Newbie 656 Game Over!

[Fenchurch]

Woo! Get posting people - I want to start putting names to.. avatars!

Incidentally, if anyone doesn't have an avatar already, can I request that you get one? Having read through a few newbie games on the site already, I find that they really help in keeping track of who is who.

And plus, it's a little picture you can choose, it might tell us something about the real you. For instance thinktank, I take it you either like xkcd, or.. very small maps :)

[Fenchurch]

I think the tiny map is fine, it makes it more like,

subliminal

xkcd.

And

vote: Drifter

, for the worst excuse ever

But also, hello, and thank you for posting.

[Fenchurch]

Sion, I don't think any of us are expecting a lynch at this stage in the game, but It is quite frequent on the forums to start a game with "random" voting, to get the ball rolling and such. So it's not really necessary to vote no lynch, and I assume you do want a lynch eventually on Day 1 - statistically speaking, even a random lynch is better for the town than no lynch. (Obviously, choosing the

right

lynch is the way to go, but we won't know that for sure until after we've made our choice).

That said, I don't mean to take your vote too seriously, having just described everyone else's as "random".

Is my avvie good enough?

Absolutely! (I'm assuming the question was directed at me, since I'm the one being so militant about avatars )


Also, Drifter, it looks like somehow your bold tags didn't work properly. Did you press the button to disable BBCode in the post?

[Fenchurch]

Yeah, I really want to correct that capital "I" that I accidently put in "It", but it's there for good now...

The disable BBCode checkbox is at the bottom of each post (although not if it's a "Quick Reply"), so even if you clicked it by accident, I think it should reset for the next time. Not sure if that is what caused your un-boldness, though.

[Fenchurch]

are you allowed to vote for yourself?

More importantly, would you?

[Fenchurch]

wel being a townie it wouldn't be the best thing to do for the team.

That is true.

But then, neither is a random bandwagon. Drifter and thinktank, your votes on each other currently, are they based on actual suspicions, or just joking still?

Maybe it's a little early to ask this, but: what are everyone's thoughts so far on which players seem scummy?

Who are the IC's?

thinktank, and ShadowLurker - who we're still waiting to hear from in the thread.

[Fenchurch]

I personally have my radar on you, Drifter and thinktank.

I'd say that's understandable, as we have all been posting quite a bit and are therefore the most prominent. I had also picked out Drifter, and maybe you to a lesser extent.

I admit I'm not keen on Drifter's comment about starting a bandwagon, even as a joke, but I don't know whether to take it as scummy, or just a newish player choosing not to take the game too seriously (or is that scummy in itself?).

I also didn't like your suggestion to Drifter to self-vote, because I doubt he would as scum, but on the other hand I have seen townies self-vote as an act of defiance: "you'll all be sorry when you see me flip town", and it usually gets them lynched, and doesn't help the game.

And lastly, Sion's voting for Drifter. Whilst Drifter did suggest a bandwagon, I'm not sure he can be held responsible for

starting

it, especially since the bandwagon that has started is on him. In light of that,

unvote, Vote: Sion

.

[Fenchurch]

Just wanted to add: it'd be nice to hear more from the people who haven't posted a lot so far. I realise that there's not a lot to go on at this stage, but it'd be easy to hide as scum by just sitting back and not posting much: less to incriminate you by. If you're town, prove it to us - do some pressing, ask questions, hunt those scum!

[Fenchurch]

Why is scum more likely to be incapable of reading the first page?

They're not, but it is the town's job to work out who is scum, and in games like this all we can go by is reading posts. Scum don't need to work anything out as they already know.

What is wrong with a bandwagon?

Well surely it is more sensible to take time, discuss, and have well-reasoned votes, and more information on people's stances to take into later Days in the game, rather than everyone just piling on whilst we are still on the second page?

That said, I think lifeofpie and Sion slightly hypocritical in their response: they oppose Drifter for suggesting a bandwagon, for which their punishment is... bandwagonning.

[Fenchurch]

Drifter, I'd like to know: does the phrase "WIFOM" mean anything to you, without looking it up?

[Fenchurch]

Mod: Please check post 48 - I changed my vote from Drifter to Sion.

Fixed

[Fenchurch]

Why are you answering questions for lifeofpie?

Well, I mistakenly read the questions as being open to anyone, and so I answered because I had answers to give.
In retrospect though, I wish I hadn't because I also would like to hear lifeofpie's responses - lifeofpie, perhaps you could still give the answers that you would have?

Personally, I don't think it would be a scum tell or a town tell either way if a person is "pressing" and asking tons of questions. If that is the norm for town play, why wouldn't scum do it as well?

This is a good point, but I think that ultimately we rely on the scum making a mistake or a slip up in their behaviour, because whilst they will be trying to act town, ultimately they have different knowledge and different motivations.

My feeling is that the more everyone posts, the more chance we have of these kind of mistakes happening.

Note that thinktank ignores my two questions.

Do you mean the questions intended for lifeofpie?

[Fenchurch]

No comments on my lurking?

Yes: stop lurking
If you're not sure what to post, then: what are your thoughts on Drifter's bandwagon suggestion? And the subsequent backlash from lifeofpie and Sion? ShadowLurker's aggressive playing? And anything else that strikes you as noteworthy?


In case anyone was wondering, I brought up WIFOM because I was thinking that if Drifter didn't know about it then he may have made the scummy-sounding bandwagon suggestion as a bluff tactic.

However, thinking about it more, I don't know if it does apply to this case, and chances seem higher that it could have just been a reckless mafia move, or a townie error.

Drifter, perhaps you could explain your motivations, and then I won't have to speculate any more!

Lame, I never remember people by names, only behavior which is why I had the chapter 5 mixup. thinktank was behaving like an IC so I assumed he was the other IC, who I had directed questions to.

thinktank

is

the other IC, but your question was originally directed at lifeofpie...

[Fenchurch]

is there a time limit for the day phase?

No, although if it were to go on for a very long time, or if there were a lack of posting activity, then the mod may impose a deadline (which will sometimes be extended if activity then picks up).

From reading through other games here, Day 1 can often be the longest. I'd expect maybe 10-15 pages of posting, and covering 2 or 3 weeks in real life.

You've probably heard it before, but longer days tend to be better for town. The more information there is to go on, the better. And even though on Day 1 itself there may not be a lot of solid evidence, often looking back on day 1 from later in the game, people's actions may take on new significance.

[Fenchurch]

look im not going to go into details, u can speculate on the reasons all you want, its fine. I'm not under any pressure here.

Drifter, just as advice, it really does help to explain your actions here, especially when you have been specifically requested to do so. Telling us to speculate is just inviting us to draw conclusions that the motivation was scummy. It implies that you don't have a non-scummy reason to give, and that's why you can't tell us.

If you are pro-town, then being honest about your behaviour is almost always the best tactic, even if it means admitting that you may have made a mistake.

I say this, because my feeling is that most of you attacking Drifter are barking up the wrong tree. To me, his actions come off as newbie town more than they do scum.

Drifter, have you played forum mafia before on other websites, and if so, how does it compare to this one?

[Fenchurch]

Oh wait, never mind. Apparently, it was done for a strategic reason.
This is similar to owsianko's apparently random vote on lifeofpie (post 23) that he backed down from and said was to test for a reaction (post 28). This backing down from what IMO should really be a random vote with even a little pressure is a bit suspicious to me.
---
As for ShadowLurker's aggressiveness, it seems fitting for an IC, but on the other hand, he seems to have missed certain things in the thread, so I do not believe it is quite fitting.

Good points here. I agree that owsianko's "random" voting could be a bit suspicious, although he hasn't posted enough to draw any other conclusions yet. In NabNab's post 57 it says that owsianko has requested a replacement, and part of me would love to leap to conclusions about scum players frustrated about the lack of a quicklynch.. but I know that's insensible, and there are lots of other potential/personal reasons. Anyway, I'm not sure if it is still the case, and it doesn't seem to have been posted in the Newbie Queue thread.

FoS: owsianko

owsianko, if you are still here, could you post something about what you think of the game so far?

My other suspect is still Sion, who hasn't posted a lot either, apart from an opportunistic-looking vote on Drifter's bandwagon. Sion says that bandwagons are bad, yet seems quite happy to bandwagon Drifter. (I'm aware that lifeofpie was also on the bandwagon, but with the first vote, and a more fully-explained reason.) Sion, would you post some more, too? I notice your vote is still on Drifter, do you still think he is the best lynch for the day?

[Fenchurch]

okay wel iv played mafia before but not online. I role claimed because I thought there was a time limit on the day phase and I was in line to be lynched. Now I'm not going to say anymore because I want to keep my role ambiguous to the Mafia.

That's fair enough, but bear in mind that even though you might want your role to be ambiguous to scum, you don't want it to be ambiguous to town as well (and by "ambiguous", I mean scummy). I guess what I mean is, I think the worst of the damage is already done, and your best bet now is to be open about your moves.

Incidentally, the convention I've seen with role claiming is to only call for it when someone is at L-1 and there is another player willing to place the lynching vote. Even then some players are opposed to role claiming. Not really relevant right now, but something to bear in mind for the future.

[Fenchurch]

Yes, you generally claim when you are a L-1 because in most cases that's probably the only thing that's will to save you.

And even then, it might not
Depends on the circumstances really.
Although while we're on the subject, I'd like to mention that it is never beneficial for a townie to fake-claim a power role. Not that anyone here seems crazy enough to do it (I've only seen it happen in a couple of games), but just in case. If the town wins the game, all townies win the game, whether they are alive, or got lynched, or got night-killed.

Anyway, that's enough gameplay theory for now. More accusations needed! Sion, thanks for checking in, and I see you have decided to take your vote off Drifter. Do you have any ideas as to where you might place it next? Or thoughts about the game in general?

[Fenchurch]

What's L_1?

It means there is just one more vote needed to lynch you. So basically, as close as you can come without it being too late.

[Fenchurch]

What's L_1?

It means there is just one more vote needed to lynch you. So basically, as close as you can come without it being too late.

Oh, and it's especially helpful to be aware of the number of votes away from lynch in situations where the mafia are close to outnumbering the townies (known as LyLo, or "lynch or lose").

