NY 114: Mafia vs. Werewolves (Game Over)

[foilist13]

/confirm

[foilist13]

Hey guys, I haven't read the thread yet, so I hope there isn't too much going on yet. I'm just checking in with the 2 min that I have right now. I'll get on this tomorrow

[foilist13]

Ok, right now Daniel is bothering me a lot with his play, but I'm not going to get too into him because of this mason mass claim. That in itself bothers me too, but I don't have any reason to disbelieve it so far.

I have somewhat of an inside source and I can tell you that lynchmepls is in the mafia but he's not werewolf. And no I don't know this cause I'm scum.

What? Ok, so you have role information presumably?

Based on this you know the following information:

1) There are in fact two scum factions. The werewolves and the mafia. This isn't too farfetched as this is Mafia vs. Werewolves.
2) lynchmepls is mafia.
3) lynchmepls is not a werewolf, but one could be both.

Now how do you know all this?

You have an inside source. This doesn't imply that it was simply stated in your role pm. Ok, possibilities.

1) You are a cop who can differentiate between mafia and werewolves, and can investigate N0.
2) You are a cop who can differentiate between mafia and werewolves and can investigate during the day.
3) You have a role relationship with lynchmepls, i.e. lovers.
4) You are a werewolf and able to detect mafia. (This is assuming you mean scum as part of that scum team, and therefore not mafia)
5) You're a lying scumbag.
6) Something I didn't think of.

So basically this amounts to significant scumhunting ability, where you chose to out your results, but not your role. Why would you do that? Usually when one accuses someone based on role information they claim to back up their accusation. I don't think I've EVER seen people believe someone based on an accusation like that.

Day cops and N0 cops are very rare (I know I've never played with one), so for the moment I'm going to assume you're not one of those.
I don't think you would out your lover without claiming, and I don't think you would sacrifice yourself right away anyway.
That leaves werewolf and lying scumbag. (or something I didn't think of, but for the moment that's not a useful possibility.)
I find it very unlikely that the mafia would be masons, since the mod said they could be werewolves, but didn't say anything about traditional scum. (this is based on Seraphim's comment that he just found out they could be werewolves. He didn't mention mafia.)
That leaves the final possibility of you being a werewolf mason with a rolehunting ability, or something I didn't think of.

Since I'm not in the habit of withholding votes for fear of not having thought of something,

Vote:vezopiraka

[foilist13]

Right now what I want most is a response to my post from vezopiraka. Since I haven't yet gotten that, I'm going to make furthur comment on the Seraphim/Daniel/vezopiraka mess.

After vezopiraka's super scummy post, Daniel came out and asked him to roleclaim, which several people got on his case for. Now why would he do that?

According to Seraphim, the three of them are masons, and neither of the other two have contradicted this. Therefore I think we can be sure that those three are a team of some sort.

Daniel therefore should have already known vezopiraka's role, or at least believed he did. This means he was intentionally outing his teammate.

What outcomes could he have expected from that?

1) vezopiraka would not claim. There would be some established distance between them, and the game would go on.

2) vezopiraka would claim mason, and not out his team mates. This would not explain his foreknowledge of Lynchmepls, and more would be expected. Daniel would be in a position where he would have to press the issue and expose vezopiraka's role. This would establish serious distance between the two, and be very damaging for their team.

3) vezopiraka would claim mason, and out the whole team, calling out Daniel in the process. This would put them in an awkward position, and cast doubt on the validity of them in fact being masons, and over all be a terrible play.

4) vezopiraka would claim some outlandish role that would explain his information which would cast serious suspicion on him and establish distance between them.

Except for No. 3, all of these result in damage to the cohesiveness of their team, and most of all establish distance between the two. Now why would Daniel want to distance himself from his fellow mason? Masons are only useful as a group, so there is no benefit to Daniel in getting vezopiraka lynched. Bussing another mason would be a ridiculously useless play.

Only scum have reason to distance themselves from each other, and that's exactly what these two were doing.

[foilist13]

They're VOTING for each other now?? What the hell kind of mason team is this?

I will take the 6)answer: Something you didn't talk about.

Seraphim claimed for whatever stupid reason he had.
I'll Unvote
Vote daniel94581

1) Saying it's something I didn't think of isn't good enough. You have to explain what that is, because I'm pretty sure I exhausted the possibilities.

2) If you do have some kind of magic role, why don't your mason mates know about it? The only reason I can think of is because you are a werewolf.

3) Normally I would be extremely annoyed at you for voting without an explanation. You however took it to the next level and not only didn't explain your vote, you voted for your mason mate! You're supposed to KNOW their alignment. If they could be werewolves, then yes he COULD be scum, but that isn't anything close to a reason to vote for him. The probability of him being scum is actually lower for him than your average player.

Reasons. Now.

[foilist13]

IC is Inexperience Challenged. It's a funny way of saying experienced player. They have them in newbie games to help teach the noobs how to play.

NK is night kill. During the night, the mafia get to kill someone. I don't know if that is different for this game, or what abilities the werewolves may have.

[foilist13]

@daniel: Your last post looked really bad. Why did you made a bigger size and bold? And you know how I got that information.

Ok, so Daniel knows about vezopiraka's magic role giving him info. That means that vezopiraka has either outed it to the masons, or to the werewolves and he and Daniel are both werewolves. The second option is unlikely.

@Seraphim: Did you know about vezopiraka's role? If so, does it justify his knowledge that lynchmepls is scum? If so, why aren't you voting lynchmepls and trying to get him lynched?

@Daniel: Did you actually know how he had this information? If you did, why did you call him out about it? If you did, why aren't you voting lynchmepls and trying to get him lynched?

No I'm not some kind of cop. Also I'm not sure but at least of daniel or seraphim should be a werewolf.

To me your making this up but if anyone is it must be seraphim because I'm not.

Ok so you're not a cop.

You do however have the following information.

1) lynchmepls is mafia.
2) either Daniel or Seraphim is a werewolf.

I will take the 6)answer: Something you didn't talk about.

Seraphim claimed for whatever stupid reason he had.
I'll Unvote
Vote daniel94581

Ok, so you are none of the possibilities I mentioned. However, you are so confident in your information you are voting your mason mate on what is presumably a 50-50% chance, unless you have MORE information we don't know about.

So you are sure lynchmepls is scum, yet you feel strong enough about Daniel being a werewolf that you are voting him. Why?

And where are you getting your information? I've never seen someone make this many statements of role info without claiming to back it up. I have absolutely no reason to believe anything you've told me, and you're lack of meaningful response isn't helping.

I have no intention of changing my vote on you anytime soon.

[foilist13]

Outside of SSBF, I have a pretty decent scum read on C-pie. The whole "So a mason could also be a cop" thing from 260 reads to me like he's trying to direct scum to shoot the masons. Seems unnecessary for obvious reasons and I can't think of a pro-town reason to even go there the way he did.

Can I assume from this that you think he is a werewolf trying to keep the mafia away?

[foilist13]

(Sorry 'bout the triple posting)

I think vezo x daniel will take care of itself.

Why do you think that? One scum team or the other could decide the masons need to go, but why would they bother? These two are GREAT VI's to leave for the endgame. This whole mason fiasco has only cast doubt on them, and their claims are getting more and more fantastic. I don't forsee this situation handling itself.

[foilist13]

Seraphim is just stupid. I don't know why he claimed.
Nobody from the mason group know about my power.
I think there was another question for me but I forgot it.

@Daniel: Did you actually know how he had this information? If you did, why did you call him out about it? If you did, why aren't you voting lynchmepls and trying to get him lynched?

Yes I did but masons dont have a way of knowing peoples alignment. that's why I'm not voting.

(Daniel, you qouted my entire post then answered one part of it. Since this is the only direct question I asked you, I assume this is what you were responding to. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

Ok, now you two are directly contradicting one another. Daniel says yes he knew, vezo says no he didn't. The evidence would seem to back up Daniel. Based on this, vezo is lying.

Vezo now clarifies his information as a "power," which implies a role. Now clearly we all know you have some kind of power role or are lying. I honestly don't know which case is more likely. You have already claimed your information. You say lynchmepls is scum. That means it is no secret that you have a power role. So now that we all know you do, as those of you who haven't yet figured it out should have long ago, claim. Yes, I want you to claim.

For those of you (nhammen) who think it is bad that I'm looking for his role (yes that is what I've been doing), HE ALREADY CLAIMED TO HAVE INFORMATION. He's outed his role already. The mafia know what he is if not his specific power role, or they know he's lying. Either way he now needs to back up his information so that the town can act on it and catch scum D1. He needs to do that now.

@foilist 328: STOP ROLEFISHING!
vote foilist

@Chrono 331: Lowell 332 says all I need to say about that.

@foilist 347: STOP ROLEFISHING!!!!!!

You sir have nothing to contribute to this game.

[foilist13]

Jesus, I'm gone one day and I get to read 5+ pages to catch up. Ok, 1st,

unvote.

If vezo is town the the mafia have to deal with him, and he's no longer our problem. That unfortunately does not negate the fact that he is completely useless.

Well, I have completely refuted the not rolefishing part and so had foilist, who stated that it was. As for not being a good reason, I disagree. At the time I though it was very scummy.

Not so fast there mate. I said it was rolefishing

after

the post you quoted, not before. Stop trying to misrepresent him.

Except for the fact that, hey, I'm not lying! And foilist has said it was rolefishing! So wait, doesn't that mean that this statement of yours was a lie? An accidental one, but still a lie.

Here too.

nhammen is throwing his weight around at whatever points he can think of to get himself off the hook. Pro-town behavior? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is Parama's case on him actually good? Not a chance in hell.

@Parama: Your case begins here, in ISO #28.

Wait.

Nhammen's post has made everything crystal clear.

So defensive after one vote?? And still sitting on that fence. I actually agree with Sevis here.

This is a good point and a good reason to vote someone... and yet you don't.

@foilist 328: STOP ROLEFISHING!
vote foilist

@foilist 347: STOP ROLEFISHING!!!!!!

Looking at those two posts, they aren't really rolefishing... at all. More rhetorical questions adding to his points. And regardless that's not a good reason to vote.

@Chrono 379: Not you too! DO NOT ROLEFISH!

