).

Plus, I've got your predecessor's actions to look at.

Samruc, if you were town, objectively, I'd say the pairing would probably be CO-Per-Fonz, with an option on CO-Phate-Fonz... but it's kind of a moot point, because you're scum.

Just because Shanba would have motivation to do something as scum doesn't mean his logic is flawed. When you can bring up an actual, logical point that fingers Shanba, then I'll consider it.

[Phate]

Just because Shanba would have motivation to do something as scum doesn't mean his logic is flawed.

And just because his logic isn't flawed doesn't mean he's town.

And just because a possibility that he's scum exists doesn't mean one should discount his logic.

Logic exists regardless of alignment. I'd certainly support it more than the WIFOM "but what if he's scum" approach you're using.

[Phate]

*shrugs*

I'll be happy to hammer either of them.

[Phate]

Mu-ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-HAAA!!!

No, seriously. I'm town.

Vote: Fonz

[Phate]

Vote: Samruc

[Phate]

Sigh yourself. We're at LyLo, it's 3 weeks to deadline, I've been an avid supporter of the lynches of the two dead scum from the early stages of their wagons. Think my votes pretty much speak for themselves

I know you're scum, Samruc. Now it's just up to Sikario to hammer you ftw.

[Phate]

*pats Samruc on the head*

And they also say that I was on their wagons from the beginning, pointing out every scummy thing they did.

But I have to go now, and there's really not much you can do to cloud the issue. I don't need to defend myself. Sikario just needs to hammer.

[Phate]

.....lame.

[Phate]

...Well, that sucks.

[Phate]

Yeah, I think you're right. After my own analysis and Shanba's analysis, I decided that I knew who the scum were.

[Phate]

Samruc, if you were town, objectively, I'd say the pairing would probably be CO-Per-Fonz, with an option on CO-Phate-Fonz... but it's kind of a moot point, because you're scum.

^^ Famous last words.

[Phate]

Oh, yes. Sim. Please decode your post about Sweeney Todd. Or do you just like barbers?