Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Dourgrim]

/confirm

[Dourgrim]

I'm going to

vote: Panzerjager

because he's in both of my games at the moment and I feel like I'm being stalked.

(Or, I hit random.org and it spit out his name... take your pick.)

[Dourgrim]

We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha

Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

[Dourgrim]

Actually, Panzer, mykonian's logic is sound, if a bit oddly stated. He says that GIEFF has information the rest of us don't (i.e. implying a role that isn't Townie) and is also going after mafia. Ergo, GIEFF can't possibly

be

mafia if he's trying to

lynch

mafia, and no one pro-Town would out themselves as a Cop or Doc or any sort of useful power role before the game even starts, ergo he must be the SK.

Now, although that logic does work, it's certainly not bulletproof; there are far too many scenarios that would explain all of this... like, for instance, the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting. Furthermore, the SK isn't likely to out himself either so soon in the game, so I'm not convinced...

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

[Dourgrim]

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote (or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation) after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting, despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

FoS: springlullaby

[Dourgrim]

Allow me to reply question by question, it helps organize my thoughts better.

Dourgrim: Do you think GIEFFs pre-game statement was serious? Do you think mykonian's vote on GIEFF was serious?

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian

was

serious, so I explored the possibility.

How would a cop have information on 3 players before the game began?

He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's

unlikely

to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?

Why would a SK have information on 3 mafia members before the game began?

He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do

you

know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.

How are you clearing GIEFF of being mafia under the assumption that he's "hunting mafia"?

I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm

voting

for him, for cryin' out loud.

For those who are still unclear: I picked three random names and said they were "obvscum" as a joke, and as a way to start discussion. I did not start the game with any information about who is and isn't scum.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured, which is why that part of my above reasoning for voting you was labeled "OMGUS" and therefore wasn't serious. The other reasons stand, though, which I will now respond to (I don't know how to copy the bullets so I ad-libbed, sorry):

So, to summarize your reasoning, Dourgrim:
* I haven't voted yet.
* I already had votes on me.
* I called you obvscum in pre-game

Actually, it's because you

posted

and hadn't voted yet. It made you look like you were trying to avoid being accused of lurking without actually doing anything, and the posts you did make had no useful content in them. That made you a better candidate for a bandwagon than anyone else at the time, since I hadn't spotted anything else all that suspicious when I made that post.

For the record, I'm pretty much always this verbose when I play. I guess I prefer it to multi-posting. *shrug*

[Dourgrim]

Sounds like you're overreacting way to much to what seemed like an obvious joke (calling you and two others obvscum is his confirm post).

I wouldn't call it "overreacting," more like "reacting to something." As I just posted above, obviously the "obvscum" thing was a joke, which is why that part of my reasoning was labeled with an OMGUS.

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all. This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

Yes, I did think the same for her, but I also think there was enough of a discussion in the thread that the time for "joke votes" was past... but none of that was really enough to convince me, which is why I only gave her a FoS instead of moving my vote. Does that make sense?

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

I haven't written anyone off yet, not even GIEFF (who

still

has my vote). Besides, aren't we supposed to be eager to find scum? Or is it now considered better play to be passive in the thread and watch instead of actively hunting scum?

[Dourgrim]

I wouldn't say that, but being so serious about certain things like the ones i responded to, could make you look too eager. As if you just want the attention on someone else.

I disagree. Aggressive play early on is pro-town.

Thank you, that makes me feel at least a little better about being so mouthy.

[Dourgrim]

(

bolding

mine for emphasis)

At first I thought your vote was half-joking because you said it was OMGUS

based on my obviously-joking "obvscum,"

but you later said you were happy with the vote, and you appeared to be serious. So now you are claiming that my first two bullet points are the real reasons?

Yes. I agreed that the "obvscum" comment was a joke, and I intended the "OMGUS" I used in my original vote post to indicate as much. However, this seems to be in doubt now, see the other bolded text below.

I hadn't voted yet. I don't like random-voting; I prefer to wait to vote until it's for somebody whom I actually find to be scummy. I also have a script I run that tallies vote history, and too many random votes clutters it up.

I didn't know anything about the script you're talking about, and since I've never played a game with you before, I have no way of knowing that you don't like random voting on Day One. I will, however, accept responsibility for not doing my research and reading up on the games you've played in the past to find voting patterns (or lack thereof). I used to do that quite a bit when playing with people for the first time, but I don't have that sort of free time anymore.