@Chrono 382: STOP ROLEFISHING
FOS: Chrono

This is genuine rolefishing by Chrono, yet you merely FoS.

foilist, SGR, and robotnik are the current scummiest players IMO.

And not Chrono, for doing the same exact thing you accuse foilist of? Note that foilist isn't really rolefishing though you accuse him of it, while Chrono is.

Guys, I've caught scumbuddies here, can we lynch them?
unvote
Vote: Nhammen
Super Mega HoS: Chronopie
HoS: SGRaaize
HoS: SSBF
FoS: Dr. Robotnik

If there is not a nhammen lynch in the next 24 hours I'm going to scream. Nhammen's post has caught 2 scum.

1) Ok, first quote is a semi-decent point, but not worth anything like a lynch on. Unfortunately it's your best one.

2)Clearly I was trying to get him to explain his role. I don't really understand how you didn't see that, but I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. Nhammen was wrong in thinking that what I was doing was inherently scummy. I do not however need to defend my vezo case here.

3) FoS is the logical thing to do if you're already voting someone else. This is not scummy.

So you'r actual case amounts to the fact that he finds me scummier than chronopie even though we were both rolefishing.

I was asking for a role claim and actually wanted it.

Chronopie did little more than speculation. Can both be considered rolefishing? Yes. Was his equally egregious? No.

nhammen was voting on the basis that asking for a role claim this early in the game was a scum move. If you take that as a given, his case was legitimate. It was pointed out to him that he was wrong, and he dropped the case. Scum move? I think not.

Your initial case is therefore illegitimate and can therefore be discounted.

[quote="Parama]

Parama, rhetorical rolefishing is still rolefishing. And if you don't think that was rolefishing, you must be seriously blind. As for why foilist and not chrono? I just figured that foilist's was trying much harder to disguise itself as something else. You claim you read the posts in question and did NOT think they were rolefishing??? I do not understand how you could possibly think that.

Yup. Foilist's questions looked rhetorical (as in, don't answer these) and were lead-ins to his major points, which happen to be quote solid.

Chrono's posts are just blatant rolefishing.
The most damning evidence is a lack of you putting Chrono on your scumlist for the same offense that foilist (your VOTE) committed.

Also, Chrono, it's too late to bus for town-cred since your buddy outed you both.

My questions were my major points. How could he possibly defend himself from them without claiming? Those were not rhetorical at all.

As I said before, Chrono's role searching was far more conservative than mine. I wanted to know his role. nhammen thought that was scummy. The fact that he thought Chronopie's posts were more legitimate is not at all implausible.

So you think that asking what role he could possibly have that would explain these actions is NOT rolefishing? Or did you just read this in some other language?

Hidden rolefishing is scummier than blatant rolefishing. If they are Town, they have NOTHING TO HIDE.

If it doesn't look like rolefishing, then it isn't. If you think it looks like rolefishing, you're lying.

Also, by your definition of townieness, every power role should claim immediately.

1) This was a ridiculous comment. However, this post by nhammen is the first one to lend some credibility to your case through no fault of your own. He does say that hidden rolefishing is scummier than blatant rolefishing. I was blatant rolefishing, Chronopie was hidden scumfishing (presumably).

2) His defenition of towniness was refering to the scum hunter, not the one being hunted. One has nothing to hide as in "if you want to rolefish, do it openly."

1) Saying it's something I didn't think of isn't good enough. You have to explain what that is, because I'm pretty sure I exhausted the possibilities.

2) If you do have some kind of magic role, why don't your mason mates know about it? The only reason I can think of is because you are a werewolf.

3) Normally I would be extremely annoyed at you for voting without an explanation. You however took it to the next level and not only didn't explain your vote, you voted for your mason mate! You're supposed to KNOW their alignment. If they could be werewolves, then yes he COULD be scum, but that isn't anything close to a reason to vote for him. The probability of him being scum is actually lower for him than your average player.

1) is frustration becausse vezo is being a VI, asking for an explanation on something that doesn't make sense
2) is a good question that doesn't have anything to do with rolefishing
3) has nothing to do with rolefishing in the slightest

1) This was not asked in frustration. I legitimately wanted the answer.
2) This is relevant to his role, and claiming would be the only real way of defending himself from it.
3) This clearly is relevant to his being a mason, which is role information.

So now after nhammen points out the ridiculousness, you come up with this.

The problem with Nhammen's posting now is that he hasn't done anything to disprove my main points.

This is called caught scum.

Clearly you didn't have any main points, so what did you expect him to defend against exactly?

Parama wrote:
The problem with Nhammen's posting now is that he hasn't done anything to disprove my main points.

Your main points are absolute crap!

^This is not a defense^

TBQH I don't give a damn about your claim, since that's equally likely a scum role as it is town, and I believe you to be scum aside from it.

1) No it is not a defense, it is a statement. A legitimate one incidentally.

2) Eh, maybe.

The wagon on me HAS to be scum driven. There is no way there could be this many mistakes unless there is a scum pushing them. I hope that Parama is scum.

Because I make valid points that you cannot deny, I'm scum? Sorry for scumhunting then.
Note that your argument is even weaker since there are two scumteams thus scum would want to find each other. I'm sure there's scum on the wagon, but it could be one scumgroup riding the wagon of another. And tbh that's fine, since it leads to a scumlynch. The goal of this game is to get the scum to lynch each other more than anything.
So obviously, you're just disguising OMGUS-esque logic as something that's certain not true. You call me scum for no reason, call my case crap for no reason, and you're just not even trying at all. I don't see how you can't be scum.

1) You haven't made any valid points.

2) His argument hasn't changed, he's just taken a crack at finding scum.

3) Yes it would lead to a scum lynch. That means that we can assume there will be scum on EVERY wagon until the end. One scum team will always be able to lynch someone who is not their own. This is a helpful legitimate point, not a weaksauce defense.

I love the people who are saying I "redeemed" myself when I never did anything scummy in the first place.

What

did

you do?

Epic scumslip, Time.

BUT I STILL WANT NHAMMEN LYNCHED.

...what? An epic scumslip would far outweigh everything you've brought up about nhammen even if it was legitimate.

unvote, vote: nhammen

I think we're forgetting why we're here, guys.
Less pointless talk, more lynching of obvious scum please.

Now you're just tunneling.

Midnight is missing the point.

My original reasons =/= BS
My original reasons = easy logic to follow that damns Nhammen because he knows he's caught

Your blatant defense of Nhammen by calling the logic crap without disproving any of it is noted.

You're lack of meaningful defense for your crap-case is noted.

Then you don't understand my reasons which means you probably aren't reading my posts since I spelled them out pretty clearly.

READ THE THREAD.

To quote you: ^This is not a defense^

A roleblocker is not a useful town role. Due to being uninformed, there is a much higher potential of missing a Block, or even Hitting something useful (Such as a cop).

Again.

Y'know what. Screw it. unvote, vote: Chronopie
Guys I think he scumslipped right here.

So this scum slip was enough to deter you from your nhammen case, but the epic one earlier was not? Interesting.

Lol Nhammen is going to use meta.
unvote, vote nhammen

I don't like Chrono's explanation and his post is a total WTF but Nhammen is getting even worse.

...so now nhammen's alleged degeneration of play is enough to outweigh Chronopie's scumslip? Even though you don't like Chronopie's defense?

Now you're somehow managing to tunnel nhammen AND wagon hop at the same time. This is impressive.

Nhammen, I can't be a VI if I'm right.

Yes you can.

Nhammen, I can't be a VI if I'm right.

But if at the end of the game, we find out that you are wrong, can I call you a VI? Can I gloat about it in the end of game part of the thread? Can I push for a policy lynch of you in any future game I play with you? Because I soooo want to do that.

You're sour that I made a good case against you and that you're going to get lynched because of it. I'm not a VI by any standards.

You didn't make a good case, and you're a VI by mine.

This concludes your posts. Based on what you've presented I see no reason whatsoever to vote nhammen. I actually see a lot more reason to vote you. However I'm going to reserve my vote for now until I've had a chance to analyze some of the other players.

[foilist13]

@Parama: try to read.

1) I said earlier in the thread that I wanted vezo to claim.
2) I explained why that was a pro-town stance.
3) Based on my explanation, nhammen stopped voting me.
4) Other players supported my argument before and after my defense.

So how is me referencing my attack on vezo a scum tell in any way?

nhammen misinterpreted what I was doing and found it scummy. He saw Chronopie doing something similar.

Like I said in my wall post, if you take nhammen's MISINTERPRETATION as a given (this is logic, so I hope you can keep up) then I appear far more scummy and am the logical vote. Since it was a MISINTERPRETATION as I have already shown, then I do not come up scum at all, and certainly did not incriminate myself.

[foilist13]

I said I would vote after I was done analyzing other players. I'm not in the habit of tossing my vote around willy-nilly.

You are in no place to threaten me. I'll vote when I'm good and ready, and not before. No one is going to start a wagon on me based on your word at this point.

Now to what I actually want to talk about, my analysis of Chronopie.

He starts off in the beginning with a vote for SSBF. This early in the game I wouldn't think much of it except that he simply calls him scum. Usually in the beginning with a vote like that you vote for a reason, i.e. you voted for so and so for crap reasons, or something similar. Chronopie however declares him to be scum, granted some other players do as well. This however is only mildly bothersome.

It sounds like: If you quick hammer me, There's a high chance of me being town.

Lets flip that coin for a sec: If you leave me for later, there's a lower chance of me being Town...

Recruit-able Traitor?
Either that, or he's spouting garbage.

This is where the real crap starts. This is the most worthless post I've seen throughout the game except for a choice few by vezo. This is a horrible pseudo-probability argument. Even if it was legitimate it would apply to everyone else equally. Should we have quick-lynched him? No. Is this a good defense if he thought we were going to try? Hell no.

He then spends his time pointing out the things that are currently the main topic of conversation. No analysis, no meaningful content of any kind.

He then goes on for several pages until he votes nhammen.

I agree with Parama and SC here.

unvote, Vote: Nhammen

He doesn't give his own reasons, he just tries to get by on Parama and SC's reasons. Such a post would have been jumped on in most of the other games I've played. I can't fathom why it wasn't here. I was caught up in the masonry, and most everyone else seemed fixed on nhammen, so several such posts slipped by.