For instance, if there were 3 townies left and 2 scum, and one townie then placed a vote on another, both scum would have the opportunity to pile on and instantly win the game.

[Fenchurch]

okay wel iv played mafia before but not online. I role claimed because I thought there was a time limit on the day phase and I was in line to be lynched. Now I'm not going to say anymore because I want to keep my role ambiguous to the Mafia.

Your role is hardly "ambiguous" now that you've already claimed vanilla townie. And if you're not going to explain your actions because you're not under pressure, then I'll gladly add a vote.

I think that Drifter

was

explaining his actions, in the post that you just quoted. If you want more of an explanation, you may have to ask more specific questions.

In other news, Happy Scumday thinktank!

And welcome Artem! You may notice that some of us found your predecessor a little suspicious, although perhaps mainly due to a lack of activity and/or reasoned voting. It will be good to hear your take on the game so far!

[Fenchurch]

I think that Drifter

was

explaining his actions, in the post that you just quoted. If you want more of an explanation, you may have to ask more specific questions.

Having thought about it some more, I have another specific question.
Drifter, did you read any of the threads on these forums, before coming into this game?

[Fenchurch]

But it

is

day 1, so the statement begs the question: why are you so convinced that Drifter is town?

Because, to me, his actions so far seem like newbie town more than newbie scum. But no, I'm not saying I'm certain; I just don't think I'd be willing to lynch him based on the game so far. And I guess I'm not convinced by ShadowLurker's attacks, because he doesn't seem to have the read the thread thoroughly before making his posts.
Drifter is not off the hook as far as I am concerned; I have been asking questions based on his behaviour - and I am still waiting on the answer to my latest one.

yeh, I see what you mean apologies to the townies for that. Unless I turn out not to be a vanilla townie.

...followed by erratic attempts to cover-up the claim. Why? Also, is he saying that he's not apologizing if he's scum?

FoS: Drifter

Well, Drifter's post here is in response to thinktank's criticism of the claim:

Usually a bad idea to claim this early and with so little pressure because it ends up helping scum. Especially in newbie games with setups as such, there is the possibility of 1 cop, 1 doctor, both or neither. So if there are both in a game, and there are usually two scum, so in a game of 9 people the scum have a choice of 7 people who to kill at night. If you've claimed vanilla, they could take pick the other 6, significantly increasing their odds of hitting a power role.

So, having been told that his early vanilla claim could help the scum, Drifter tries to revert it "oh, well actually I might be the cop or doc, who knows". Sure, the backtracking is much too late, but again, I think that it fits in the context, and with what we have seen of Drifter's character.

Finally, owsianko's vote on lifeofpie appears to be, as he said, aimed to get a reaction. When lifeofpie gave a joking reaction to a joke vote, owsianko unvoted. How is that scummy again and why are you trying to paint it scummy?

FoS: RandomGem, Fenchurch

It was more to do with the fact that owsianko's

only

involvement so far was to throw about a couple of random votes, and no more posting besides that. You're right, it's a weak case; and owsianko's replacing out proves now that he had either chosen not to or was unable to continue with the game.
To be honest, I'm still not not sure either way whether being inactive in the game can be counted as a sign of scumminess or not. On the one hand, there are plenty of legitimate, real-life reasons which might cause someone to be inactive. On the other, not posting means you prevent the other players from being able to analyse you, for scum-tells or for town-tells.
And so on the plus side, it looks like you are a lot more verbose than owsianko was, and I'm glad for that.

[Fenchurch]

One way to tell if somebody is lurking is to see whether they are posting in other games. Another way is to request a prod and if the player picks up the prod but doesn't post, then they are likely avoiding posting on purpose.

That is true, although a little difficult to apply it to our game, since many of us are newbies and therefore not posting in any other games. Also, I understand that some mods have a policy to prod, but not post the results... not sure how common this is though, and anyway it hasn't come to that yet with anyone in this game :)

Hmm. I think I'm going to

vote: Fenchurch

Uh.... why?

Ditto that! chapter 5, would you mind giving any of the reasoning behind your vote?

[Fenchurch]

tbh no, i mean i looked at the rules and the wiki.

Fair enough I understand why I'm sus, at least I have got a few reactions out of people.

Can you remember where you first came across the term, "vanilla townie"?

[Fenchurch]

Also, is there a reason you're answering for RandomGem?

I also see RandomGem's self-vote as a joke. And that's not answering for him, it's giving my opinion on the matter. He has already chosen to defend it as a joke, surely the rest is just whether you believe him or not. Is there a disadvantage to posting when you believe another player's defence? (This isn't a rhetorical question.. I'm actually curious, is there?)

Your argument about RandomGem's "lurking" posts I can agree with a little more; since at the time he wasn't really lurking, and posting about it, comes across as showing a little too much concern about his own behaviour.

But I still feel that the most scummy action so far is Sion's bandwagonning, especially given that his only post since then is just to remove the offending vote, with no effort to add any reasoning or discussion to the game; I am happiest with my vote on him.

[Fenchurch]

I think it's Fenchurch. The entire game so far, Fenchurch has spent the game guiding the town in terms of letting them know what exactly are town and scum tells. Personally, I think such tells are a bit ambiguous; naturally these can be accepted as generalities but to regard many of the things as truisms reeks of guidance and scum trying to act as town.

Not to mention I think she's been a little *too* active. Active to the point where I feel like every post is posted for the sake of posting and not for actually contributing.

Firstly, yes I have been posting a lot, but that's because I'm interested in the game and in playing it. I don't see how this makes me scum any more than town. Is it silly to say that, in order for there to be a game,

someone

has got to post? I understand what you are suggesting about only posting when you've got something definite to say, but I think that there will also be a lot of times when no one is certain about anything, and at those times the game would be liable to stagnate. This is one of the reasons why I have been so active in asking others to post their thoughts, as well.

And although I have been expressing my opinions a lot, that does not mean I am expecting others to adopt them. I genuinely want to hear what other people think. I maintain that not posting, whilst not a scum-tell perhaps, is definitely not pro-town, because it stops other players from getting any kind of read on your behaviour.

I'm not saying that my involvement has always been good - whilst I have spent time reading other games, obviously I don't have experience in actually posting, so there are lots of things I need to learn. Artem gave a good reason for not defending other players, and that is one thing I will have to hold off doing in future.

Reading back, I can see what you mean about "guiding", in that I have talked openly about some things that are bad moves, like fakeclaims, and self-voting. This is just because I have seen newbie townies get lynched in several other games for committing what are, supposedly, obvious scum-tells. I've been explicit about it because don't want a waste a lynch on silly behaviour that is, in my eyes, just as likely to stem from inexperience as from scumminess.

As for regarding certain scum-tells as truisms though, I'm not sure where I've done that - I'd say if anything, I've been too lenient on people for some supposed scum-tells.

It seems a little like you are accusing me of being scum just because I have been "acting town". And that's frustrating, because if that's the case,

how do you expect a townie to act

?

[Fenchurch]

As for regarding certain scum-tells as truisms though, I'm not sure where I've done that - I'd say if anything, I've been too lenient on people for some supposed scum-tells.

Coming back to this: I suppose the thing that I have been pushing, and which I know that chapter 5 disagrees with, is my claim that not posting is anti-town-like behaviour. Not

un

-town-like; not necessarily a scum-tell - although I admit that I have sometimes been speculating this as well.

Hmm. I suppose one of the reasons that I have been pushing it so avidly, is that it feels like it might otherwise be too easy to forget. Everyone will busily pick out scummy things in the words of people who have posted, whilst completely forgetting about those who haven't. Maybe I'm worrying unnecessarily, I don't know.

Anyway.. it doesn't mean that I'm happy to disregard players who have posted, and I'm definitely not saying that posting, in and of itself, is a sign of being pro-town. I guess what I'd like, ideally, is for everyone to have posted a fair amount, then there would be a level playing field to judge people on.

To put it in an extreme example, if there were two players, one who had posted something slightly scummy, and one who had posted almost nothing, I'd be reluctant about reaching a conclusion that the first one was the the most scummy, since the second had escaped analysis by avoiding to reveal anything about themselves.

[Fenchurch]

Upon chapter 5's explanation, I made a (very very) quick scan. Fenchurch, I have found a

random gem

avatar to comply with your wishes.

It is appreciated

[Fenchurch]

Okay, it turns out that holding off posting for a while did not cause me to have any sudden revelations about the game.

Drifter, NabakovNabakov may or may not notice your question as it is: in general it is best to use bold tags when addressing the mod. They may well be moderating several games at once, and so it enables them to skim the threads for votes and messages directed at them, without having to read every single post. And on that topic,

Mod: Please can we get a prod on on Sion?

and ShadowLurker

< I see he has posted whilst I was typing

And now, questions.

chapter 5, as another player who hasn't posted a lot, how do you feel about Sion? Do you think his motivations for not posting are the same as yours? I'm not sure if you are still finding me the scummiest player, but even if you are, there would still be one other scum out there for you to identify.

thinktank, you have posted a fair amount, but they are mainly in the role of IC answering questions, and you haven't made any votes since your random one. Do you have any comments about the game, besides Drifter and his claim?

Drifter, you have the second highest postcount in the game so far (haha.. guess who is first), but haven't really questioned other players, or made accusations. I realise that a number of your posts may have been twken defending yourself.. but since then you have asked a couple of times about deadlines, despite not having expressed suspicions of anyone in the game. Do you want a deadline? And if there was one, who would you be choosing to vote for?

And I'm sorry, since I know I've been criticised for directing the game, and for cluttering up the thread without adding much content. However, I can't imagine people volunteering the answers to these questions without me asking, so I hope it is understandable. And equally, I would be happy to answer any questions directed at me.

[Fenchurch]

This post is pretty much exactly what I mean when I say she posts for the sake of posting. This is all fluff extended into like 8 or 9 paragraphs. I'm like 90% confident you're scum, now.

So, giving you the reasons for my actions, which you have accused of being scummy, is "posting for the sake of posting"?

I'm sorry that it's not concise, but in a game where our words are the sole indicator of our alliance, I don't want to leave mine open to misinterpretation, so I err on the side of caution: an overexplanation rather than an underexplanation.