None of the other votes prior to my first two day-1 posts were "doing anything" either; why focus on me just because my meaningless posts didn't have a meaningless vote to go along with them?

I've already explained my reasoning for this. My read on it was that it gave you deniability when it came time for vote

and

lurker analysis later.

I already had two votes on me. How does this make me more likely to be scum? Why are you even looking for a bandwagon candidate?

These are not separate ideas, they're one and the same. The two votes on you doesn't make you more likely to be scum, but they do make you slightly easier to bandwagon than someone with only one vote, and bandwagons on Day One can be a useful tool to provoke conversation... which, by the way, it did.

I would also argue that my "obvscum" accusation was the first meaningful thing posted in the game; it allows the town to see how people react to it.

Then why did you refer to it above as "obviously-joking" above? You can't have it both ways.

You said it was POSSIBLE that this was meaningless chatter; you didn't say you really thought that it was. And after you said it was POSSIBLE, you said:

... BUT, that happens to be where my vote is currently sitting, and I'm still comfortable with it for the same reasons I stated above.

That hardly looks like you thought the accusation was a joke. If so, why did you say you liked your vote on me for "the same reasons stated above" when one of these reasons was the very accusation which you are now claiming you knew was a joke?

I would have thought this would be obvious by now: I was comfortable with my vote because of the first two bulleted points, and I had agreed that the "obvscum" thing was a joke... which you seem to deny and confirm in the same breath.

It's not scummy to mis-judge a joke post as a serious one, but it is scummy to lie about the fact that you mis-judged it, or to lie about the reasons you have for voting for somebody.

I didn't lie about it... matter of fact, I've stated numerous times that I agree it was probably a joke... or was it, GIEFF? You can't seem to decide.

I'm happy with my vote.

[Dourgrim]

I really hate it when people change names while quoting to try and slant opinions. I haven't mangled your name once, so please show my name the same respect and stop spin doctoring the thread.

But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it?

Yes, I believe it is. (See my thoughts on joke posts below.) In addition, since then the reasoning for my vote has evolved somewhat based on your reactions. I believe your arguments have essentially amounted to "Why are you picking on me instead of <name>?" That's not a valid defense.

Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.

This I agree with 100%, although I do have to try to remember that not everyone has as much access to the boards as we seem to.

It was a joke that I hoped would also generate discussion (which it did, and continues to do, even self-referentially). I thought it would be obvious that it was a joke, so much so that I assumed your vote of me was also a joke, as mykonian's was. I can and do have it both ways, and this should be clear. Joke-posts generating serious discussion is how every game I've started on this site has pulled itself out of the random-vote phase into the actual game.

I disagree with this philosophically. Joke posts (even "meaningful" ones) can and do generate conversation, true, but so do bandwagons. How did you decide your method of generating conversation more valid than mine?

Furthermore, as we appear to be proving quite well in this game, joke posts can (and oftentimes do) get misinterpreted to the detriment of the Town. It is for this reason that I generally prefer to avoid joke posting, unless I'm combining the joke with what I believe to be meaningful content, like my OMGUS in my original vote for you (see below).

And why are you comfortable with your vote now? It seems to me as if the only reason of your original three that remains is the fact that I didn't random-vote early on.

This is correct. However, your reaction to my original point makes me think that this is quite a bit bigger a deal to you than I would expect from a pro-Town player on Day One.

Regarding post 33 (and your later reference to post 45): This might be a sign of me being away from the game for too long, but doesn't "OMGUS" usually signify a joke vote? My memory of the term is that it indicates something no more serious than "bah." My intention with using the term was to indicate a lack of seriousness. *shrug*

Regarding post 37: I intentionally was noncommittal because, *gasp*, I wasn't committed! And, assuming all posts in the thread can be taken at face value, mykonian's logic could have been correct. He has since admitted it wasn't anything more than a joke vote, but the logic itself wasn't completely baseless, just its application.

And you can't explain your first reason very well. It only makes sense to focus on the player who hasn't joke-voted if you really think a lack of a random vote is really an advantage for a scum later in this game, or at least that you think the scum will think that. Seems pretty bogus to me.

Again, this may be a "generation gap" kinda thing, but in mid- to endgame situations, I've found that voting patterns in earlier Days can be a very useful tool in scumhunting. When people post without voting, it gives them an out when that pattern analysis begins... and so yes, I do think that a lack of a random vote can be an advantage for scum later. Obviously you disagree. Again, *shrug*.