Chronopie then slips back into pointing out the obvious.

He gets jumped on for his rolefishing and spends the rest of his time posting half-assed defenses for it.

Everything he has said amounts to nothing. He has posted no content, he has done no scumhunting. These are usually regarded as the quintessential scumtells.

@Parama: You have certainly made my scum list, but I'm not going to vote you at this time. At least your trying to get people lynched.

Chronopie hasn't done a damn thing.

vote: Chronopie

[foilist13]

Ok, so Parama and Chronopie OMGUS voted me. Good play to both of you.

@Parama: You have certainly made my scum list, but I'm not going to vote you at this time. At least your trying to get people lynched.

Even with all the accusations of misrepping and reaching, this is apparently a good reason to hold off him :/.

I intend to vote Chronopie until I get some content out of him, and perhaps even then depending on what that content is. No content is scummier than bad content.

According to nhammen:

Why are you worried about me using meta? This triggered some major scumvibes, so I went to his wiki page and saw Mafia 109. Which showed me that:
Parama does have a meta of tunneling.
Hard.
On Town players.
He's worse than charter...

This matches with Parama's play so far, so despite the fact that I don't like it, Chronopie still comes up as the scummier player.

Less content means less chance for a scumslip, that's why scum tend to do it as we all know. I think Parama has played worse, but Chronopie has been scummier.

[foilist13]

@foilist: So is Parama a bad player, or is Parama scum? What was your final opinion on nhammen?

Parama has been tunneling rather hard on nhammen with a poor case. This could be a scum move or a VI move, I'm not really sure. He doesn't respond logically to posts, he just uses emotion.

I'm still considering nhammen. I thought Parama and SerialClergyman's cases on him were terrible, so I didn't look much into him. Then he gets his massive bandwagon which made me think more about the people on the wagon than the wagon itself. Looking back I've decided he looks somewhat scummy, but there are other people who I think are much more likely to be scum, mainly Chronopie.

@Parama: Yes you had something more than OMGUS, but what you did have was worthless. That leaves OMGUS.

Now I need to go back and look at sevis, leafsnail, timeater, and Dr. Robotnik. See you all in a bit.

[foilist13]

@Parama: I analyzed your case in detail. You are accusing me of just calling your case crap without giving reasons. Lets take a closer look at that claim.

1) I put up a wall post going post by post through all your posts regarding nhammen.
2) You vote me based on me somehow having admitted being scum.
3) I respond to that, also in detail.
4) You resume calling me scum saying I'm not providing any reasons.

Are you that dense?

[foilist13]

I'm really annoyed that I have to continue to clarify this.

I do not now, nor have I ever admitted to committing a scum tell, blatant or otherwise.

I wanted to know vezo's role for the benefit of the town. I made it clear why that was to the benefit of the town, and did not have the negative affects normally associated with giving up one's role.

[foilist13]

@Vezo: The first part of that quote was SSBF several pages before, but Chronopie failed to quote him in his post, and I failed to correct him. My mistake.

The rest of the case stands however.

For those of you who are voting me, i.e. Parama, Chronopie, and vezo, try to actually refute my cases against you, or at least logically refute

something

. You can't actually get a lynch on this site (well not usually) without a case.

@Vi: You bring up legitimate points, but you move your vote around so much it's hard for me to take it seriously. Do you actually want everyone you've voted for lynched?

[foilist13]

Addendum to that^^

Note also that the only three people voting me are the only three I've attacked.

[foilist13]

Foilist is still being seriously scummy, and refusing to give a read on Parama. And he's just OMGUSing madly.

@675 - why do people keep analysing the actions of a basically confirmed townie... it's getting annoying, and is fluff.

679 is retarded stuff from Sevis. It looks like scum ass-covering.

680 sees foilist basically admitting to OMGUSing all those voting him by describing his "cases against them".

This town has too many VIs.

1) OMGUS by definition needs to happen after someone has already voted you. Everyone voting me did so AFTER I made any attack on them. So try and explain to me exactly how what I did was OMGUS through any possible stretch of logic.

[foilist13]

I said he was either scum or a VI. I maintain that opinion.

I notice now however that you have dropped your broad statement that I am opperating under OMGUS in two of three cases, and seriously down played your third.

That leads me to think you put no thought into your original statement at all, compounded by the fact that it was logically unfounded. So why did you say that?

[foilist13]

I feel like I should make a scum list to make my positions perfectly clear. I have not analyzed every player, so this list is not set in stone, nor am I convinced of the order in which I've put them.

1) Chronopie - Lack of meaningful content. What amounts to active lurking.

2)

Vezopiraka

- Apparently he is cleared.

3) Parama - Bullheaded and unfounded tunneling.

4) Leafsnail - Unfounded accusation/misrepresentation. (I'm sure this won't sit well with you, but I'll explain when I'm done here)

There are other people I'm not fond of. They simply haven't made my top 4.

@Leafsnail: Your accusation against me comes down to nothing. You have yet to point out anywhere where I've OMGUSed. Now you've resorted to saying I am what? Making false claims about my previous stances? You have no idea what my stances are unless I tell you. I found Parama scummy. Did I say that? No. I took his case apart and did not present any stance. At one point I called him a VI. Does that mean he is any less likely to be scum? No. It just means I am no longer looking for logical evidence in his posting because I no longer feel he plays in a logical fashion.

When directly asked, I said I was undecided between him being a poor town player and a poor scum player.

Now let me explain OMGUS to you, since you don't seem to understand it.

Oh My God yoU Suck "for voting me." The phrase means that you are voting someone for voting you. That does not mean that voting the person who just attacked you is OMGUS. It is OMGUS if that is WHY you are voting them. I have never yet failed to provide detailed reasons as to why I am voting the people I do, and why my suspicions are what they are.

You, Chronopie, Parama, and Vezopiraka have not.

[foilist13]

"I have given up trying to make proper arguments, and am instead bringing in a definition"

Let me explain.

You have provided reasons with each vote, I'll agree.

But I am saying that the motivation behind your attack on me is pure OMGUS. Nothing more, nothing less. "Someone is attacking me, I'll weaken him by attacking him back!".

I love the way your biggest defence is not presenting any stances.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. You'll notice that I attacked you through analyzing your posts and pointing out what I found scummy. Granted, you attacking me is what brought my attention to you in the first place, but it did not drive my attack against you.

If I were a scummy OMGUS player I would have gone straight after nhammen when he attacked me. I did not find him scummy however, I simply thought he was misreading or particularly dense. I did not jump on his wagon, I told him he had nothing to add to the game.

Now does that display an OMGUS pattern?

[foilist13]

@Parama: Could you tell me who you suspect right now? Your last post leads me to believe Unsight is on that list, but I honestly have no idea.

[foilist13]

@Dr Robotnik: When someone attacks me I defend myself as best I can. I've been pointed at for defending myself too much before, but I'm honestly not worried about it. Going forward you can expect me to always defend myself as well as I can against every argument brought against me.

If you would like I can provide meta that shows this pattern.

[foilist13]

You are completely useless.

[foilist13]

^that was directed at serialclergyman^

He has joined several others in the list of useless players. Chronopie however seems to be trying to lurk away the wagon on him, or he just doesn't care. Either way, he's worse.

[foilist13]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. You'll notice that I attacked you through analyzing your posts and pointing out what I found scummy. Granted, you attacking me is what brought my attention to you in the first place, but it did not drive my attack against you.

You can claim it as a coincidence all you want... but you don't seem to be prepared to accuse anyone of being scum firmly until they're on you.

I have firmly labeled Chronopie as scummy, I did so, and voted him before he voted me. He has been by far my strongest suspect since vezopiraka. He also was not attacking me when I went after him. Your argument applies only to you. It is poorly thought out, unchecked, and apparently nothing more than a defense.

If I were a scummy OMGUS player I would have gone straight after nhammen when he attacked me. I did not find him scummy however, I simply thought he was misreading or particularly dense. I did not jump on his wagon, I told him he had nothing to add to the game.

The first part is WIFOM... I never said you OMGUS'd everyone attacking you. Indeed, part of the problem was that you were using nhammen's case against you to try and undermine Parama (on the aspect of rolefishing, mainly).

Now, I'd like everyone to look at foilist's style of defence. Instead of trying to prove he's town, he's trying to show he isn't OMGUSing. Why? he wants to undermine my case, and add someone to his bizarre scumlist that barely seems to accuse people of being scum.

1) Try and undermine Parama? What are you defending your buddy now? If I see something I don't like, I call them out on it. I don't care who it is against.

2) Right, my style of defense, which is to refute the arguments against me, is scummy. If you say I'm scummy based on me having used OMGUS, and I believe I have not done so, wouldn't the logical course of action be to prove I was not using OMGUS. Furthermore, if I thought your attack was not driven by town motivation, should I not call you on that and try and prove my reasons why?

Incidentally

There are other people I'm not fond of. They simply haven't made my top 4.

Names. Reasons. Now.

No. I'm voting Chronopie.

[foilist13]

Your total lack of defending yourself leads me to solidifying my vote.

confirm vote: Chronopie

[foilist13]

Who DO you find scummy? Town reads are nice, but they don't give anything to analyze. Who do you think is scum?

[foilist13]

I'm happy with the chronopie lynch as I've already said.

[foilist13]

Jesus Christ, what is it with you people and wagoning?

@Leafsnail: Nice misrepresenting. I'm looking. You'll get a list when I'm ready to post one.

Right now nhammen's blosk is the best bit of evidence we've got, so for now

vote:SGR

I however need to wonder if blocking one scum would succeed in preventing the night kill. Would it have to be the specific one sending in the NK, or would any scumster do?

[foilist13]

Ok,

unvote

for now. If SGR is getting replaced then there is no reason to be voting him, and there is now enough D2 content for fresh reads on people.

Been a smidge busy, but I'll get to those reads when I get a chance. I figured 1 day wasn't worth a V/LA though

[foilist13]

Genius as always Parama [/sarcasm]

Midnight Sorrow is terrible at defending himself, however Chronopie was also, and we all saw how that turned out.

Animorpherv1 hasn't contributed anything yet.

@SSBF: If you're concerned about parroting you should add Animorpherv1 to your scum list. I do agree however that askbob has been spouting other people's cases, which amounts to a kind of active lurking.