It has taken you 3 days to respond to that post. Is that how often you check the thread, or did you just choose to wait?

[Fenchurch]

Not to mention that the above post is quite overdefensive for what you might think is a baseless claim.

You're right about that: I was aggravated, because it felt like you were being unreasonable. Having done my best to explain my reasons for my posting habits, your response came across as merely "look, how much she posts again!", without addressing anything in it.

I've noticed that you tend to post a lot of words for only a medium amound of substance.

To put my previous answer another way - I guess I'd rather that I were posting a lot with some substance, than a little with none at all. I have "admitted" that not all of my posts are giving useful information, because I am not confident enough in my playing ability to say that they are.

As for other matters. Drifter's latest post is just.. odd. Apparently he has a a post that lifeofpie made five pages ago has suddenly struck him as incredibly suspicious. Could this be related to the fact that ShadowLurker has also brought up lifeofpie as a suspect recently, so Drifter thinks he makes a sensible target?

I read through another game today with a similar newbie player who was scum, and it's made me think now that I have given Drifter the benefit of the doubt too much, when assuming his actions to be newbie town (note: is changing your mind based on other games reasonable? I can't see how not, since that's how my original judgements were made, but maybe I'm wrong). He doesn't seem to be trying too concerned with looking for scum, and personally, I do read his questions about deadlines as a player getting tired of the day phase.

I'm not going to vote him right now - I still would like some more participation from Sion. But I don't think I will be uncomfortable any more about voting Drifter again today.

[Fenchurch]

Drifter

, can you explain your post 142? Why with the sudden epiphany?

I assumed that it was triggered by this, and other posts like it:

Drifter, you have the second highest postcount in the game so far (haha.. guess who is first), but haven't really questioned other players, or made accusations.... Do you want a deadline? And if there was one, who would you be choosing to vote for?

I think Drifter took these posts to be saying that he ought to make an accusation in order to look more townie. But the accusation he made, and the reason given for it, don't make any sense, which looks even less townie.

And Drifter, a good townie

should

worry about getting lynched off, because as a townie you should want a scum lynch, not a lynch of an innocent. Accepting your own lynch as an innocent is not pro-town.

Regards to Drifter's early vanilla claim that had struck me as genuine - is it possible that in the pre-game discussion, the second mafia player could have advised Drifter to claim vanilla if he was under pressure?
Would anyone who has played on the mafia side before be able to confirm if this is plausible?

[Fenchurch]

Of course it's possible. I personally wouldn't claim at 3 votes, and if I was hypothetically scum, I wouldn't risk claiming a power role, and would claim townie instead. But now that I think about it, that's pretty much a useless claim. If I was at L-1 and pretty much going to be lynched, I would claim doc. I would hope for a counterclaim, because then my partner could kill him that night. This would only be a desperation/suicide move though, since it's pretty likely to fail.

Hmm. Yes, fishing for a counter-claim does make sense, although if there was one, then it would seal your own lynch. Is that a good trade-off for the mafia to make? I don't know. And I don't know how many vanilla claims have staved off a lynch, so you're right that it could be useless. I mean, it did make us think twice about Drifter, but that's because it came at a time when most people weren't looking to lynch him.

Hmm. I still think Drifter's recent posts are dodgy, and in the game as a whole he simply does not seem to be interested in finding out who the mafia are, and his few posts that have been accusatory sound awfully contrived.

Also, Drifter, I didn't answer your comment about deadlines. No there isn't a harm in knowing, but you had already been informed of the circumstances in which a deadline would be imposed, and when you asked the second time, it does seem like you *want* there to be one. The only reason to to have a deadline is if the game stalls, and since it hasn't, it was unnecessary to ask.

[Fenchurch]

Predicting scum tactics is definitely a shady road leading just to speculative arguments rather than evidence base arguments and leading the town into more chaos than needed.

Fair enough, I hadn't realised that it was a bad idea. I'm still not sure I fully understand why, but I'll take your word for it and hold off that kind of speculation now.

[Fenchurch]

The problem with analyzing and predicting scum methodology is often times you're just going out on a limb and making hunches. Leading into WIFOM. Leading into baseless arguments and these things are just not pro town as they are doing nothing to actually catch scum.

Ah, well I agree with your example about analysing nightkills, especially ones that seem to implicate people, and I also see the WIFOM that could result from RandomGem's post.

But I still don't see the WIFOM in my Drifter pre-game speculation - I'm not saying that it was a deliberate misleading action, rather that it was a misinterpretation of another player's advice on what and when to claim.

Actually I can see why it's pretty poor: you're right, it involves building quite a lot of imagined actions out of only one that is known, and it's pretty scummy to try and convict someone based on things that you don't even know if they happened. Which explains your FoS. Okay, point taken!

[Fenchurch]

I'm reluctant to post much at the moment, partly because I don't have anything new to say, but also because I'm reluctant to start looking elsewhere for scumminess before hearing something from Sion or Sion's replacement.

[Fenchurch]

Hmm. I'm also disappointed that the game has stalled somewhat, and I know I haven't posted much recently myself, but as I said before, I'm hesitant about pushing in a new direction whilst the player I find most suspect is still AWOL.

I also haven't had a lot of free time recently, but here there is a bank holiday weekend coming up soon, so hopefully then I will have the opportunity to do a re-read and post some more thoughts and questions, if not before. I'd invite anyone else to do the same, especially since if you don't agree with me about Sion. You don't have to wait for something to happen, you can ask questions - demand that other players respond to you

As for my posting style having changed dramatically, lifeofpie, I can't say I'm aware of it myself, but I suppose that goes without saying. The only difference I can see is my change from commenting on other players behaviour, to defending my own

[Fenchurch]

Being verbose under a pressure isn't a good thing. Often times it manifests into defensive posts which are a scum tell.

I disagree with this. Being defensive isn't a scum tell, surely no player wants to be wrongly lynched? To quote a signature I have seen on these boards:

Things that are not scum tells:
Having the balls to drop a (well reasoned) hammer
Being defensive
Bandwagoning
Being Angry

Although I agree that there are probably

some kinds

of defensive behaviour that are scummy.

As for why my defending posts are longer, that's because it's easy for me to explain my own actions: I

know

why I made them. But I'm finding that it's harder, and more time-consuming, to correctly analyse other people's actions, and decide how to respond to them.

And welcome, Mallick!

[Fenchurch]

Hmm.. I'd like to qualify my understanding of Elias the thief's signature that I quoted. To me, all of those things

could

be scumtells, but are it entirely depends on the circumstances.

[Fenchurch]

So, I've read the thread again.

Part of me wants to post more about how I disagree with chapter 5 about activity being "good" or "bad"... but I feel I've probably polarised the argument by labouring my point so much, and will leave off it for now. At any rate, although chapter 5 says "I have admittedly been lurking this game" (post 145), I don't especially find this to be the case, and I think your strong convictions are in themselves an indicator of both playstyle and alliance, which makes up for any lack of posting.

---

Anyway, on to something new.

Being verbose under a pressure isn't a good thing. Often times it manifests into defensive posts which are a scum tell.

I disagree with this. Being defensive isn't a scum tell.

I think think (I love that name) meant that you will start making posts that are long and scummy, not that all long posts are scummy.

lifeofpie, you misread me. I wasn't commenting about long posts, but about defensiveness, and my disagreement still stands. thinktank says "defensive posts are a scum tell", I say they aren't. Certain types of defensiveness, probably, but definitely not just defensiveness in general.

Also, that aside, I think that there is something odd in the wording of thinktank's quote. It could be re-written as "being verbose is bad, because it may result in a scum tell". For one thing, does this mean that it may result in a scumtell regardless of whether the player is scum or not? And lifeofpie's interpretation seems to accept this: "if you are verbose, you will start making posts that are long and scummy".

Verbose defensive posts under pressure are not necessarily a bad thing, as they provide more content and more chance for scum (if the person defending themselves is indeed scum) to slip.

Artem's phrasing makes sense: being verbose could be good, as a player revealing more about themselves could accidentally reveal that they are scum. In comparison, thinktank's post comes across a little like a warning - don't be verbose, or you may make a scum-tell. And who would this be a warning for?


I'm also aware that thinktank has posted very little about his suspicions during the game, and even in the above post about defensiveness supposedly being bad, he doesn't actually comment on my defense posts at all. Back in post 143, his reasons for not voting yet:

Why would I vote purely based on someone else's conclusions? I agree that would be quite scummy. Right now I've only given a scum meter of who I think is scummy. I will vote for people who I think are scummy as the evidence starts to pile up and I can form my own conclusions.

So you wouldn't vote based on someone else's conclusions, but you are happy for your "scum meter" to to be based on them. Why can't you post your own conclusions, and vote based on that? At what point will you have enough evidence?
I know this probably comes back to what I said I wouldn't talk about, but waiting to for evidence to pile up on other people, whilst not allowing the opportunity for any to pile up on you, is pretty scummy behaviour.

Pending Sion's replacement posting in, and to demonstrate my point about voting based on your current convictions:

Unvote, Vote: thinktank

---

One more thing from my read-through:

Unvote, Vote: Sion
For an awesome avvie. (although I did like Nausicaa and the valley of the wind)

think (I love that name)

On the other hand, maybe we should kill Sion because his lack of activity hurts the town.

The first two quotes could be buddying up, and the third one is a pretty anti-town suggestion. Inactive players get replaced, which is not ideal, but much better than wasting a lynch based purely on inactivity and not scumminess.
On the other hand though, lifeofpie seems keen to be noticed, so I'm not really sure what to make of this.

[Fenchurch]

Bah...

l'esprit de l'escalier

time again, or something like it. I realise that the previous post may come off as a little too aggressive, given that there's been speculation recently about whether my own posts are scummy or not. I'm finding it hard to judge what people's current opinions of me are, and was pretty much carrying on as usual, rather than adjusting my behaviour so as not garner as much attention - probably a mistake, since in my eyes, it is that type of thing that drew suspicion to me in the first place.

If you wish to judge me on my previous post then of course I can't stop you, but I would ask that at least, people address the points I raised in it as well.

[Fenchurch]

EBWOP: Wow, that was a long post. How do you do those, Fen?