As much as I dislike your style of argument (the abovementioned name mangling), you have made certain aspects of your point, and at least you're well-spoken. Also, you are right that my goal of a bandwagon has seemingly changed directions. However, your reactions as a whole still leave me with a bad taste in my mouth... I'm going to think about this, give it a bit of time to digest, and come back to my vote tomorrow.

[Dourgrim]

To clarify a couple of things about me as a player:

1) I am almost always seen as an aggressive player because I'm usually a very vocal and verbose player. I am aware that this is not always a virtue because I tend to attract quite a bit of attention, which in turn causes people to pick apart every little thing I say (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not), which in turn gets me under suspicion more often than not. It is, however, a viable and often effective method of provoking serious (and occasionally inflammatory) conversation in the game, which seems to be the case in this game.

2) I

do

tend to "jump on" things other people don't see as significant because, from my experience, those things tend to

be

significant somewhere down the line, for better or worse. Furthermore, my "jumping" tends to provoke conversation and deeper analysis of topics that could easily be glossed over otherwise.

3) I tend to be a somewhat visceral player as well. I have hunches, and I follow them, and sometimes I don't explain those hunches all that well. This is not the case in this particular game, as I tried to explain my reasoning as well as I could, but it is a trait of mine.

Having said all of that, I would like to

unvote: GIEFF

for the moment. I'm going to reread the thread with a fresh pair of eyes today and see what I see, and I'll weigh in on the situation later today.

[Dourgrim]

It's only been 36 hours, which is why I think active lurking is scummier than just not posting. If you're posting but not providing any content, then it looks like you're posting just to avoid suspicion, as opposed to posting to help the town.

Is it just me, or does this sound just like what I was originally saying when I voted for GIEFF way back when?

[Dourgrim]

Dourgrim is quite eager to defend my (wrong) random vote logic.

This is an overstatement, apparently meant to deflect Panzer's attention back toward me, especially when you follow it with:

Dourgrim and GIEFF are talking a lot, and I can't see the point.

@mykonian: To clarify once again: if all posts in thread were to be taken at face value, your logic had some merit; not a LOT of merit, but some. Since we've had a very long discussion about jokes vs. serious posts, and since you backpedaled after my defense of your logic was shot down unmercifully by GIEFF, why continue to try to draw attention to the conversation?

To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts, as in:

I read this as "As my reasons for voting GIEFF were shown to be faulty and baseless, I've decided to unvote rather than continue to try to defend myself."

You won't get off that easily. It's not the fact you were voting me that bothered me, but the fact that you were using poor logic to do so.

...nor am I fond of his "accidental" spin-doctoring; however, he makes good points from time to time. He was partially correct in his analysis of my vote, and I believe he's correct in pointing out Panzer's mistake. However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?

Also, add in my earlier statement about voting pattern analysis in late game. Panzer votes for you straight away, then you defend... but late game, both of you have some plausible deniability later. It

could

point to scum covering for each other.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to

FoS: mykonian

and

vote: Panzer

. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

[Dourgrim]

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

The above two quotes appear to me as if you are trying to make this emotional; let's keep it based on facts. When we start voting with emotion, the scum win. I am not trying to upset you.

I tend to play somewhat viscerally, as I mentioned before, and sometimes emotions do creep in. Consider the issue dropped.

I'm glad you voted even though you thought I might find it scummy. I only think unvoting me is appeasement because you haven't convinced me that you really did think the reasons you presented for voting for me were valid.

You don't even have to convince me that they really are valid; just that you thought they were. Unvoting me before this is resolved looks like you are hoping I drop the subject. But I will not drop it, as the vote on me wasn't the issue; the logic behind it was.

I thought the issue

was

resolved; I've agreed with your analysis of my vote at least twice in the thread now, albeit conditionally because I still think my point was somewhat valid in light of my thought processes at the time, which I have tried to explain. I'm not wildly interested in appeasing you, to be honest. I'm much more interested in trying to catch scum, and when I unvoted you I did so because I was no longer convinced you were scum in light of our conversation.

How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.

I honestly don't know what this paragraph means. No sarcasm here, I've just read it four times and can't decipher it. Maybe I'm just tired, but can you please explain it again?

[Dourgrim]

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

[Dourgrim]

I would like to first thank everyone in this game for giving me a crash course in Mafia game theory. I've been away from this game for a couple of years now, and this game is reminding me of many of the things I once knew about being a good player, and a few things I've apparently never learned. No sarcasm here, this is a good first game back for me to be in. Thanks.