@Parama and Leafsnail: Neither of you has posted a case on me that I have not successfully refuted to your admission. What about my play do you consider scummy?

This is the start of my player by player analysis. I won't be able to finish it right now, but I'll get them all out there as soon as possible.

1) LynchMePls is a bit of an enigma. I ISO'ed him and found he has not posted a case on anyone except sevis, however that case was based on sevis not posting relevant information, something which can be said about many players here, including the two with the primary wagons going on today.

His posts are primarily one-liners, either sarcasm, mini-defenses, or pointed questions, though none of it seems to have yielded any information. Further, he seems to have simply ridden the wagons up to this point. Yesterday he was early on the Chronopie wagon, switched to Sevis, then back to Chronopie when the wagon became serious. This in itself is not scummy, though today he is riding the two major wagons as well.

The drawbacks to a scum assessment on this are that his suspicions tend to be consistent. He suspected MS D1, and his suspicions are maintained. The evidence implicating SGR was not farfetched, so it was not scummy for him to act on it.

However he is very sparse with presenting evidence, and rarely puts forth any content to by analyzed other than his base positions.

I need to go now though, more later today or tomorrow.

[foilist13]

@askbob: More situations were pointed out than that. Please address at least a majority.

Ok, next up:

Timeater

Disagree, SGR's current status is more about nhammen than it is about himself.

Do you find his high-vote count indicative of mafia/wolf bandwagoners?

Not in all cases, here though yes. Opportunistic/noob scum tend to jump on popular wagons, especially if other people do it too. The nhammen wagon, the Chronopie wagon, the midnight sorrow wagon, and now the SGR/socrates wagon are chalk full of people jumping on based on other people's reasons.

Now my analysis of your play.

When read carefully, Timeater actually comes off as a very intelligent player. His sarcasm and humor have led me not to take him very seriously up to this point, coupled with the fact that he tends to lurk and hasn't seriously gone after any players yet, makes him seem terribly scummy off the bat.

However, when analyzed his text is very pointed

in some cases.

The vast majority of his posts are wagon hopping without reason and screaming for blood. I feel like there is a cat to be let out of the bag here, but so far I haven't seen it.

Pomegranate

Been missing a good chunk of the game, not a lot of content as a result. Posted some responses to multiple players D1, but hasn't contributed significantly today.

Her questions seem to be pointed. Matches the play I saw when I played with her before. Can't remember when that was though.

This last one wasn't as in depth as I had planned, but sadly there isn't a whole lot to work with, and my read isn't scum leaning.

More to follow.

[foilist13]

Try scumhunting

[foilist13]

vote: foilist

Post 627 is terrible.

If he flips werewolf, Nhammen DIES!

If there is a cop, he should investigate Serial tonight. (Cop specifically, not Seer. Seer should investigate Nhammen if foilist doesn't flip werewolf, I'm not sure where else if Foilist does flip werewolf. Probably Timeater.)

I rarely insult players, and I don't think I'll start now. However I strongly suggest you read Parama's play before taking anything he says seriously.

As far as my post, if you think it is terrible you need to refute it. I could just as easily say one of your posts was terrible and vote you on that basis. The problem with you voting me without providing any real content is that it gives me, and everyone else, no way to judge you, which is inherently anti-town.

Further, you haven't said my post was scummy, you just said it was terrible. Does that mean scum post or bad play post? In either case, do my other posts follow that pattern? You need to read the thread my friend.

So now you need to explain to me why, based on post 627, I am somehow a better lynch than MS or you for starters.

Something else you should note is that Parama didn't have a single bad thing to say about me until I attacked his nhammen case. Then he jumps on me and has been calling me obvscum since. Oddly, no one else seems to share this sentiment except leafsnail who has been unable to provide any reasons why I should be lynched that I have not refuted to his admission. I will point the posts out to you if you so wish.

Please don't make me take apart Parama's case on me again. If you have one of your own to post, please do, but if you are taking his seriously and going off of it then we can't have a conversation.

[foilist13]

@Leafsnail: Please direct me to any points I haven't answered to your satisfaction.

@SSBF: I'm pretty much taking them as they stand out to me on the list. I'm trying to be sure to get everyone, but obviously that isn't an issue yet.

There is nothing wrong with attacking the masons or monks, they simply have a lower probability of being scum than everyone else. Only vezopiraka is confirmed townie.

@Socrates: Thank you for posting something relevant.

RE: Parama: My experience with him thus far in this game is that he tunnels like no other. He calls people obvscum and stops playing, and insists that his previous cases are the final word on any matter and refuses to refute responses to them. I don't know what experience you've had with him, but mine has been very different.

Now let me explain my positions on the relevant players.

1) Read through the vezo incident and my posts regarding the matter. If you have ANY dispute as to the invalidity of any of what I was saying please bring it to light. You cannot call me scum because I voted for someone who turned out to be town. That is simply not a scum tell.

2) Parama was tunneling nhammen. I thought his case on nhammen was ridiculous, and at the time thought it was scummy. I went through and analyzed it as you saw and found it didn't amount to much of anything. Between that post and my next, I read over his play and found it consistent in his absolute conviction that he had found scum.

/caught scum already

We should be lynching SSBF D1 anyways, I don't see why it's important.

We're lynching you Day 1 but I never said it had to happen quickly. Though if it takes too long I'll be pretty mad.

Guys, I've caught scumbuddies here, can we lynch them?
unvote
Vote: Nhammen
Super Mega HoS: Chronopie
HoS: SGRaaize
HoS: SSBF
FoS: Dr. Robotnik

If there is not a nhammen lynch in the next 24 hours I'm going to scream. Nhammen's post has caught 2 scum.

I'm not changing my vote and I'm not going to because nhammen is scum and letting him off with a claim (which could easily be a scum PR) is weak.

Epic scumslip, Time.

BUT I STILL WANT NHAMMEN LYNCHED.

unvote, vote: nhammen

I think we're forgetting why we're here, guys.
Less pointless talk, more lynching of obvious scum please.

Y'know what. Screw it. unvote, vote: Chronopie
Guys I think he scumslipped right here.

Wait, so foilist, you're saying nhammen's accusations against you are completely valid?

unvote, vote: foilist13
Straight from the horse's mouth, foilist admits to being scum.

Guys, we have a nhammen/foilist scumteam. GG.

nhammen/foilist/chrono scumteam, I already told you guys this

SSBF, your tone is terrible.
The MS-Chrono link you're suggesting is complete nonsense.
And Chrono didn't self-hammer, he was more than dead by then.

SSBF is whatever scum faction that Chrono isn't IMO.

I've already found certain scum, so I won't be doing much of that right now.

This is the pattern of behavior he's exhibited. So when he jumps on me and suddenly I'm the confirmed scum I wasn't all that surprised. That

could

be scum, but I find it unlikely scum would be so aggressive and call so much attention to themselves in such a blatant way. That is WIFOM though, which means he is

either a poor town player or scum

. I can go on about his poor town play if you still aren't convinced. I don't know what his alignment is, nor do I have anyway of interpreting his behavior as to me his behavior is illogical. With that conclusion in mind, what exactly am I supposed to do other than to get the yapping dog to go away?

Another interesting thing about you, and this was pretty much the crux of Parama's initial push on you, is that when pressed, you pretty much avoided calling Nhammen scum at all costs, even going so far as to admit to what Nhammen was calling you scum for and then rush to his defense against Parama's case against him, which is an interesting thing for another player to do for another player if they don't have an explicit scum read on the attacker. Yes, defending a town read is an good thing to do, but you explicitly waffle on Nhammen's alignment at the very start of your defense of him (post 597) :

nhammen is throwing his weight around at whatever points he can think of to get himself off the hook. Pro-town behavior? Maybe yes, maybe no.

You are probably scum. You are probably Nhammen's scumbuddy. You should probably be lynched today.

nhammen is throwing his weight around at whatever points he can think of to get himself off the hook. Pro-town behavior? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Is Parama's case on him actually good? Not a chance in hell.

Now look at that quote you posted in actual context. I've seen plenty of townies exhibit exactly the same behavior I described in nhamen. I looked at Parama's case and found it unsatisfactory as my quote testifies. So do you expect me to think nhammen is scum here? He attacked me based on a misassumption. That is equally poor town play as scum play, and not any more likely to be one or the other. So where exactly am I supposed to think he is scummy?

Now let me clarify something else. At that stage of the game I had a distinctly neutral read on nhammen. I was not defending a town read at all, I was attacking a poor case. The focus was on Parama, not nhammen. There is never a reason to leave a case alone if it is flawed. To do so is starkly anti-town. I don't care at all who the case is on, nor should I. Should I look and say "Oh, Parama is attacking nhammen for his case on me. Sweet, now I'm off the hook. I better leave Parama's case alone so no one pays attention to me?" How is that in any way pro-town?

[foilist13]

Can you elaborate further on Parama's character and playstyle?

I'll do a full player analysis on him. I needed to get to him anyway.

As I see it, Parama is as he would say, a "brickwall." He has an amazing ability to convince himself entirely of whatever is convenient at the moment. Actually, writing that, he seems a lot more scummy that I previously found him

Ok, this is how he responds to criticism, or questions about his arguments.

Oh God Leaf you're really going to make me explain something so obvious? Why are you so concerned with it anyways? For all you know I'm RVSing (I'm not but still <_<)

Read the thread.

If you would read carefully, you'd see the question has already been answered.

LOL chainsaw attacks.

Read the thread.

One decent one:

Seraphim wrote:
Why are the posts you link to scummy?

Nervousness - if you can't see it then you're not reading OH WAIT

Seraphim wrote:
Who cares that his posts were "pointless info about himself that nobody cares about"? It was the pre-confirm stage, how is that scummy?

Trying to detract from the nervousness in his posting - something factual is easier to talk about.

Seraphim wrote:
How is OMGUS scummy?

The reason for one player voting another is that the other player voted for the first. That exclusively = OMGUS = no reason to vote.

His next post is a good response to questioning, but it is too long to post here. It should be noted that I acknowledge it however.

By the way something I realized right after making this post but couldn't get a chance to post:
He builds half his case on me based on pre-game stuff, and then he says that pre-game content isn't very useful.
Hello, contradiction much? Also chalk up hypocrisy because you're accusing me of contradicting myself while you contradict yourself within your case on me. Yay!