It's the quote boxes! But yeah... I don't know. I honestly tried to condense it, and I couldn't find a way to make the same points using less words.

And lifeofpie, I do feel a bit bad for the buddying up accusation, because I don't really want to criticise you for being friendly. But, well, this is mafia, and I don't think such things should go unnoticed...

[Fenchurch]

I said verbose posts under pressure are often times a bad thing because it comes of as defensive.

Your choice of wording is still fuzzy and ambiguous to me. Does your opinion differ from Artem's (post 185), and if so, how?
Do you maintain that being defensive is a scumtell?

And "tendency" is a bit strong; this if the first time that I have tried to look for other meanings in what a player has said.

[Fenchurch]

Welcome back NabNab, and thanks shaft.ed for covering

. It has been a week since Mallick replaced in and he still hasn't posted anything, could we get an update on his status, possibly another replacement? I know shaft.ed mentioned sending out a prod, was this picked up?

[Fenchurch]

@Fenchurch: Buddying up? If you don't like compliments, I'll change my tune.
Your avatar sucks horribly. The angle of it is all wrong, plus I hate that hat. Also, your long posts are exceedingly annoying.

Not you too?! I am merely posting my own, not-so professional opinion. Shut up. Your posts suck, everything you post is scummy, (especially that votecount) and your grammer would kill your mother if she ever saw such filth.

I don't know whether to read much into it.. but lifeofpie's reaction to the buddying up suggestion seems a little over-the-top to me. My initial accusation was a weak one, and I think a response of "I was just being friendly" would have sufficed. But this switch to posting insults looks a little like trying to cover up the previous behaviour.
At any rate, the "joke" response to RandomGem is rude and inappropriate, not especially funny.

[Fenchurch]

Prodded. I don't have much to add either - and do you know why? Because all of the last few posts have just been "nobody is talking; there is nothing new to comment on". You guys, you

cannot

just wait for other people to do stuff and then comment on it, because if everyone takes this approach, we are all just gonna be sitting around waiting forever. It is impossible to tell who is mafia from posts like "I don't have much to add at the moment". There should be an expectation on players to post their opinions, thoughts, speculations, questions, concerns, and it should be the case that NOT doing this makes you stand out. Because if everyone is talking about who they think is mafia, the mafia themselves are going to be forced to post lies, and it will give us a chance to pick up on their contrived posts.

Anyway, I've had a busy weekend, but I will try to put together a more contentful post myself later today. However, I am not happy about the fact that it feels like maybe half of us are putting any effort in. And thinktank, I

know

that we are still waiting for a replacement, but we have been waiting for almost a month now, and if we use waiting as a reason not to post anything then we're likely to be deadlined into oblivion.
[/rant]

[Fenchurch]

Right, this post is going to contain quite a lot of questions.

---

ShadowLurker and thinktank, both of you have at some time pointed an FoS at Artem. Personally, I like Artem, I find his posts to be reasoned and sensible. However, I also find him quite reserved, and I don't really have a read on him. Could either of you explain what exactly you found scummy in him?

---

thinktank, I don't know whether I should drag it out, but you never did respond to my question in post 206. You say "I said verbose posts under pressure are often times a bad thing because it comes of as defensive." By "bad thing", do you mean scummy? Or "coming off as defensive", is that scummy? And if the answer to both of these questions is no, then I don't see how the statement is relevant to the game of Mafia.

Which of these reflects your opinion more:

Verbose defensive posts under pressure are not necessarily a bad thing, as they provide more content and more chance for scum (if the person defending themselves is indeed scum) to slip.

I think think (I hate that name ) is trying to say that long, defensive (there, I said it) posts have a habit of being scummyer than the shorter ones. Which I think I will agree with, just based on my knowledge of the human psyche (which is small).

And if neither, then how does yours differ?

---

Artem and chapter 5... I don't have any questions for you right now. Sorry.

---

RandomGem and lifeofpie, both of you have said recently that you don't have any comments. Assuming no one disagrees, would you be able to post a rundown of the current players, and a sentence or two describing your gut feelings on them? I hope this shouldn't take too long, as it wouldn't require in-depth analysis.

---

Drifter, I agree with Artem's question, what were your plans with:

What up guys? (please reply to this if you ARE mafia)

Have you gained anything from it?

---

And in order that my vote reflect my current suspicions:

Unvote, Vote: lifeofpie

To my mind, the reactions to the buddying up suggestion were out of proportion, and seemed like he was desperate to cover up his previous "scummy" actions, rather than explain them, which to me is suspicious.

ShadowLurker, you used the word distancing to describe this, did you mean distancing from players or from his own previous actions?

[Fenchurch]

NabNab

, any joy finding a replacement for Sion/Mallick yet? There seem to be a couple of suitable players listed in the newbie queue.

[Fenchurch]

Welcome thegeckoj, and thanks NabNab for finding a replacement.

Could we get a prod on Drifter as well?

He hasn't posted since 24 August.

[Fenchurch]

Fenchurch & all you other non-believers: I compliment. I'm serious, if you don't like it then there is something seriously wrong here. I take this game with a casual attitude, but am still perfectly serious about it (wait, maybe that's kind of contradictory). The insults were not serious, as, hopefully, pointed out with the smileys.

It's not the complimenting I find especially suspicious, it's the complete reversal of behaviour once it was pointed out. But you've explained it as joking, and other players seem to think I've misjudged, so I will leave it at that for now.

---

As for Drifter, I was going to post that I would also be happy to cast the hammer-vote. I think the odds are 50:50 that he's scum or not, and that may be the best we get today. Certainly his play has been the most odd and irrational, which I guess would be silly for the town to let pass.

But at the same time, I feel uncomfortable about some of the votes on his bandwagon, and I think that he could be a convenient target for a mis-lynch.

thegeckoj's vote for Drifter, whilst it makes sense (because I am feeling the same way), it also seems like an easy play. Analysing a replacement is awfully hard, given that he:
- has a damn-perfect reason for not having posted for the last 8 pages
- has the advantage of being able to read up on all of us before making his own move
- is not responsible for, and therefore unable to account for, the actions of his predecessor.

And Sion, whilst I suspected him, didn't stay here long enough to really condemn himself, so it's hard to build up a case based on his actions alone.

Ugh.. hedging my bets, I guess. I've reached a point in the game where I find

everyone

more or less suspicious, and wouldn't be surprised to discover any of you as scum, so it's hard to know which way to turn.

I'd like to get a prod on Drifter, and find out whether he's still around or not, and then take it from there.

[Fenchurch]

thinktank: Please post something, we haven't had anything from you apart from placeholders for about a fortnight, and it looks you are still posting in other games.

thegeckoj: If we lynch Drifter today and he flips town, then based on the current information who would you judge most scummy? Do you think it is time to lynch Drifter yet, and if not, what should we be waiting for?

Artem: Hmm... could you answer the same two questions as above, please?

[Fenchurch]

Drifter's reason for the claim seems to be genuine and at the moment I'm not agreeing with the arguments made against him.

then

Looking back at Drifter's statements. Shadowlurker seems to be on the money. A drifter lynch would definitely be a possibility.

and now

I'm not a fan of the drifter lynch. He seems to come of as town.

thinktank, I'd like to know what made you change your mind in between those last two posts.

[Fenchurch]

Please provide a link to the town you've seen doing that before.

I know it's not my question.. but I've seen it happen too. For instance, two players in this game:
Newbie 655 (< see highlights in populartajo's post)
The claims themselves:
The Pope's Tiara - claims vanilla after previously hinting that he could be cop
Syphen - claims vanilla when just one vote is on him
Both turned out to be newbie townies.

So, I can see Drifter's behaviour coming from newbtown as well as newbscum, and it's hard to choose which is more likely.

[Fenchurch]

viewtopic.php?t=7891, post 40.
viewtopic.php?t=8255, post 356.

Umm, Artem, I can't find claims in either of the posts you list.
"wait can the none noobs in this game be mafia too?"
and
"@Mod: This 2 week deadline is going to fly right by, and if it does because people keep going away or not posting then I'm claiming my role. Care to extend that deadline?"

[Fenchurch]

Gahh... mucked one of my own links up. Fixed here:

Newbie 655 (< see highlights in populartajo's post)
The claims themselves:
The Pope's Tiara - claims vanilla after previously hinting that he could be cop
Syphen - claims vanilla when just one vote is on him
Both turned out to be newbie townies.

[Fenchurch]

Drfiter's claim is different than both of these in the sense that he first claims vanilla (ok, could be newb-town that doesn't know any better like the two I linked), but then goes back on himself with "the mafia don't know if I'm a power-role". (I'm reading that as mafia realizing he's in trouble and attempting to fish for power-roles for his buddy.)

Erk, I know I'm not supposed to defend people... but I just don't read it like this at all. To me:
1. Drifter claims vanilla.
2. Drifter gets told that early claiming is bad for the town.
3. Drifter understands this, doesn't want to look bad for the town, and so tries to pretend to the mafia that his vanilla claim might have been a lie. (Probably unaware of Lynch-all-Liars policy, or of the fact that if we believe he was lying before, then why should we trust him on anything else).
4. Drifter either believes that his backtracking has worked, or is trying to convince us that it has, hence "mafia don't know whether I am a power role or not".

I just don't buy it as fishing. If he had said "

town

don't know if I'm a power role or not", then maybe, because someone in the town might think "yes I do", and pipe up. But the way he worded it, I wouldn't say it's fishing any more than you mentioning the word "cop" earlier.

I'm not saying any of this makes him pro-town, just that the whole claim business doesn't really trigger anything for me. What I don't like are Drifter's attempts at scumhunting: his illogical attack on lifeofpie, and his "only reply to this if you're mafia" post. Again, these could just be a newbie trying to fit in, but to me these seem less plausible as newbtown behaviour.

[Fenchurch]

For example, if the mafia don't have a role-blocker, then they know they are facing either the cop or the doctor. So, if Drifter-scum hints at a power role, the real cop (if it's a setup with the cop) might get a false sense of security thinking that Drifter is the doc and come out, thinking that Drifter would protect him.