Also, I would like to thank Panzer for using the term "Dourgrim-esque" in a sentence... I'm not sure if I should be flattered or worried.

Leaving my vote where it is for now, I'll come back to the game tomorrow at work and see what I see.

[Dourgrim]

Sorry if you guys don't "approve" of the "oldie card" in this game. I was trying to pay you all compliments... I guess that sort of sportsmanship isn't really wanted or required in-game, eh?

[Dourgrim]

Well, apparently we're not quite ready to abandon discussion of game theory.

And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell.

These seem to me to be contradictory statements. What if someone says something that he believes is true but is in fact untrue? How can you possibly differentiate between a lie and a mistake?

Therefore, what we seem to have here is an unprovable theory. There is no way whatsoever for someone to prove what another person believes or disbelieves, so how precisely can you decide who is lying and who is just not playing up to your standards? Example: Do you think I believed the logic I was originally using when I voted for you? How did you come to that conclusion? What factors might have changed your mind in this regard? And why exactly, when I conceded your points regarding the fallacy of my logic, did you insist that you believed I was trying to appease you rather than agree with you? What all this tells me is that your methods of finding "scumtells" via reading intent seem to be somewhat flawed.

Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

[Dourgrim]

(I condensed and organized the quotes below to make them make more sense... you can go back and check, I haven't changed any text or references.)

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Point one: WHOA... really? You have never mislynched someone because they were particularly anti town or the led the way to a mislynch? REALLY?

I never said that. I also didn't claim that the person who was mislynched was scum. I was disputing the use of the word "scummy" here to describe a pro-Town player, although I now understand where I made my mistake in context.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

Point 2: Should cop just come out and say (day 2 on) HOLY F***, I GOT A GUILTY!? Or should he try and find an argument or failings in the person post to logically get him lynched as to hide his identity?

I'm failing to see the relevance of this to my original point. I was saying that I believe perfect logic should not be the

only

guiding star to finding mafia. Logic is certainly a tool to be used, but it's not infallible because the

players

whose behavior you're trying to analyze aren't infallible.

[Dourgrim]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: what

do

you agree with in BB's uber-long post?

[Dourgrim]

I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.

Amen!

[Dourgrim]

I do not believe this qualifies as a "fast wagon" at this point. 7 pages of Day One in a mini setup isn't fast, at least by my memory of typical game flow.

If we do lynch Panzer today, I think we're going to learn a LOT about the other players in the game based on the stubbornness of arguments and voting patterns, which will make tomorrow a very interesting day. I'll say this, though: if Panzer does get lynched and comes up scum, mykonian will get my vote first thing tomorrow. If Panzer comes up Town, I think there are other people who will end up in the spotlight, and I'll cast my votes accordingly.

[Dourgrim]

FWIW, putting "notes" in the thread and then telling people to ignore them is annoying... either that or it's there intentionally to cause people to jump to conclusions about your opinion, and to spark controversy. Of course, that's just my opinion, YMMV.

[Dourgrim]

I'm not sure I'm as comfortable with this wagon right now as I was when I put my vote on Panzer. Not sure why, but I'm getting a bad vibe from it. I'm going to try and do a full reread this weekend to see if I can find exactly where things changed.

[Dourgrim]

I'm sorry if it annoyed you. Posting was the fastest way for me to save my notes at the time.

Meh, it's all good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't trying to spin the thread... but it looks like your notes and your follow-up post are similar enough to forgive. I do think, though, that the Notes utility above might be a better place to do that sort of thing in the future, assuming you can't keep a spreadsheet or other doc. Anyway, issue over, moving on.

These two dominated the early discussion, but I'm really not sure what to make of it. They were arguing about GIEFF's lack of a random vote till well into page 4. While I think that was a valid enough reason for pressure early on, I have no idea why they dragged it on for so long. How serious were you two about the early discussions? Were the attacks just exploratory and meant for gaining information about others, or would you have been willing to follow the votes to a lynch?

I continued the conversation long after it should've ended because I was being attacked and nitpicked over what I believe was an understandable reason to vote someone in the very early game. Since then the logic for the vote became less valid, as I conceded in a later post, which is when I let the entire thing go... or tried to, anyway. My initial attack was exploratory, and then as the debate went on I became defensive and was offended by a couple of comments that were made. (I am not a fan of inflammatory posting or spin-doctoring, as you may have already ascertained... and, for the record, I'm still slightly suspicious of the "Dourscum" crap from back then. I don't see how that sort of thing can possibly be "accidental.")