I think vez is lying tbqh. The claim doesn't seem genuine at all.

My arguments make perfect sense .-. If you don't see why then you don't understand them.

If it doesn't look like rolefishing, then it isn't. If you think it looks like rolefishing, you're lying.

Also, by your definition of townieness, every power role should claim immediately.

Then he goes into telling everyone that I'm not actually asking for Vezo's role info, which I've spoken to already.

The problem with Nhammen's posting now is that he hasn't done anything to disprove my main points.

This is called caught scum.

^This is not a defense^

TBQH I don't give a damn about your claim, since that's equally likely a scum role as it is town, and I believe you to be scum aside from it.

Because I make valid points that you cannot deny, I'm scum? Sorry for scumhunting then.
Note that your argument is even weaker since there are two scumteams thus scum would want to find each other. I'm sure there's scum on the wagon, but it could be one scumgroup riding the wagon of another. And tbh that's fine, since it leads to a scumlynch. The goal of this game is to get the scum to lynch each other more than anything.
So obviously, you're just disguising OMGUS-esque logic as something that's certain not true. You call me scum for no reason, call my case crap for no reason, and you're just not even trying at all. I don't see how you can't be scum.

While there ARE town roleblockers, they're fairly uncommon, especially compared to scum roleblockers. But I'm going to say that you hit the nail on the head here because nhammen is so blatantly scum that a claim is near irrelevant.

Midnight is missing the point.

My original reasons =/= BS
My original reasons = easy logic to follow that damns Nhammen because he knows he's caught

Your blatant defense of Nhammen by calling the logic crap without disproving any of it is noted.

Then you don't understand my reasons which means you probably aren't reading my posts since I spelled them out pretty clearly.

READ THE THREAD.

Lol Nhammen is going to use meta.
unvote, vote nhammen

I don't like Chrono's explanation and his post is a total WTF but Nhammen is getting even worse.

Nhammen, I can't be a VI if I'm right.

You're sour that I made a good case against you and that you're going to get lynched because of it. I'm not a VI by any standards.

This is the most genius one yet:

By the way, logic: If foilist agrees with nhammen's points against him, then they are in fact valid and my case against nhammen is invalid because foilist himself has said nhammen's words are true.

So foilist says that the main reason nhammen is calling him scum is indeed the truth. Basically, admitting to being scum. Good job mate.

Post 604 would be an individual analysis in itself and would require references to my own case as well as his against nhammen. I'm going to skip it for now, but I strongly feel that it follows the same pattern as the other ones I have posted. However, in this one he does actually answer questions. My complaint is that none of them are logical responses, and most of them miss the point.

You have until your next post to vote me or die a horrible death.

I stopped reading your post here because if you're going to misrepresent me like that then I have no reason to read a word of the BS your posting.

I am not a bad player. If I am a bad player, then everyone who voted nhammen after my case is a bad player as well.

YOU HAVE NOT DISPROVED ANY OF MY LOGIC. ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS CALL IT CRAP WITHOUT GIVING ANY EVIDENCE.

^This one is a blatant lie.^

I'm making myself look bad because foilist is lacking any sort of logic in his posts and instead seems satisfied with calling me a VI and calling my points crap without giving reasons. Right. You're a terrible scumhunter then, sorry to tell you.

Fine, there is no sense in foilist's attacks on me and my case, happy now?

there is no sense in foilist's attacks on me and my case

Oh yeah.
I am right and you are wrong. That's what I forgot to add.

Seriously sometimes I feel like you guys aren't even hearing a word I'm saying because I make the scum obvious and you guys decide to ignore my cases anyways.

He's incriminating himself while defending nhammen by calling my case crap - he admitted to what nhammen accused him of under the assumption that nhammen was accusing him of a lesser offense.

foilist get your head out of your *** please

Your definition of OMGUS implies you're voting 4 people at once.

If "doing okay" is defined as "completely missing the point" then sure. Also partly stems from an earlier game but that's meta so it's not important.

SC has done plenty more than you have in this game, hypocrite. Besides, you're useless because you're scum and therefore anti-town, so we should lynch you anyways.

I'll leave it there for now.

My view of this play is tunneling, aggression, crap-logic, and having so many suspects he can wagon hop and have suspected everybody long term. It's ridiculous, and it's scummy.

vote:Parama

I've convinced myself lol.

[foilist13]

@Mod: Think you can fix those quote tags in there? Thanks.

If anyone, probably Parama, wants more I've got it.

[foilist13]

Why don't you lynch him then and find out? You are positive he is scum and it would give you useable info on me or Socrates (if nhammen flips town I can't be his scum partner, and if he flips scum he probably is not aligned with Socrates).

If you want me to explain those qoutes one by one in context so that you can just say the whole thing is stupid again I will, however that will be a massive wall of text and I'm afraid you'll skip reading it and call it stupid anyway. If made my position on you clear. Refute it or stop talking about it.

[foilist13]

REASONS.

[foilist13]

REASONS.

You're doing nothing but proving my point. You just pulled out a paragraph from my post and claimed it was scummy. You made no analysis whatsoever. You're putting up no content, which means you are taking no risk. This is anti-town. Throughout this game I have posted exclusively through analysis and logic. You have done none of that. I challenge you to quote one post of yours in which you use logic that cannot easily be taken apart. I know you won't.

I don't expect to convince you of anything though, so I'm going to stop wasting my time.

@Socrates:

1) Have we played together before?

2) Can you link me to the previous game you played with Parama?

[foilist13]

Note the continuing failure to respond.

[foilist13]

I'm tired of defending myself from incompetent players. If someone has some content to direct at me that would be refreshing. I'm going to return to my player analysis now.

[foilist13]

Just like you caught nhammen and SSBF. So since we're all confirmed scum why me in particular?

[foilist13]

@LynchMePls: I don't know what to think of Parama which is primarily why I asked Socrates for the game that they played together. If this fits with his meta then he is probably town. Based on my own conclusions, he is certainly anti-town, but he does not behave in a logical manner. This makes it hard for me to come to a final conclusion on whether or not he is scum. Basically I don't know. He is not serving the town however, and I would not be sorry to see him lynched.

[foilist13]

The masons confirmed each other as masons, and vezo is confirmed as a monk as is lynchmepls who confirmed him. That means we have monks and either a monk mason, or a monk/mafia. It is unlikely that there would be monks and not masons, and I doubt the mafia would out their whole team D1

[foilist13]

Addendum to the previous: He could also be a mason/werewolf with lynchmepls, but that is equally unlikely

[foilist13]

So you are voting me based on me jumping to the easy wagon despite previous suspicions.

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons. Most of nhammen's wagon was people jumping on without reasons, as was Chronopie's, vezo's, MS's, and SGR's. I posted REASONS AND LOGIC with my votes. You also need to go back and look at what I said when I voted who I did. Just because I was debating with Parama at the time does not in any way mean that he was at the top of my scum list. Chronopie was, and I spoke to why and had beforehand. If you think my reasons for voting SGR were bad then you should have everyone on his wagon on your scum list.

1) Vezo: I voted vezo for very clearly presented reasons. This was my first vote. Do you find any of these reasons invalid or my vote opportunistic?

2) Chronopie: I was clear with my reasoning for attacking Chronopie before and after I voted him. I consistently labeled him scum, and never poor townie. I did not label Parama scum ever until recently. I'm going to check his meta and see if his ridiculous tunneling fits with it, in which case I will probably unvote him and move on to someone else.

3) SGR: I was clear with my reasons here as well. I said in the beginning it was a temporary vote until more evidence became apparent. I have since unvoted.

4) Parama: Parama has been chasing me like an idiot for most of D1 and all of D2. He believes absolutely in any reads he makes and refuses to change them or respond to any logic directed at him. I was clear here as well why it could have been either town or scum behavior, and finally settled on scum when he continued to tunnel me and fail to defend his "case."

My voting cannot be opportunistic if my reasons for voting are valid. The fact that I happened to vote for people who many other people either were or eventually were voting for is because those people were scummy and deserved it. You're essentially saying wagons are scummy.

You cannot claim me voting the people who get wagoned to be a scum tell. Some I voted after the wagon existed, others after it existed, and there is yet to be a significant wagon on Parama and he is hardly the convenient vote at all. Furthermore, if I were following this pattern I could have just as easily voted MS and parroted the reasons why. Is he my scum buddy too? None of my reasons for voting people were borrowed except for SGR which was a role info based vote.

So where exactly have I behaved scummy?

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum immediately after someone else voted for him first just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

Why I voted the people I voted is inextricably tied to who I voted. If I voted them for invalid reasons your argument would bear weight, but it does not. I eventually find myself on the easy wagons because the easy wagons tend to be on the scummiest players. I did not jump on them because I thought the town will was moving that way. That would require me to be late on every wagon, which I certainly was not. Your argument requires me to have some great sense of who the town is going to vote for. As I said earlier, I was not professing serious suspicion of Parama despite the fact that I was debating with him. I did however have consistent suspicions of Chronopie.

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

I have never given and still do not profess a solid position on Parama. I am leaning scum, but unlike him I don't know exactly who the scum are based on a single post. As I have said several times and clearly stated why,

he could be either.

I am not going to change my position or establish one because you think my indecision is scummy.

[foilist13]

So you are voting me based on me jumping to the easy wagon despite previous suspicions.

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons. Most of nhammen's wagon was people jumping on without reasons, as was Chronopie's, vezo's, MS's, and SGR's. I posted REASONS AND LOGIC with my votes. You also need to go back and look at what I said when I voted who I did. Just because I was debating with Parama at the time does not in any way mean that he was at the top of my scum list. Chronopie was, and I spoke to why and had beforehand. If you think my reasons for voting SGR were bad then you should have everyone on his wagon on your scum list.

1) Vezo: I voted vezo for very clearly presented reasons. This was my first vote. Do you find any of these reasons invalid or my vote opportunistic?

2) Chronopie: I was clear with my reasoning for attacking Chronopie before and after I voted him. I consistently labeled him scum, and never poor townie. I did not label Parama scum ever until recently. I'm going to check his meta and see if his ridiculous tunneling fits with it, in which case I will probably unvote him and move on to someone else.