Fair enough, that does make sense. I still don't think it applies to this situation, because that I can't see anyone being silly enough to actually believe Drifter as a power-role following his other actions. If Drifter-as-scum was logical enough to think of kind of plan, then I doubt he would have made such a poor play previously, which would undermine his plan.

Hmm. To be honest, I'm still trying to get my head around this theory. It doesn't seem to fit, given the circumstances, but I can't quite put my finger on why. So maybe I'm wrong. Will come back to this if I can work it out.

[Fenchurch]

Also, that's me you're quoting, not Drifter.

[Fenchurch]

Got kinda lazy by the end of that post... Uh, I recognize 2 distinct entities between you two, and have trouble matching one to a name. 'Cause of those stupid avatars. Just like how Artem switched his... oh well, I'll catch it this time...

thinktank: xkcd map -> homer simpson in a blue suit -> bart simpson/nirvana album
ShadowLurker: ...eek, I can't remember -> jigglypuff

It was ShadowLurker who defended you:

RandomGem has made many other contributions and it's obvious his self voting was just to stir up discussion in the early game.

It might help you to know that at the bottom of the thread, there is a drop-down menu where you can filter to read only a single players posts. It helps when looking for something someone said, or to analyse someone's posts in isolation.

[Fenchurch]

jigglypuff

EBWOP: wigglytuff

And thinktank is the guy who like never ever votes?

Yep, that's him.

[Fenchurch]

Could you also provide the names of the people who claimed early in the three games you linked as I don't want to read three whole games =/

I already did
It was a single game, two players claimed vanilla on Day 1. I provided direct links to the claim posts (the players' names were The Pope's Tiara and Syphen), and a link to another player's post which summarised these event. Post 268

You're ignoring all his subsequent behavior, especially how hard it was to get anything out of him in regards to why he claimed. The thing that I don't like about him is taht if he didn't want to look bad for the town, then certainly being entirely uncooperative would not be the best way to go about that.

By your reasoning then, he was uncooperative because he DID want to look bad for the town? Given that he eventually gave a reason for his claim, I think it is more likely that he didn't know how important it was to explain himself, and perhaps even thought that by not talking then about it people might forget it happened (I think there are newbies who come here not expecting the amount of analysis and deliberation that goes on). I admit these are assumptions I'm making, but I'd say Drifter wasn't especially good at expressing himself - and on that basis I think some of the things he did were mistakes but not scumtells.

Conversely: I can't see any reason for a mafia player to claim vanilla. If there is a chance they can avoid a lynch without claiming, then that is always the best option, and if there isn't a chance, then it would make more sense to claim a power-role. Claiming vanilla eliminates your option to later try and claim a power role. Can you find me a game where a mafia player has claimed vanilla, especially early on Day 1?

The one thing I do find suspicious about the claim business is Drifter using the word "vanilla". Drifter later said that he hasn't played mafia online before, and I'm not sure whether the term vanilla is used in real world games.

Also,

Unvote Drifter

because I don't want to see someone hammer, accidentally or otherwise, while he's being replaced.

Drifter has been at L-1 for the last two pages. What makes you concerned about him getting hammered now?

yep

Please can you answer the questions Drifter and I asked in posts 259 and 260.

[Fenchurch]

lifeofpie: Was your post about RandomGem in response to a request, or is it just information that you are volunteering? I'm not complaining, just not clear whether I missed a post somewhere that prompted it.

Fenchurch's obvious defending of him raises some flags for me as well. i know he says he just wants to avoid a rushed lynch, which i agree with, he does so in such a manner that is questionable.

I'm a "she" - not that it offends me or anything, but reading this sentence confused me. There is a little gender icon just under my avatar.

I wouldn't exactly say I want to avoid a rushed lynch; I'm just not as convinced by some of the arguments that have been given for voting Drifter, and it seems only sensible to question them now rather than afterwards. The answers given might lead me make me change my mind.

Also, thinktank has said he doesn't support the Drifter lynch, and has yet to give his reasons why. I'd like to have a good understanding of everyone's position, before we choose to end the day.

That said, I still think Drifter is probably the best lynch we have at the moment, and I'm not sure why ShadowLurker is backing off now. I don't see the benefit in waiting for a replacement: either we think what Drifter has done already is scummy enough to lynch him, or we don't.

[Fenchurch]

idrifter has added nothing to this game, in fact has has convoluted it, just what mafia would want to do, confuse everyone. i stand firm.

Okay so here is an example of an argument where I will need a bit more explanation to persuade me. What do you mean by, he has convoluted the game? Which of his actions were intended to confuse, and how have they helped him?

The main thing Drifter has done is make himself the target of discussion - which I think if he was mafia he would want to avoid. You imply that he has been deliberately misleading, if I am to believe Drifter as mafia, I think his game has been anything

but

deliberate.

[Fenchurch]

my mistake, noted.

No worries. Could you answer the questions I asked in post 287? I know lifeofpie has posted his response, which I appreciate, but I'd like to hear yours as well.

[Fenchurch]

Okay. Think I'm gonna need to do another re-read before my next real post, or else risk thrashing over the same old topics.

[Fenchurch]

Regarding Drifter:

he first claims he is a townie, then claims he is a vanilla townie, then he claims he isnt going to talk about his role anymore because he wants to keep it 'ambiguous.' this is just newbie scum talk.

What makes you so sure that these things indicate newbie scum? I've posted a link to a game where two newb-town players claimed vanilla early on. Can you find a link to a game where an early vanilla claim was made by scum?

he made the mistake of claiming with just one (or two? Not quite sure. There weren’t very many) vote on himself.

Drifter tried to claim immediately as if he was extremely worried.... A newbie town would know there is nothing against them that early.

As RandomGem mentioned at the time, the vanilla claim came just after a votecount where Drifter had 3 votes and his name was in red. If someone was used playing rapid games with lots of quicklynches, then I think this would be a reasonable time for them to claim.

But the newbie scum mindset from my experience is much more likely to lurk and hope those things go away or just brush over them.

This I can't argue with.

---

Regarding thinktank:

I've changed my mind. I tend to do that from time to time. As more evidence tends to come in, opinions change and at this point, I believe drifter's actions have not been deliberate.

The fact that you changed your mind was obvious, I asked

what

made you change it, and "more evidence" is not really a sufficient answer. What makes you think Drifter's actions aren't deliberate? And even if they're not deliberate, what makes you think they aren't scummy? You seem to be intent on posting as little as possible, which bothers me.

---

Regarding chapter 5:
Stating the obvious perhaps, all I can say is his/her gameplay seems very deliberate, but I can't tell whether it's coming from scum or town. Posts very little, but leaves pretty much no areas open for questioning - or at least I have so far been unable to come up with any.

[Fenchurch]

Mod, I think the last votecount was a little jumbled

. chapter 5 unvoted in post 232, then voted for ShadowLurker in post 278. Also, I changed my vote to lifeofpie, in post 235.
Sorry if this reads rather confusingly, and I think the votes changes were valid, but correct me if they're not.

[Fenchurch]

And, not wishing to confuse things further, but I'm going to

Unvote

As I'm not sure right now where I want my vote to lie.

[Fenchurch]

No posts for 2 days

it isnt just the fact that claimed vanilla, althought i still find it odd, but rather he claimed town, then vanilla town then he tried to double back saying he wouldnt talk about his role anymore because he wanted it to remain 'ambiguous.'

This is actually a really good point. I could absolutely see a newbie scum doing this: trying one tactic, finding out it's not working, and then backing into another to try and make us think that he may be a power role.

It's the very similar argument to the one Artem made in posts 269 and 271.

I still don't really buy it in this situation. If Drifter had claimed vanilla, been told "that's not enough to stop us from lynching you" and

then

tried to soft-claim a power role, I could see it as a scum-tactic. But as it was, his claim was criticised because it helped scum to know who the power-roles aren't, and his doubling back came in response to that. If I was gonna accuse him of anything here, it would be that he was just following instructions to appear more town.

I've posted links to a game where newbie townies who weren't under pressure posted both soft-claims and vanilla claims. Artem has also provided a couple of pro-town soft-claims. Does anyone have evidence that early claiming is something scum are likely to do?

Also, I'm not sure whether to go down this route, but chapter 5 coming around to the argument against Drifter, is not long after

If Drifter flips scum, the most likely candidate for a buddy would be chapter 5

Since I'm not convinced on Drifter, I'm not drawing any conclusions here, but it might be worth noticing in future - although I realise that if Drifter flips scum, I'll probably look like a candidate myself.

Also, happy birthday RandomGem.

[Fenchurch]

Fenchurch who would you like a lynch on?

I honestly don't know. That's why I'm currently not voting anyone. How about you? And why direct the question only at me?

I've been skimming through some more completed newbie games recently, especially ones where town won, to try and get some pointers. Depressingly, I'm finding it hard to spot scum-tells even when I know who they are, and also, that newbie town-wins are relatively rare.

It strikes me that it's actually quite easy for scum to fake being pro-town, and that all it takes to avoid a lynch is not let any evidence build up against yourself. It makes me more suspicious of some of the quieter players here, but I don't know what I can do about it.

A Drifter lynch is still appealing because so many players have given their opinions about him. If he flipped scum, that would pretty much clear some of the players who were on his wagon. But if he flipped town, I don't think that would clear or condemn anybody, and I can see that happening too.

[Fenchurch]

Amendments:

And why direct the question only at me?

Rather, why did you choose me to direct this question to?

newbie town-wins are relatively rare

I didn't mean to be a downer saying this, and it could be that my sample has been unlucky. At any rate, I'm not saying we can't break this mould

[Fenchurch]

As part of the reason I believed we should pursue the lurkerish people (incl. Drifter) is because I've generally gotten a pro-town vibe from the town and I was seeing if you were also getting a mostly pro-town vibe.

Oh right. Well then, I guess the answer is no. Or even if I get a pro-town vibe, I don't trust it.
Didn't you say the same thing when it was Sion who was missing? Who would you say are the lurkerish people at the moment, besides Drifter?

[Fenchurch]

As part of the reason I believed we should pursue the lurkerish people (incl. Drifter) is because I've generally gotten a pro-town vibe from the town and I was seeing if you were also getting a mostly pro-town vibe.

Oh right. Well then, I guess the answer is no.