When I posted above that I'm not entirely comfortable with the current wagon, it's because of one thing: the wagon was being aggressively led by GIEFF, who I had a bad feeling about from way back at that initial vote. My logic for the vote may not have remained bulletproof, but the feeling is still there. Furthermore, I have a similar read to ting's on Panzer and myko's "lies" in the thread. I believe in "Lynch All Liars" as a general rule, but in this instance it feels like we're talking about people being pushed into poorly thought-out answers rather than outright lies. And who did the pushing? GIEFF. Imagine that.

FoS: GIEFF

, which might very well become a vote in the very near future.

[Dourgrim]

I have gone into tremendous detail about Panzer. Please show me where myko did the same, or show me why you disagree with my reasons for suspecting Panzer.

You have gone into tremendous detail throughout this game, I'll give you that. However, I never once said I disagree with your reasons for voting Panzer. What I

actually

said was:

Furthermore, I have a similar read to ting's on Panzer and myko's "lies" in the thread. I believe in "Lynch All Liars" as a general rule, but in this instance it feels like we're talking about people being pushed into poorly thought-out answers rather than outright lies.

If you can't see the difference between those two statements, there's probably no hope in even trying to debate with you. Here's a hint: note the word "similar" in the quote, as opposed to the word "same" which does not appear anywhere in the quote. Also, you'll kindly note the word "feel" in the quote, which indicates a "feeling" (also sometimes referred to as a "hunch"), as opposed to any formulaic "scumtells" and so forth that you seem so fond of trying to point out.

You seem to have gone to great lengths to try to prove to every player in this game how your perception is the only possible interpretation of any given post. Bravo for your purposeful nature, but please try to restrain yourself from trying to misinterpret other people's actual words into your perceived meanings in the future.

Y'know what? To heck with waiting for the weekend and a full read-through. To me it looks like you're now being blatantly deceptive, and I think that trumps Panzer and myko when it comes to the "Lynch All Liars" rule.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

"Dourscum" signing out.

[Dourgrim]

Furthermore, I have a similar read to ting's on Panzer and myko's "lies" in the thread.

I have gone into tremendous detail about Panzer. Please show me where myko did the same, or

show me why you disagree with my reasons for suspecting Panzer.

[Dourgrim]

Sorry, I've been skimming the thread. My vote is still somewhere I'm comfortable with for now, but I do need to do a thorough readthrough sometime tomorrow.

[Dourgrim]

I just reread the entire thread and noticed a few things:

1) I really did get a bit over-emotional during my debate with GIEFF earlier in the thread, probably because I wasn't prepared for GIEFF's "nitpick" style of analysis. The whole thing reads kinda... weird, now that some time has elapsed since it happened. Anyway, sorry for making the debate personal, that was uncalled for. I'm still not the biggest fan of GIEFF's playstyle, but it's a lot less offensive with age than it seemed at first. The thing that I still can't get past is the "Dourscum" thing. How can that possibly be anything but intentional?

2) I genuinely think the case against Panzer is a bit overinflated at this point. Panzer definitely changed his story in mid-stream regarding his vote, but the feeling I got after rereading was that it wasn't as much a "tell" as it was a change of heart and subsequent mistake in explanation. YMMV, of course.

3) I actually think I understand Zilla's desire to hear a synopsis rather than reading the thread. I don't

agree

with it, mind you, but I understand where she's coming from.

4) A lot of mykonian's behavior seems to be stemming from irritation, not actual discussion at this point. While I'll be the first to admit how irritating GIEFF can be in this game (;)), I think it's important we look a bit deeper than an OMGUS vote, which is what it looks like mykonian's doing.

5) We have quite a few confrontational and/or outspoken players in this game, and it's only natural that those sort of players will butt heads from time to time. It does make getting a clear read on the game a bit more challenging, especially with the gigantic quote blocks and posting speeds of some players compared to others.

I want to see Macavity return to this game and post before I place my vote.

[Dourgrim]

I was composing my post, Panzer. I do most of my posting at work, and occasionally I have to actually work and can't post quite as fast as I'd like.

Please try not to let your experiences in other active games bleed over into this one. There's no reason for it.

[Dourgrim]

Sarcasm noted, although uncalled for.

[Dourgrim]

@Dourgrim: Again, I'm really sorry about the dourscum thing, not just because it's been distracting, but because it really seems to have upset you. It was an honest mistake, but I think the only way you will know I am being truthful is when I flip town. I was talking to someone a few days ago while typing in "mafiascum.net" and accidentally said the word "scum" out loud. It happens.