3) SGR: I was clear with my reasons here as well. I said in the beginning it was a temporary vote until more evidence became apparent. I have since unvoted.

4) Parama: Parama has been chasing me like an idiot for most of D1 and all of D2. He believes absolutely in any reads he makes and refuses to change them or respond to any logic directed at him. I was clear here as well why it could have been either town or scum behavior, and finally settled on scum when he continued to tunnel me and fail to defend his "case."

My voting cannot be opportunistic if my reasons for voting are valid. The fact that I happened to vote for people who many other people either were or eventually were voting for is because those people were scummy and deserved it. You're essentially saying wagons are scummy.

You cannot claim me voting the people who get wagoned to be a scum tell. Some I voted after the wagon existed, others after it existed, and there is yet to be a significant wagon on Parama and he is hardly the convenient vote at all. Furthermore, if I were following this pattern I could have just as easily voted MS and parroted the reasons why. Is he my scum buddy too? None of my reasons for voting people were borrowed except for SGR which was a role info based vote.

So where exactly have I behaved scummy?

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum immediately after someone else voted for him first just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

Why I voted the people I voted is inextricably tied to who I voted. If I voted them for invalid reasons your argument would bear weight, but it does not. I eventually find myself on the easy wagons because the easy wagons tend to be on the scummiest players. I did not jump on them because I thought the town will was moving that way. That would require me to be late on every wagon, which I certainly was not. Your argument requires me to have some great sense of who the town is going to vote for. As I said earlier, I was not professing serious suspicion of Parama despite the fact that I was debating with him. I did however have consistent suspicions of Chronopie.

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

I have never given and still do not profess a solid position on Parama. I am leaning scum, but unlike him I don't know exactly who the scum are based on a single post. As I have said several times and clearly stated why,

he could be either.

I am not going to change my position or establish one because you think my indecision is scummy.

[foilist13]

So you are voting me based on me jumping to the easy wagon despite previous suspicions.

Of everyone in this game, I am the worst possible lynch for those reasons. Most of nhammen's wagon was people jumping on without reasons, as was Chronopie's, vezo's, MS's, and SGR's. I posted REASONS AND LOGIC with my votes. You also need to go back and look at what I said when I voted who I did. Just because I was debating with Parama at the time does not in any way mean that he was at the top of my scum list. Chronopie was, and I spoke to why and had beforehand. If you think my reasons for voting SGR were bad then you should have everyone on his wagon on your scum list.

1) Vezo: I voted vezo for very clearly presented reasons. This was my first vote. Do you find any of these reasons invalid or my vote opportunistic?

2) Chronopie: I was clear with my reasoning for attacking Chronopie before and after I voted him. I consistently labeled him scum, and never poor townie. I did not label Parama scum ever until recently. I'm going to check his meta and see if his ridiculous tunneling fits with it, in which case I will probably unvote him and move on to someone else.

3) SGR: I was clear with my reasons here as well. I said in the beginning it was a temporary vote until more evidence became apparent. I have since unvoted.

4) Parama: Parama has been chasing me like an idiot for most of D1 and all of D2. He believes absolutely in any reads he makes and refuses to change them or respond to any logic directed at him. I was clear here as well why it could have been either town or scum behavior, and finally settled on scum when he continued to tunnel me and fail to defend his "case."

My voting cannot be opportunistic if my reasons for voting are valid. The fact that I happened to vote for people who many other people either were or eventually were voting for is because those people were scummy and deserved it. You're essentially saying wagons are scummy.

You cannot claim me voting the people who get wagoned to be a scum tell. Some I voted after the wagon existed, others after it existed, and there is yet to be a significant wagon on Parama and he is hardly the convenient vote at all. Furthermore, if I were following this pattern I could have just as easily voted MS and parroted the reasons why. Is he my scum buddy too? None of my reasons for voting people were borrowed except for SGR which was a role info based vote.

So where exactly have I behaved scummy?

It's not the alignment of the person you voted, nor why you voted them, but WHO you voted. And it wouldn't be an issue if it was only Vezo, its the combination of Vezo + Chronopie + SGB. You "scumhunt" and profess suspicion of other players, but so far have always found yourself on the easy wagon, with your jump on the Chronopie wagon the most stark example because you had been professing suspicion of Parama at the time (which I will get to in a moment). I'm frustrated because all of the games I want to point to to illustrate my point are currently ongoing. The fact that you have just now "convinced yourself" that Parama is scum immediately after someone else voted for him first just goes to support this obvious mentality of going with the easy wagon that you exhibit.

Why I voted the people I voted is inextricably tied to who I voted. If I voted them for invalid reasons your argument would bear weight, but it does not. I eventually find myself on the easy wagons because the easy wagons tend to be on the scummiest players. I did not jump on them because I thought the town will was moving that way. That would require me to be late on every wagon, which I certainly was not. Your argument requires me to have some great sense of who the town is going to vote for. As I said earlier, I was not professing serious suspicion of Parama despite the fact that I was debating with him. I did however have consistent suspicions of Chronopie.

First of all protip: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are being illogical nor stupid.

I neither said nor implied any such thing.

Second of all, here you go again being internally inconsistent with your suspicion of Parama. When he attacks Nhammen it is scummy, but when he attacks you it is just dumb town. Whether or not you are suspicious of him shifts depending on what is most convenient to your argument.

I have never given and still do not profess a solid position on Parama. I am leaning scum, but unlike him I don't know exactly who the scum are based on a single post. As I have said several times and clearly stated why,

he could be either.

I am not going to change my position or establish one because you think my indecision is scummy.

[foilist13]

He's getting replaced Pom.

I don't see any questions directed at me, but if I missed you please tell me.

Top 3 Suspects

1) Parama
2) Leafsnail
3) The lurkers.[/b]

[foilist13]

Why do you think there have been so many replacements? Everyone is either V/LA, lurking, or catching up.

[foilist13]

Between Socrates and nhammen, I would support an nhammen lynch. Socrates predecessor was certainly as scummy as nhammen, but Socrates was less so.

As far as the role claim, we have more information to gain from lynching nhammen than Socrates. If he flips town roleblocker, then that would incriminate socrates. If he flips scum then Socrates is highly unlikely to be on the same scum team, but could still be on the other.

If we lynch Socrates we really get no info on nhammen at all unless he flips mafia, and even that can be disputed.

So in interests of this I will add nhammen as third on my scum list.

1) Parama
2) leafsnail
3) nhammen

[foilist13]

@Timeater: I didn't write that.

@leafsnail: You're a moron. Read the damn post.

[foilist13]

@Timeater: Since you don't seem to get it either I suppose leafsnail is less of a moron and I just didn't illustrate it well.

The first two were the only ones I seriously suspected at the time. The lurkers in general annoy me, but I couldn't really pick one out as legitimately being my third suspect. I continued reading and found that the town sentiment seemed to be leaning towards a nhammen or socrates lynch. Since I find socrates to be less scummy than nhammen, and I believe there is more information to be gained from lynching nhammen, I decided that should such an event come to pass I would support nhammen's lynch. Wanting to make this apparent to the town in a tangible way, I put him third on my scum list.

Essentially I changed my mind.

[foilist13]

Your first quote on the previous post is not me.

[foilist13]

What exactly about that quote of me shows a town read of Timeater?

[foilist13]

@Unsight: I believe, but I am not SSBF so I don't know, that he is trying to ensure that the monks/masons are not overlooked simply because of their roles, and is therefore posting player analysis on each of them. I'm not sure how useful this is at the moment, and to my best approximation, they each have a 1/24 chance of being scum, though that is not taking into account the fact that vezopiraka is confirmed.

I can see what you're saying about pomegranate, but is that really the best lynch for today?

[foilist13]

@SSBF: Why isn't leafsnail on your suspect list? You put up 10 people without mentioning the person you went after line 1 of your post. I am confused by this.

RE: Pomegranite: Only time's I've played with pomegranite she completely ignored D1, and tended to lurk D2. This is a common pattern with her, which unfortunately means we have no content or meta leaning either way. This is distinctly anti-town, but not necessarily scummy.

@Socrates: Do you intend to let shrinehime defend himself, or are you of the opinion that he cannot know what Sevis was thinking and therefore can't defend himself and should be lynched anyway?

[foilist13]

I think so. I don't believe I survived long enough to find out your alignment.

[foilist13]

I'm pretty sure that's not what the second line said, but I honestly don't care that much. I've played with nacho before and I recall him having much better logic and english. I don't know what his deal is here

[foilist13]

Making a town team is the worst idea ever. You're just putting up a huge sign saying "Scum, kill THESE people! Look, we lined them up for you." This will make it so we get no content out of night kills and you haven't even taken into account that scum may have made your town list. There are players who refuse to give town reads for this very reason. This is the most anti-town plan anyone has yet come up with. Instead of scum hunting, you're town hunting.

[foilist13]

Wow, not only are you lining up the town players, you're lining up the

useful

town players. This is ridiculous, you and SC just made my scum list. I'm just wondering if scum would do something that egregious.

[foilist13]

They are also not in your "club," they're listed as potentials as I recall. I understand what you are trying to do, and I'm telling you it is the worst possible mistake and blatantly beneficial to scum.

If you set up this town team, the night kills will go immediately to them, both of them. You won't be able to tell anything by who died because they will have died for being on this town team, not because of who they might be suspecting.

I see far better motivation for scum to try and set this up than town.

[foilist13]

I actually really like nacho's post.

@SerialClergyman: Please link me to such a game so that I can correct my inexperience. In the meantime I strongly believe what SSBF is attempting is unbelievably anti-town, and you dropping everything and joining up so that you get the "confirmed town" status in unbelievably scummy. Why would scum even bother killing you? They can just kill the rest of them and single out you or someone else and say "hey, why isn't he dead yet?"

1) You'll probably all be dead before you manage to lynch all the scum, unless you get 7+ people as confirmed town. Good luck.

2) Trusting people is the worst possible idea in a game like this. Once you start trusting, you stop close reading. Once that happens, any scum good enough to get themselves on this list will have an easy ride for the next few days until Lylo, or close to it.

3) And most importantly: Do you really think that SSBF is confirmed town, or is it because he came up with this? I find it incredibly convenient that he suddenly gets to be confirmed town even though he is on several people's scum lists. That applies to you as well.