Hmm, I could have been too quick to disagree here. I'm not sure if we're thinking on the same lines or not, since on a daily basis I flip-flop on any convictions I have about players that might be pro-town. But as for pursuing lurkers.. well, more on that in my next post perhaps. Need to gather my thoughts.

That aside, I have direction once more. I read through another completed game today (Newbie 667) and the scum voting patterns in their Day 1 reminded me of Sion's opportunistic-looking vote on the Drifter bandwagon. And when thegeckoj entered the game, he also placed a vote on Drifter, with reasons that I find weak or disagree with. On the one hand, this could simply be that we are two people reading a situation differently. On the other, it could be scum trying to fudge justification for their vote on the most popular target. Right now, I'm inclined to go for the latter explanation, and so:

vote: thegeckoj

[Fenchurch]

Sion

- He didn’t really post anything of value.

Does this in itself not show something? In four pages, he made 5 posts. There was nothing stopping him from posting more, it was his choice. And you also disregard his actions during that time - in particular, adding a vote to the growing Drifter wagon. The timing and lack of explanation for that vote is very scummy to me, I've seen similarly executed scum votes in several other games, including the one I quoted earlier.

- “but if he comes up scum i will have a pretty good idea who likely is his partner.”
- Um, pray tell, who?

Since I have been defending Drifter, I assume thegeckoj means me, which is why I didn't push for an answer

- “i find the whole claiming the vanilla townie thing pretty suspicious as well. especially when it was pointed out that he shouldnt have done that he tries to make it seem like he hasnt revealed anything. i think if he was really pro-town he would have stated that, not his specific role(which i believe to be a lie)”
- I agree with this. Therefore I can’t really agree with you, Fenchurch, that he was covering up a bandwagon vote.

I have addressed this in post 305. Pro-town claims are very rare from what I've seen, as they are non-committal and essentially meaningless. Vanilla claims, on the other hand, are common from newbies. And I still don't see how him trying to go back on it is

more

suspicious, either, since I don't buy the "trying a different tactic" theory proposed by chapter 5, or the "role-fishing" one by Artem. (I'm not clear which of these theories you subscribe to).

The players combined have had few posts.

True, but the content of those posts has been enough for me to reach my conclusion.

[Fenchurch]

On a side note, lifeofpie, I know it takes a bit more time, but your analyses posts would be much easier to read if you used the quote tags

[Fenchurch]

Me because I'm mostly waiting for the replacement of Drifter, the main suspect of the town, to come...
I dunno. I refrain from posting 'cause I'd just make a null-post like this.

And when we get a replacement, what do you plan to do then?

Personally, I'd rather you made null-posts than none at all. Although I'd be really happy, if you did something that's not either of those things.

For instance, what are your thoughts on my points against thegeckoj? I remember you placed a pressure vote on him back when we were waiting for a replacement. Was that based on anything at all?

[Fenchurch]

Although I'd be really happy, if you did something that's not either of those things.

Oops, pressed post while still editing. Haha, if the above quote sounds a bit obtuse, what I meant was, I'd be happiest if you'd just post some content
Is it that hard?

[Fenchurch]

Welcome Petunho! Looking forward to your readthrough.

One question I have, if you could answer: supposing you had read through this game but in our shoes, and did not know Drifter's alignment. Do you think you would vote for him?

[Fenchurch]

I will address the notes about me. At least a couple I think are good points, and things that I hadn't realised were scummy at the time, so all I can do is give the real reasons for me making these posts.

thegeckoj: If we lynch Drifter today and he flips town, then based on the current information who would you judge most scummy? Do you think it is time to lynch Drifter yet, and if not, what should we be waiting for?

Artem: Hmm... could you answer the same two questions as above, please?

This sounds very badly of scum to fishing who to NOT nightkill. "Tell me who you find suspicious so I can leave him alive to be hanged next day."

The truth is, I was hoping voters would notice the weakness in each others arguments and rethink - trying to direct some attention elsewhere as I felt it deserved to be, and as you are now. I was also getting a little desperate to question Artem about

something

, because I think allowing players to comment only on topics of their choosing, gives them a free ride.

And other one after ShadowLurker (SL) unvoting:

That said, I still think Drifter is probably the best lynch we have at the moment, and I'm not sure why ShadowLurker is backing off now. I don't see the benefit in waiting for a replacement: either we think what Drifter has done already is scummy enough to lynch him, or we don't.

And still no vote from FC to Drifter! It really looks that FC waits people to do all work for her that she can say next day: "I didn't vote for the townie. Look no vote from me to him! Look I defended him!" Bullshit FC bullshit!

I should really have put "either YOU think he is scummy enough to lynch, or you don't", as that's what I was thinking. I was bothered by ShadowLurker taking off his vote, without acknowledging any flaws in the case that might have made him uncertain.
Incidentally, I thought of the same argument you apply to me - that SL could have been taking the opportunity to remove himself from a wagon he knew to be a mislynch. And that's why, in the next quote...

A Drifter lynch is still appealing because so many players have given their opinions about him. If he flipped scum, that would pretty much clear some of the players who were on his wagon. But if he flipped town, I don't think that would clear or condemn anybody, and I can see that happening too.

Again implying it would be good to lynch Drifter to get some knowledge and again she doesn’t herself give a vote. Strange, very strange.

...I mention that a mislynch doesn't clear anyone, ie. even the players not on the wagon. But yes, I didn't say it so explicitly because a) it hadn't happened, and b) I knew it to be a hypocritical argument, since it would apply to me as well.

And I was in two minds about the lynch, so I felt I had to express that, or risk looking scummy if I changed my mind and decided to hammer. I argued more in defence of Drifter merely because nobody else was, out of a need for balance.


I agree with most of the points made about other players, that probably goes without saying. I'm sorry I have responded only to my quotes, and have not opened any new avenues of discussion, but I think I have already said how I feel, and my vote is also on thegeckoj. I would like to hear from the other players who haven't responded yet.

Mod, could we get a prod on chapter 5 and lifeofpie please?

They haven't posted for the last 8 and 4 days, respectively.

[Fenchurch]

Just posting to say I am still here, but have been both ill, and very busy at work, so have not had the time to construct a post. Have a number of minor points to make, and maybe more when I read through again before posting.

Also would like to hear from chapter 5, I hope he/she has not left

[Fenchurch]

Artem, earlier in the game, you didn't seem suspicious of the vanilla claim.

I also don't like how Shadowlurker jumped all over Drifter for a vanilla claim. I've seen newb-town do that before.

Clarification: I've seen newb-town inadvertently claim vanilla before.

What has made you change your mind now?

[Fenchurch]

Thanks for the clarification. Regardless, your case does seem to have expanded, earlier being more concerned with Drifter's backtracking, but now also with his use of vanilla in the second roleclaim.

Can I provide my thoughts on your suggestion, or would you prefer I wait until Petunho has responded?

[Fenchurch]

Okay. Well the vanilla thing bothered as well, hence my earlier speculation about it, which I was rightly told off for as it involved too much assumption. But I can see where you're coming from with this, "Drifter conducting more research to try and strengthen his role claim".

Re-reading those quotes again though, and assuming if Drifter was a vanilla townie, wouldn't it have sounded unnatural if in the first one, "wel being a

vanilla

townie it wouldn't be the best thing to do for the team". The hardclaim isn't necessary for him to make his point there. Whereas in the second one, he is worrying about being lynched. The hardclaim isn't really necessary here either.. but lots of townies do make hardclaims when they are worried about being lynched. So in the context, I can still see these posts coming from newbie townie. He doesn't need to have gained the knowledge of "vanilla" in between, as the two posts serve different purposes.

I will mention though, the one post of Drifter's that I do still find suspicious was his "Reply to this if you are mafia". It's based mainly on my gut feeling: I think I've seen similar pointless scumhunting-attempts coming from newb-scum, but I can't point to any in particular. And the fact that nobody else has focussed on it.. well I'm not sure what to make of that.

[Fenchurch]

I will mention though, the one post of Drifter's that I do still find suspicious was his "Reply to this if you are mafia". It's based mainly on my gut feeling: I think I've seen similar pointless scumhunting-attempts coming from newb-scum, but I can't point to any in particular. And the fact that nobody else has focussed on it.. well I'm not sure what to make of that.

It's WIFOM. What's more there to focus on?

Do you mean that Drifter was trying to generate WIFOM with it, or that any arguments about what Drifter's intentions were will result in WIFOM?

I don't think either is true. I think Drifter's intention was to look like he was scumhunting, and I think such a poor attempt which would have meaningless results is more likely to come from scum than from town. But I don't have any evidence to back that up.

[Fenchurch]

Mod: any news of Chapter 5 prod?

For that matter, thinktank has been gone for over a week. And I'd like to hear some more from thegeckoj, as well.

[Fenchurch]

if you are thinking petunho is scum then why are you still voting me?

Because I think you are scum more.

I was just taking the opportunity to discuss one of Drifter's actions that I wasn't sure about. I didn't want to bring it up earlier, because with all the other votes, it might have resulted in a lynch I didn't support.

[Fenchurch]

Mod:

are you going to replace chapter 5, given that he/she did not pick up the prod you sent?

[Fenchurch]

This is probably a bad idea, but here goes.
House enjoys saying that everybody lies.
One of the dudes comes in a couple minutes late and says 'sorry I'm late, my car broke down.' House knows that this is a lie because normally this person would not bother apologizing if he wasn't guilty of something. Using this interesting idea in life, we could say that Drifter might not have claimed if he was not scum.
Just throwing this idea out there.

sounds good to me, i have been pro lynch for drifter/petunho from the begining. definitely seems like the most logical lynch for the first day at this point.

Besides the fact that I've already given examples of townies claiming vanilla townie on day 1 under no pressure, who were later proven to be townies, and not lying? But no, let's go with a theory from a fictional TV character instead, that must be true.

[Fenchurch]

thegeckoj and lifeofpie, it really seems that you're not listening to or addressing any of the reasons that have been given as to why the case on Drifter/Petunho is not strong. And I'm getting bored of the game too, so I can appreciate that, but I'm not gonna place my vote on a player I don't believe is scum just for the sake of ending the day.