4) Joining this group in the first place is a null tell. If you're scum it's protection, if you're town you might get killed.

[foilist13]

There is a scum roleblocker in most newbie games. I've SE'd enough of them to know it happens more often than not.

The reason they are usually scum roles is that they are not very useful to the town. Scum roles are usually limited to goon, roleblocker, and godfather. The godfather is not a power role in the sense that he has nigh actions, he just has a collection of immunities. The roleblocker could himself be roleblocked, but that would be an odd situation. Or the roleblocker could hit the one of three scum sending in the kill which is a shot in the dark.

They end up being a liability to the town as they can easily hit the cop or the doc, or jail keeper, or whatever else the town happens to have. I've only ever seen someone claim town roleblocker, and ended up being scum.

Can someone provide a link to a game where there was a town roleblocker?

[foilist13]

unvote, vote: Dr Robotnik

He pretty much lurked away the wagon on him yesterday and seems to be doing the same today. This also seems like the only wagon we can all agree upon, and it's a good case anyway.

[foilist13]

@Spyrex: I notice I haven't made either of your lists. Is that because you think I've behaved scummy this time, or because you still have nightmares from my abysmal performance the last time we played together?

Why is Dr Robotnik on your death list? He's been at least as useless as MS.

[foilist13]

Forgive me, but I can't jump on the MS wagon that fast. I voted Chronopie D1 for doing just that, and I'm not ready to make myself a hypocrite just yet.

@Spyrex: My understanding of your case on him is A) a strong gut read, and B) what amounts to active lurking, am I correct? I don't see why Dr Robotnik doesn't follow the same pattern. Everyone was happy to string him up after nacho's case, but now suddenly he's not such a sure thing based on YOUR read. That's not good enough for me. 'Splain.

[foilist13]

I don't think that you are defending robotnik, I think you are excluding him from this death list even though he has displayed the same scum tells as some of the people on it, most notably your primary lynch target. I don't understand why. Are you trying to give him a second chance?

[foilist13]

I would vote shrine over MS, but I prefer my Dr Robotnik vote best.

[foilist13]

So pick one. Make an opinion all by yourself.

[foilist13]

I don't have a problem with SSBF's proposal. We're essentially voting unofficially so that we CAN focus the town.

1) Parama: Illogical tunneling.
2) Leafsnail: Opportunistic, and bending of the truth.

3) Dr Robotnik: Active lurker, top suspect

4) shrine: Inability to recover from Sevis' foolishness.
5) nhammen: don't buy the roleblocker claim, inconsistant posting.
6) MS: gut read, inability to defend himself, active lurking.

[foilist13]

I think the game is moving faster than you, Nikanor

[foilist13]

@leafsnail: I'm not voting MS because I think robotnik is scummier. The hypocryte part would be me jumping on his wagon without reasons, which do exist but are outweighed by robotnik.

[foilist13]

1) inconsistent posting and lurking are very different things. Inconsistent posting is refering to him appearing when he needs to defend himself, and then disappearing when the wagon cools down.

2) MS is doing what you're doing. "Active lurking" and "lurking" are not the same thing. MS is just not doing it a egregiously as you are.

[foilist13]

I would have, except that I didn't want to be on the MS wagon, I wanted to be on the Dr Robotnik wagon. I see I wasn't very clear, my bad. I did have reason to vote MS if I wanted to. Those reasons were not excellent, and they were not my own reasons. This was te hypocrite part. Chronopie did not make himself useful. Me voting him for someone else's reasons would not be making myself useful. I ended up doing something similar with Dr Robotnik some time before that, but those reasons were far superior and worth it.

[foilist13]

^Above was obviously directed at leafsnail, invade any of you missed that.^

[foilist13]

I'm starting to feel vezopiriaka's demand. Let's get it done.

[foilist13]

@nhammen: This was primarily referring to yesterday, where several people commented on you doing exactly what I described. This is not the primary reason you are on my list however. I think you should be lynched because I don't trust your claim, but if it proves true it would strongly discredit socrates.

[foilist13]

They're both on my scum list. If the robotnik wagon isn't going to pick up anymore steam I'll hit up the shrine wagon. I'll say that will happen once shrine's wagon exceedes robotnik's.

[foilist13]

@MS: It's hard to tell with leafsnail, but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[foilist13]

Clearly the robotnik wagon is dead, and as promised I am switching over to the shrinehme wagon.

unvote, vote: shrinehme

@anyone voting, or considering voting Socrates: Can someone fill me in on why he is scummy, because I'm not really clear on that one.

[foilist13]

dying

, either way it has fallen behind yours and that was the condition I put on me switching. And before someone asks me, yes when it gets to 6-6 I consider that to be fallen behind.

[foilist13]

Can we all pick a wagon or support a wagon with relevant, non-personal information? This thread is descending into personalized quibbles and trash talking about people and entire wagons. This is ridiculous. Con we please return to clear logical posting?

[foilist13]

I'm here, I'm back. Let me catch up

[foilist13]

BM replaced Timeater.

@LynchMePls: Are you a player who advocates "cleaning up the town" in the early phases of the game?

I'm still voting Shrine. Something amazing would have to happen for me to change that.

[foilist13]

@Leafsnail: You conveniently left out the post where I detailed my scumlist, and the one where I promised to switch when the time came. I switched when the time came. If you thought that was scummy you would have called me out when I made the promise in the first place. Now it's just hot air.

[foilist13]

This does look terribly for socrates, but let's not ignore other possibilities.

@Socrates: I'll work with you on this one.

In post 1 of the thread, the mod states that the mafia godfather and the alpha wolf were killed night 0. That means that those roles existed in the game at one point, but practically are not part of it. I am not familiar with the alpha wolf role, though it seems based on the night kills that the wolves work the same way as a traditional scum team. Taking this into account, I don't think it is likely that they have any advantages the wolves don't.

The fact that there are two scum teams means that they have two night kills. Because of this, it is less likely they will have their own powerroles, or else the town would have an unfair disadvantage. If there are six scum with two roleblockers, two night kills, and two godfathers who are immune to night kills and investigation, the town wouldn't last a day. Yes they could target each other, but by default there are far more town than mafia which makes it very unlikely, and thus an unbalanced game.

Ok, so night 0 the godfathers died. Presumably that means that there are none now. Godfather is the only common scum role that is night kill immune, so I don't believe a kill was resisted, or two as the case may be.

Could the scum have roleblockers? Probably not. They would both need to have them for it to be fair between them, and again that would create an overpowered scum group that would quickly take out the town. Also, we can't possibly have enough power roles to justify that many roleblockers, so they probably don't have them either.

So based on this logic, the scum couldn't have blocked the kill either as they don't have blockers.

Next possibility is a doc. If we had one, that would make our blocker a liability, but still isn't that farfetched, so for the sake of argument I'll give you a doc.

That means N1 there could have been a doc save, so we still have one unexplained kill.

That kill could not have been prevented, except by nhammen. So either he blocked it or it wasn't made.

[foilist13]

@Lowell: I'm waiting to see what he comes up with.

[foilist13]

@Nacho: Can I assume you didn't kill anyone N1?

If that's the case then we're back where we were yesterday. Socrates could have been blocked by nhammen (which is much more likely now that we know nhammen really was a roleblocker) or there could have been a doc save.

[foilist13]

I get the point against unsight, but the evidence against Socrates is still quite strong.

Here are the possibilities for the missing kill N1

1) There was a successful roleblock by nhammen

2) There was a successful save by either a jailkeeper, doc, or other role

3) The kill didn't happen

I've never known scum to throw away their night kill, so I'm perfectly happy to throw away option 3.

That means there was a successful power role action.

Nhammen and this other role had the same chance to be successful and one of them was. So the way I see it, Socrates has a 50% chance of being scum as does whoever was saved. If Socrates isn't scum, they will be.

vote: Socrates

[foilist13]

Wait I take part of that back. Socrates still has a 1/2 chance of being scum, but the person who got protected isn't scum (well
they may be) they just have a 1/2 chance of having be targeted last night.

[foilist13]

My earlier post was based solely on logic to do with role claims. I was pretty sure I had proved he was scum, but i recognized there could be holes in my logic, so I waited to see what he could come up with. He did, and I have now included that in my latest post which still leads me to believe he is scum. Therefore I voted him now that he's had his input.

[foilist13]

@Socrates: The way I went through it, you have a solid 50% chance of being mafia, and if you aren't, you could still be a werewolf which makes the probability even higher, as well as the fact that in the other possibility (doc save) you could STILL be scum.

According to my calculator, that gives you above a 60% probability of being scum, do you dispute this?

[foilist13]

@leafsnail: You're clearly one of those people who went through high school and college math thinking "what the hell?" when you use probabilities you have to accept givens.

1) If I wanted to know the probability of scum giving up their kill, I'd have to go back through as many games as possible and find out all the ocasions on which they did. I'm not going to, but I will bet heavy money it's a damn low number. Because of that, I'm willing to throw it out as a margin for error of probably 1-3%.

2) I don't know that there is a saving role, so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there is one.

3) We know it's the mafia who didn't kill N1 from the kill flavor.

4) In order to stop the mafia kill, nhammen had to hit specifically 1 person. In order to stop that same kill, a doc or jailkeeper would also have to hit one specific person. Therefore both scenarios are equally likely.

5) Probabilities are never perfect. If I knew everything, it would only every be 1 or 0. Based on what we do know, it is around 60%.

I notice that instead of trying to show where my math went wrong, something which should be easy to do, you threw out some possibilities and tried to discredit the whole idea of probabilities. The only thing that would accomplish is lessening the amount of informaton on Socrates and discrediting those on his wagon. Now I wonder why you would do that?

My figures did not get pulled from my ass. That is the legitimate probability when only taking into account role info.

[foilist13]

Percentages are everything to do with it. (Besides, this is part of a project I'm doing about solving games. Mafia and chess are two examples.)

I explained kill immune roles before. N0 the godfathers died. I've never seen a bulletproof, they're in the do not use list for mods, MichelSableheart is a new mod and would not use one. No, I'm not absolutely sure. It is relevant just the same. Why don't you add whatever you can come up with to make the figure more accurate? This is the way probabilities work. You keep adding new data until the number becomes 1 or 0, or until it is no longer practical to add more. This is EXTREMELY helpful in figuring out who the scum are.

[foilist13]

How many people still have MS high on their scum list?

Over the last few days the major wagons that have yet to result in lynches, and are still alive, are
(this is from memory, so tell me if I forgot any)

1) Dr Robotnik
2) MS
3) Socrates
4) Unsight (newest one on the list)

Obviously we as a town find these four people to be the scummiest, so I think we need to focus our attention and come to a consensus on one of these four (as we are already along the lines of doing). SpyreX was killed last night presumably because he was a power player. Look at what he was trying to do. He created a death list and a death squad, and clearly that was dangerous. While I'm not the biggest fan of the death squad bit, I do think the death list could be extremely useful.

Of the four major wagons (granted, undight has yet to become a major wagon, but current sentiment brought me to put him on this list), I am inclined to support the Socrates wagon due to the evidence I've already stated. However, I would support any of these for the sake of focusing the town.

[foilist13]

@Super Smash Bros Fan: Would you be willing to support a Socrates wagon now? That seems to be the most prominent wagon with several people off the wagon having voices serious suspicions.

@Vezopiraka: You said earlier you wanted to lynch Unsight today and them Socrates tomorrow. Would you be willing to reverse that order?

@Parama: You too voices suspicion of Socrates and Unsight. Would you be willing to go after Socrates today and Unsight tomorrow?

@Faraday: I recall (not 100% sure on this one, I may be thinking of someone else) you pointing out Socrates as scum several times. Why are you not voting him now?

@MS and Nikanor: Would you be willing to switch to the Socrates wagon for today, then return to Unsight tomorrow?

For those of you who accept this arrangement, I will support an Unsight wagon tomorrow unless something else significant comes up.

[foilist13]

Can we come to some kind of a consensus please?

Robotnik doesn't have a wagon as yet today, so we can narrow it to MS, Socrates, and Unsight. Most of the people who suspect Unsight suspect Socrates and visa versa. Socrates is the bigger wagon today, and with good reason, so lets narrow it to MS and Socrates. (Gasp!! Oh no!! He threw out Unsight! He MUST be Unsight's scumbuddy!!)

Ok, Can everyone pick between MS and Socrates or give a good reason why we should switch ONE of those names to either Unsight or Dr Robotnik. We need to narrow this down to 2 and then to 1. This pattern of random accusations that slowly lead up to a lynch has gotten us two mislynches already. Time to stop.

Of the two wagons, I support a Socrates lynch, but I'd be happy to switch to get us moving.

[foilist13]

What is your suspect list?

[foilist13]

Why isn't Socrates defending himself? The only thing he's posted since this wagon started was to point out how the vig didn't confirm him as scum, but was evidence all the same. I wouldn't have expected this from him, but I think he's trying to lurk away the wagon an him

[foilist13]

@Socrates: I take back the lurking bit. I was literally sitting there refreshing the page for 30 min with nothing to do. I still hve nightmares about lurkers, see almastergm.

As far as your response, yes I do think it is damning evidence.

In your response you contradicted yourself. First you say it is hard to know which player to roleblock, then you say your slot was the obvious choice.

Is it easier to choose the doc save? Maybe, maybe not. The doc (assuming we have one) didn't do tw vest job last night. Didn't block any of the 3 kills. The o ly way to actualy show which is more likely would be to look at previous games and come up with a statistical probability. I don't have time to do that, nor would I bother.

@Nikanor: You couldn't be bothered to post a reason with that could you?

[foilist13]

Did you completely miss my response to that? You have completely failed to explain why my actions are still scummy, or how my explanation is in some way unlikely or invalid. Even where your suspicions well founded, which they are not, how does that put me on a higher level of scumminess than MS, Robotnik, and Socrates?

[foilist13]

My statistics should be easy enough to disprove if they are wrong. So do it.

[foilist13]

I've played with the mod before, and I know him pretty well. I'm only here because he invited me. I would bet hard cash that there are no outlandish roles in this game, and I already assumed a doc, which means the probability could easily be higher.

I already talked about the scum having kill blocking roles, so either you can take issue with what I said or not.

Based on that, the margin for error is a lot smaller than you think it is, maybe 10-15%

Even then, taking the lowest possible scenario, he still has a higher probability of being scum than anyone else. So why is that not strong evidence for you?

[foilist13]

@Leafsnail: I never voted MS because he never made the top of my scum list. Sorry to burst your bubble there buddy.

[foilist13]

@Nikanor: To me, in this game, 60% is lynch worthy evidence. However, even if you do not accept that you have at least admitted that he has an elevated probability. Couple that with the fact that his is a scummy player slot. Even now he is not exibiting town behavior. He has resigned himself to his lynch and is doing no scum hunting. That is exactly what a scum player should be doing. The less he talks the information there is for the the town and the more likely it is for him to lose attention. If he were town he would be doing everything in his power to find scum or stop his wagon.

Furthermore, even if you don't think my reason for voting him is good enough, your vote on me is retarded. There is nothing you've accused me of that I haven't explained yet your vote is still there. Why? The miniscule justification for it dried up a long time ago.

[foilist13]

@Nikanor: So you're saying it is a null tell, correct? The problem is that requires him to be a poor player, which based on his earlier play he is not. Reread him in iso, he is not incompetent. That means he has either lost interest in the game (not an insignificant possibility), or is trying to lurk away the wagon on him. That leaves the possibilities of disinterested town or scum.

@Anyone voting me: Please post simple bullet points outlining the case against me, if you can. I don't want anything comprehensive, I expect to get to that later. Just simply put up what you think I'm scummy for, be it lurking, one scum tell or another, or anything else, but do it. This wagon is idiotic and I intend to prove it or be proven wrong.

[foilist13]

@Parama: You are pissing away all your credibility as we speak. You really don't have any left since every time a suspicion pops into your head you declare that person scum beyond all doubt. A nice example is SSBF D1. Why don't you suspect him now?

Nhammen was another. You were more certain of him than of anyone else yet. Look how he flipped, town. I can't fathom why anyone listened to you.

[foilist13]

What Socrates was going to come up with was refering to defense. I could care less about his case on unsight when deciding whether or not to vote for him.

Can you please link me to the post where I said I would not vote Socrates, because I don't recall ever having said that.

[foilist13]

@Parama: I think you need to put a whole lot more thought into them than you have previously, and I expect everyone else not to put any faith in them at least for the time being.

[foilist13]

@Parama:

1) Like I said before, post bullet points. I don't even remember what the case was, but I recall it being useless.

2) Nikanor's case is limited to one tell, and that one is under question.

3) There certainly is pro-town motive. I haven't seen anything at all that I consider useful from you, yet people gravitate towards your confidence. That makes you a wild card, something which is exceedingly dangerous to the town especially in Lylo where you don't need to convince anyone of your random certainties.

[foilist13]

@Parama: You literally refuse to support them when they are attacked, so how would we know?

@Leafsnail: You aren't as random and don't sound as good

[foilist13]

Ok, I think we all need to agree that there are in fact 6 scum. How are we even going to know when we get to lylo or mylo if we don't come to the pretty easy consensus on how many scum exist in this game. There is no other number that makes sense unless there's an SK, but that seems impossible at this point.

[foilist13]

1) Ok, first off, saying I'll work with him means I expect his input and for him to defend himself. At the time, my read on him was still a town one and the evidence mathematical. It did not mean I didn't intend to vote him if that's where the logic lead me.

2) Like I said when you questioned me the first time, I was waiting to see what he would come up with. That means

logically in his defense

, not anything else. My attack on him was based solely on probability, so anything not concerning those probabilities would be irrelevant.

3) Neither of Socrates posts did anything to dissuade me of my argument, nor sad anything relevant to my next post. That to me means he is not willing to work with me as it were. Therefore I moved on with my argument.

4) I don't see your issue with this post. Nacho claimed, so I took it into account and started reevaluating my argument.

5) Failing to see anything yet to dissuade me, I repost my logic and vote Socrates. What do you expect me to have done?

[foilist13]

@Nikanor: I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

1) I post initial logic against Socrates and wait for a response.

2) No decent response is given.

3) Nacho's claim comes up. I edit logic accordingly.

4) Still no good response from Socrates.

5) I restate logic and vote Socrates.

So this scum tell that you've uncovered, which is so good that it outweighs everything brought up against every other player, is that I waited before voting. That's it? Good job catching that one.

[foilist13]

@Leafsnail: Dont sound as good means aren't as confident or articulate.

[foilist13]

@Furcolow: There are two running theories right now.

1) Socrates is scum and should be lynched. Midnight Sorrow is likely the next scum. This is the most popular theory.

2) Pomegranate, Unsight, and foilist13 (me) are a scum team. This viewpoint is held by 3-4 players, including the victims of theory 1.

There is overlap of both of these theories.

[foilist13]

Checking in. I really don't have anything to add right now.

@Nikanor: If you intend to pursue my lynch tomorrow, I expect you to respond to my most recent defense.

[foilist13]

Can we please lynch Socrates now? He's been at at least L-3 the entire day. It is time for him to die.

[foilist13]

I agree, MS has lived far too long in this game.

@Parama: I never proved Socrates was anything. I put it at a 60% chance, and that's what it was.

[foilist13]

vote: Midnight Sorrow

Forgot to do that in my last post.

[foilist13]

The simple fact is that the case on me doesn't exist.

@Nikanor: Lets say I concede the point we're harping on (which I don't), does that really make me more scummy that midnight sorrow??

Not one person here can link to a legitimate case one me, because one doesn't exist.

[foilist13]

How in the hell did a single thing in what I just said point to that? You are either complacent scum or retarded town. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[foilist13]

I'm at L-2, how is it I haven't been killed already? Seriously, with you people having such a great knack for lynching town, I should be dead already.

@Lowell: That was genius. How ever did you see through me? [/sarcasm]

[foilist13]

The people who claimed vezo as confirmed town have since died and proven their alignment. Vezo is town without a doubt.

[foilist13]

unvote, vote: foilist13

Down with the town

[foilist13]

I stopped reading after I went down, and when I came back to see my whole team was dead. Don't know what happened, but I enjoyed the game. Also I feel vindicated that parama was scum even though I was scum too. On reread that was an interesting battle.