[Fenchurch]

Well I don't know whether it is a good idea to have one or not, but I am at least surprised that we haven't been deadlined yet.

Of the lurkers, my inclination is towards thinktank. I don't like how he is so reluctant to share any of his thoughts, and it is damn frustrating. Also, he accused me earlier of twisting his words, but still didn't clarify what he actually meant by them. I've since noticed that he used this same defence when he was scum in Newbie 636, and I'd say his play in this game is not dissimilar to that one.

Of the others though, I still feel strongly about thegeckoj, who has done nothing that strikes me as pro-town, said nothing to defend himself, and even describes the defence that Petunho presented as "good", yet openly pursuing a quicklynch against him. Another thing I count as a minor scumtell is his predecessor's (Sion) - opening vote of no-lynch. It's another case where I don't have any examples to back me up, but I do feel that a vote this way is more likely to come from scum, as they have less incentive to lynch, and might just assume that if they vote no lynch and therefore stay away from a mis-lynch, that they'll appear town.

[Fenchurch]

Unvote; vote: thinktank

And note to everybody: I don't like a bit that thinktank is lurking and would love to see his explanation. I'm just wondering why thinktank and not C5?

I'm voting thinktank not to get rid of a lurker, but because the way he is playing makes me think he's quite likely to be scum.

I realise my vote now puts him at L-1, and if anyone actually is thinking of hammering, I would also like for thinktank to have an opportunity to explain himself first; but going by his previous "explanations", my hopes are not high.

[Fenchurch]

I know this is a double standard, but I got suspicious of lifeofpie when he tried to divert the lurker bandwagon away from thinktank to chapter 5. (This because I don't find Petunho suspicious for the same thing...) Meh, just inuition and all that.

It's because Petunho has provided reasons for finding chapter 5 more suspicious (post 332) whereas lifeofpie just doesn't want to lynch thinktank. And I disagree that replacing chapter 5 would slow things down more. If we can get a replacement who contributes to the game, that will be very helpful. On the other hand, thinktank is still posting, so he won't be replaced, but his posts have been very deliberate in lacking any sort of useful content by which to judge him. I think this slows the game down more.

For instance, his last post was a promise to post his thoughts "soon". Two weeks have gone by, and we are still waiting.

[Fenchurch]

And I disagree that replacing chapter 5 would slow things down more.

Clarification edit: I disagree

with lifeofpie

that replacing chapter 5 would slow things down more.

I also disagree with lifeofpie that thinktank has contributed halfway decently. chapter 5 at least went out on a limb and gave some thoughts, tried to pick out evidence against people. I can imagine playing like chapter 5 myself. On the other hand, thinktank hasn't voted once since the random stage. He has barely posted anything to say what he thinks of other players, and when he has, doesn't provide any evidence or reasons.
All of this to me reeks of scum keeping their hands clean, trying to get through day 1 without hassle, and not committing to anything that could provide a read on them or evidence in the future; keeping his options open for later on.

I'd also like to know two things:
Artem: not that I mind, but why you are voting thinktank rather than chapter 5, in light of your post 325
thegeckoj: given that your main concern seems to be a quicklynch, are you now thinking about voting for thinktank or chapter 5? If so, which one? Note, it would be prudent not to hammer thinktank without giving him a chance to respond to his prod. However, I would still like for you to post your thoughts.

[Fenchurch]

What?

I think RandomGem was referring to the bit that he emboldened.

But what both of you say confuses me. You want chapter 5 to post something scummy, so that you can vote him. If he hasn't already posted something scummy, then why do you want to vote him?

[Fenchurch]

Wow. Well it's not out of the blue, but I wasn't expecting the lynch quite so soon. So it goes.

Now it's just a matter of waiting for NabNab to post the cardflip!

[Fenchurch]

I still have my hopes on thinktank=scum, and if so I find lifeofpie's vote plausibly bussing.

As I've only played in MeatWorld before, speculating in twilight feels a bit odd, what with a cardflip reveal just around the corner.

Hoping NabNab checks the thread tonight.

Can we have the deathscene/cardflip, please?

[Fenchurch]

would life of pie kept his vote on his scum buddie? that is a pretty dangerous game.

What? lifeofpie's vote was the hammer, so he actively made the choice to lynch, it wasn't a "dangerous game".

Of the votes on thinktank's wagon, lifeofpie's is definitely the most bussy. I had second thoughts for a while, but reading through page 17 again it seems obvious.
1. thinktank was at L-1
2. RandomGem and I were questioning why lifeofpie was so intent on chapter 5 over thinktank
3. thegeckoj had said he was willing to hammer once thinktank had posted
4. lifeofpie got tired of waiting for his scumbuddy to defend himself, thought the situation was looking dire as it was, and decided to try and cut his losses and get on the wagon before it was too late.

FoS: lifeofpie

I am planning to look at the players who weren't on the wagon, too, and hopefully even re-read the whole game again, in light of thinktank=scum and ShadowLurker=town, but these things will take more time, and the lifeofpie case is glaring.

Also, so happy about the thinktank lynch
It's pretty embarassing to admit, but I had anxious dreams about the lynch result pretty much every night whilst we were waiting for it. Mafia eats into my brain way too much.

[Fenchurch]

Is that your defence lifeofpie? "Neither of the cases were that good; and look, chapter 5 is probably confirmed innocent now".
The first part does nothing to explain your initial reluctance to vote thinktank, and then your change of mind to lynch him. The second part isn't even relevant. Right now, I'm almost certain you're scum, I'm just not sure whether to vote or not.

As Petunho is on V/LA, and chapter 5 needs replacing, if I vote then it will be up to thegeckoj to decide if he wants to end the day or not.

I haven't re-read yet, but here are my notes on the other players:

* RandomGem, Artem, Fenchurch - placed early votes on thinktank and/or argued in favour of his lynch. Not proved innocent, but less likely to be scum, since the loss:gain ratio would be low.

* Petunho - argued against thinktank's lynch, and for this reason would be my second choice candidate for today. However, his points were reasoned.

* thegeckoj - still hasn't posted anything useful, but I've read some of his other games, and he plays the same way and has been mislynched for it at least once, so I now see this as a null tell.

* chapter 5 - as far as we know is inactive, so most likely innocent due to the night kill

On the one hand, I'm so sure it's lifeofpie, and the prospect of dragging things out until at least the 9th Nov (Petunho's return) isn't appealing, especially after the length of our day 1. On the other hand, if it isn't lifeofpie, then lynching so early means day 2 is wasted information-wise.
I can't decide whether the siutation justifies the risk. Argh.

[Fenchurch]

Quote extracts:

"I don't see how you could possibly be bored"

"I'm not in a rush."

"Quicklynch bad."

"I don't exactly know if putting a second day up would help much"

And then

"

this game is going rather slowly.

"

"

This is getting way too slow

, and my main worry is that a replacement will not help to speed things up much.
Think, I want to hear SOMETHING that shows you give a damn (or maybe C5 posting something scummy). by tomorrow or I think I will be in the mood to hammer."

"No, I meant if C5 posted something scummy I wouldn't vote for think.
*crosses fingers*
Unvote, Vote: thinktank"

(Thanks to Petunho for making quote collection much easier)

Code: Select all

Tally of posts per day:
Oct 3  - I
Oct 4  - I
Oct 5  - 
Oct 6  - IIII
Oct 7  - 
Oct 8  - III
Oct 9  - 
Oct 10 - I
Oct 11 - II
Oct 12 - 
Oct 13 - IIIIII
Oct 14 - IIII
Oct 15 - II
Oct 16 - I
Oct 17 - IIIIIII
Oct 18 - IIIIIIII
Oct 19 - IIIIII

Note: Tallied on Greenwich Mean Time, so may not match everyone's perceptions, but should show the general trend

On Oct 18 lifeofpie starts complaining the game is going slowly, when in fact that game had sped up (with a lot of the recent posts adding to the wagon on thinktank). What lifeofpie is actually concerned about is the game going

too fast

, and in a direction that isn't good for him.

I'm willing to take a risk.

Vote: lifeofpie

Which leaves thegeckoj to cast a hammer vote if he so chooses.

[Fenchurch]

You say I was cautious on D1, but really I was only cautious with the case against Drifter, and that was because I had doubts.

Circumstances today are different, and I think that the information we have gives us a good chance at the right lynch. Of course I'm not certain, but my judgement is that the risk-reward ratio makes it worthwhile (the risk being a mislynch, but the reward being the possibility of insta-win, and not having to wait another 2+ weeks for it).

I would like to hear from RandomGem and Artem whether they think that we should be holding back, and also what thegeckoj is thinking about this case.

[Fenchurch]

I'm going to butt out, because I'd really like to hear from other people.

[Fenchurch]

Thanks Artem. I don't think anything lifeofpie has said today can make up for his actions yesterday, but it felt a bit like I was launching a one-woman assault.

I'm happy with my vote, but I think we need to hear from thegeckoj and Petunho before we hammer.

We don't have a choice, since one of them is necessary to cast a lynch vote. If it looks like we're gonna wait until the 9th when Petunho returns, then I'll just set my brain in gear for that. Having made up my mind already, my instincts are to want to get it over with, but I can't force anyone else to rush.

[Fenchurch]

Bump. RandomGem, thegeckoj, comments please? Even if you are planning to wait until Petunho gets back before making a decision, that doesn't mean you should just stop posting until then. As for me, I've gotten over my impulse to get the game over with, so I'm okay about waiting now, but I would still like to discuss things whilst we're waiting. Gosh, I wonder if Petunho is going to be aghast at the fact that I was ready to quicklynch just two days into Day 2.

I re-read page 18 and noticed this again, which my previous response didn't fully cover:

would life of pie kept his vote on his scum buddie? that is a pretty dangerous game. i am still convinced petunho is scum per day one reasons. but not ready to vote just yet.

thegeckoj, it is common enough, when one mafia is looking scummy or going down, for the other(s) to vote for them. Obviously they would prefer not to, because the more mafia left alive the better chance their chances of winning (by steering the vote, or just surviving for long enough). But there are still times when it is useful for them to vote each other, in order to sever connections and look more townie. See the wikipedia page on bussing. Unfortunately for lifeofpie, his action during the events of page 17 make it look suspiciously like this is what he was doing.

NabNab: could you post in the queue to try and get us a replacement for chapter 5?

It looks this game has got another couple of weeks in it at least, even if we do lynch right today, so if someone joins soon then it wouldn't be a total waste of their time. And if we don't lynch right, then we'll be missing a probably-townie player who could help us.

I swear, after this game is over, I plan on playing as nothing but a replacement. I think there's been barely a week in this game when we haven't down by a player or two, and I wouldn't wish these difficulties on anyone else.

[Fenchurch]

Still 5 days until Petunho is due back; what to talk about in that time? I'm not sure what more to say on lifeofpie, but I am reluctant to start speculating on anyone else that might be scummy, since lifeofpie could use that to divert attention away from himself. But:

lifeofpie, given that you are a likely lynch for today, this could be your opportunity to look back through the thread and identify who you think is most scummy, and preferably provide some evidence to back it up. It may not help you today, but if you flip town, we will be able to look back at your opinions and know they are, at the very least, unbiased.

I know you have already pointed towards me, and perhaps Artem, in an earlier post, and if that remains your opinion, I would still ask for you to look for the evidence to back it up.

[Fenchurch]

Welcome back Petunho, glad you enjoyed it

As you will see, we've spent a lot of the time just waiting for you to come back, so you won't have much to read. Looking forward to your comments, and perhaps then something from the others as well - the complete lack of activity last week worried me a bit, but hopefully everyone still has this game on their watchlists.

[Fenchurch]

Petunho, I have already looked back through the pages surrounding thinktank's lynch, and I have voting records for all of the previous day, and I can't see a compelling case against anyone except lifeofpie. Maybe I'm tunneling, which is partly why I asked lifeofpie to post more about his accusations - if he is town, then he is the only one who knows that he's innocent, and therefore in the best position to spot a slip in someone else.

The fact that lifeofpie (who normally posts quite regularly) has taken a week and still not answered my question about his current accusations, also implies to me that he is not so dedicated to a town win. If I were in his position, as scum, I imagine I would find it hard to scour through pages of junk posts in order to build a false-case, that I know won't be worth anything because as soon as I were lynched the game would be done!

Petunho, I realise we haven't posted a lot on Day 2, but at the same time, this isn't a random wagon. I think it has a good amount of reasoning behind it, and - unless your re-read comes up with an argument why this case is weak, or someone else is more suspect - I don't have a problem with you or thegeckoj casting a hammer.

Also, I feel bad because it is lifeofpie's birthday in three days.. sorry that we are trying to lynch you!

Also, I agree with RandomGem's assessment on the first Day 2 post.

[Fenchurch]

We had a lynch so C5 cannot be scum.

This confuses me. What exactly does this mean?

1) We had one scum when we went to night.
2) C5 hasn't responded for his prods and NabNab The Mod has been looking for replacement for him before we went to night.
3) We had a night kill committed by the scum.
=>C5 hasn't been around to post the night action to the mod, so he cannot be the scum because we had a night kill. Clear enough?

I think the confusion was that you said "lynch" when you meant "night kill".

The more days we go by without posts, the harder I'm finding it to maintain interest in the game. Petunho, I'm not clear why it is important to know why thegeckoj hasn't lynched lifeofpie, since there are no scumbuddy alliances any more. In his own words.

i do agree that lifeofpie made some poor choices that definitely make him out to be scummy. i will, exactly as you said, hold out on my vote until petunho returns to see what he has to say.

Sounds like he was waiting for you.

Yesterday I took the time to look back through thinktank's posts for links that might have been missed. So here are my alternative cases.

Artem

thinktank casts suspicion on Artem in posts 138 and 143, but never votes for him. This can be a buddytell - create an appearance of being against each other, without actually voting. But then, thinktank never really voted for anyone. Artem sat on his Drifter wagon for a while, which can be a scum strategy. It was Artem's suggestion to end the day, and although he said he'd prefer to lynch chapter 5, he got on the thinktank wagon fairly early with the third vote, at a time when I feel that lynch could have been averted if he had wanted to. If this was bussing then it was a pretty good one.

Petunho/Drifter

thinktank goes back and forth with Drifter, first

Drifter's reason for the claim seems to be genuine and at the moment I'm not agreeing with the arguments made against him. Based on what he has said, the argument and logic for his lynch seems little more than opportunistic.

and then

Looking back at Drifter's statements. Shadowlurker seems to be on the money. A drifter lynch would definitely be a possibility.

without voting, so again, possible buddy-tell there. And Petunho argued against lynching thinktank. For these reasons, Petunho is my second choice for a lynch target today.

RandomGem

No links that I can see, and RandomGem got on the wagon at the second vote, although without giving strong reasons either way. I can't rule out bussing, but it seems unlikely.

thegeckoj

Said he was considering voting for thinktank, but since he didn't (or didn't get the chance) we will never know for sure whether this was true. No other links that I can see.

lifeofpie has already been covered copiously, chapter5 is ruled out, and I know my own actions to be pro-town (although from your point of view, I'd say my case is similar as that for RandomGem).

Mod: could we have a prods please, on thegeckoj and Artem

[Fenchurch]

Oop, simul-post! Thanks for your thoughts Petunho. I start to despair, when not hearing from people in so long. Hoping that we can get a prod or a post from thegeckoj, since you are waiting for his response.

Petunho is my second choice for a lynch target today.

EBWOP: this would better read, Petunho is my second choice for scum. I am not currently consider lynching Petunho, because I think the case against lifeofpie is better.

[Fenchurch]

So, where does that leave us? Have either of you come to a voting decision yet?

[Fenchurch]

I don't think it's sensible to rule Petunho out. He posted his going-away message after the final lynch vote had been cast; in that situation, as scum, you could send your night choice in straight away before you leave, and I'd imagine the mod would accept it. I'm not saying that is what happened, but I don't think it's impossible.

[Fenchurch]

I'm here, I'm here.

thinktank casts suspicion on Artem in posts 138 and 143, but never votes for him. This can be a buddytell - create an appearance of being against each other, without actually voting. But then, thinktank never really voted for anyone. Artem sat on his Drifter wagon for a while, which can be a scum strategy. It was Artem's suggestion to end the day, and although he said he'd prefer to lynch chapter 5, he got on the thinktank wagon fairly early with the third vote, at a time when I feel that lynch could have been averted if he had wanted to. If this was bussing then it was a pretty good one.

I've actually called him out in 139 on agreeing with SL but not adding anything new or casting a vote himself. I think that thinktank was keeping his options open by not committing to a vote, something I found suspicious.

At the end of Day 1 I

did

find Chapter 5 more suspicious than thinktank, but as I said in 425, we needed a consensus to move the game along. I was happy with lynching Drifter/Petunho or Chapter 5, but when it became clear that we weren't going to agree on either, I thought that a lurker lynch would work well also.

Yep that all makes sense, probably silly of me to write it like that, but my "Artem" paragraph actually contained reasons both for and against you being scum.

Welcome Kairyuu! Whilst you are not

completely

confirmed in my mind, it is very likely, and I agree that you would make a good doctor target (if it is necessary). Given that the mafia don't know whether there is a doctor in the set-up or not, they would have to decide then between risking a blocked kill, or leaving a confirmed innocent alive.

I don't have any other comments or questions for you Kairyuu, given your current position. For the record though, have you read through the whole game already, or just the most recent pages?

[Fenchurch]

Yeah NabNab hasn't been that quick to respond lately. I actually sent him a PM to say that we'd lynched, on the evening that you cast your vote, and he hasn't opened it yet. I don't think he is able to check the site much at the moment.

[Fenchurch]

Bah! Go town!

I still had an emotional investment in this game (although thankfully not as obsessive as when I was dreaming about what the lynch results would be ), and have been following it nearly as much as my current games. I'm glad it didn't have to get called as a draw - thank you Casey for replacing in.

Whilst watching the game, I was very much convinced that it was Petunho. I said on Day 2 that I thought thinktank's wishywashying over the Drifter wagon seemed like a strong buddy-tell, and this remained my conviction right up until the end. If I had had the option to replace back in, I would have made exactly the same vote Casey did.

As for Artem, me feeling remains as on Day 1: I feel he escaped questioning, but I just could not find anything to question him on. Who was Artem supposed to have been following with his votes? In my opinion the vote on thinktank was pretty well-timed, I talked about the possibility of it being a bus but I didn't really suspect it.

Artem I'm curious to know, with your power-role guessing, could you tell that I was not a power-role before you killed me?

I had some feedback for lifeofpie with regards to mis-lynching him (if he wanted it), but it seems he has left the site since this game. If you are still around, lifeofpie, please chip in.

Kairyuu, despite being practically cleared, I had a real gitchy feeling about you, haha. Even though I know why you said them, things such as "I like being confirmed town" and "doc should protect me" it really made me not want to trust you! If I had been the in the game, I would have been glad you were night-killed so I wouldn't have had to worry about that. Anyway my point here is, I guess I can't always trust my gut feeling.

All in all, thanks guys for a game which I enjoyed, and feel I learned from. If anyone wants to give me feedback, I would welcome it.

[Fenchurch]

I have question!

What prompted you to vote for thinktank on day 1? It seemed really out the blue, to me at least. But I was glad you did, thinktank was one of the people I had wanted to see lynched Day 1, and the only reason I didn't get back on his wagon sooner was that I didn't want to appear jumpy.

I've just remembered; one of my own reasons for wanting to get rid of thinktank, I felt sure that he was being deliberately quiet Day 1 in order to claim cop later on. My fear, therefore, was the small chance in my mind that he might have

actually

been cop.

This suspicion stemmed from reading another of thinktank's (at the time, ongoing) games, where he had also lurked through early on and then put in a suspicious looking cop claim Day 2, with the defence "of course a cop would lurk Day 1". Ironically, in that game, he did turn out to be cop.

lifeofpie, my feedback for you was going to be that I felt you didn't argue your defence that strongly on Day 2, which I took to be another sure-sign that you were guilty, although it was something that I didn't want to point out at the time. But in retrospect perhaps you did... either way, I'm sorry if the attacks on you seemed unrelenting, but based on your actions previously, I didn't want to let you off the hook.