No no no, you misunderstand me. I'm not that upset with it per se, although our earlier debate did get a bit heated at points; at the time (and to an extent still), I viewed it as spin-doctoring, which made me suspicious and compelled me to point it out. You've said it was an accident, and I genuinely appreciate the apology... but I don't necessarily believe it

was

an accident, which is why I keep bringing it up. I think it may have been an attempt on your part to influence other people's opinions of your case against me "subliminally" so to speak. In a nutshell, I'm not entirely convinced of your sincerity, but I promise I'm not mad about it either.

[Dourgrim]

@Dourgrim: What good does it do to keep bringing it up if it's not because you're upset? I think this is the 3rd or 4th time it was mentioned. It was an accident; what more do you want me to say? There's no way for me to convince you it was an accident, so I don't see the point. You'll just keep saying "I think it was on purpose" and I'll keep saying "No, it wasn't."

I don't want

you

to say anything because it's not

you

I'm trying to convince. I think it's a meaningful "mistake" (or perhaps tell) on your part, and I keep bringing it up because I think it's worth investigating. I don't see any possible way it

could

have been an accident, so I'm emphasizing it in an effort to bring it to the attention of the other players and find out if I'm the only one that sees importance in it.

As it stands, the Zilla vs. the world argument kinda overwhelmed the thread there for a bit, but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it. The cases being made are, as Zilla has pointed out, somewhat removed from the actual discussion, so everything's a bit on the hazy side (too much quoting and cross-referencing to be clear). GIEFF has made his points abundantly clear, and mykonian and Panzer have defended themselves against the case. The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I want to hear from qwints before I vote.

[Dourgrim]

Fair enough... and for the record, I didn't intend to

suggest

"testing the theory" with a lynch, I said that would be the only way to do so. If I had believed lynching them was the best route, I would have placed my vote.

Still waiting for qwints.

[Dourgrim]

Three things:

1) I know it's only been two days since the last one, but

MOD: vote count

please? I'm very curious to know where everyone's votes are right now.
1a) Who's the one with the vote-counting script? Can you please post your most recent results in the thread?

2) I am likely to get prodded every weekend for inactivity, since I do most of my posting during the week from work. I own/operate my own DJ business in addition to my day job and so am very busy on the weekends, not to mention planning my wedding and trying to get crap done around the house. Sorry.

3) Why have we still not heard from qwints since his "catching up" post?

[Dourgrim]

Thank you, O Benevolent Mod! Thank you, O Not-Always-Benevolent GIEFF!

It seems to me we have a lot of confusion in this game regarding the reasoning behind people's votes. I suspect a couple of factors, including language barriers, posting styles, and "walls of text" that can sometimes obfuscate intended meanings. Therefore, I have a "Zilla-like" request for the players who currently have voted for someone: it seems to me that anyone who's

really convinced

of the reasoning behind their vote should be able to present the reasoning behind the vote in a

one or two sentence post

(including links to relevant posts if needed). I am aware that this will cause some oversimplifying of detail-oriented cases, but I'm hoping that the links proviso above will allow for clarification of the one or two sentences without resorting to long walls of text.

I'll go first: I believe the GIEFF's reasoning behind Panzer's "lies" regarding his vote are overblown (even though I do tend to agree with the logic itself), and I think the "Dourscum" incident (may it live forever in infamy ) was an attempt to influence the other players in the game in a potentially dishonest manner rather than an honest mistake (because I don't believe it could have possibly been an honest mistake).

(If anyone wants me to post links backing up the above statements, I will attempt to comply, although I am having a stupid busy day at work and it might not be until tomorrow.)

[Dourgrim]

It already looks like my idea helped clarify at least one issue in the thread, the myko/GIEFF debate. Yay for clarity!

Funny how people listen to Dour .

I think it's because I've been here the entire time, and because I wasn't asking for a synopsis of the game per se, but rather asked for a "litmus test" for everyone voting to see if they believed their vote enough to be able to back it up succinctly. Which brings me to...

Also, Dour, I have to say your reasons for voting GIEFF aren't very good. I, too, think some of his points aren't right and that his case is a bit bloated, but I don't think that's a good reason to vote him. I also agree that the Dourscum thing is VERY dubious as far as a mistake goes, but also, it's not worthy of a vote, no matter how little I believe that it was a "slip."

I think we're going to have to respectfully disagree a bit here. As I said, I don't specifically disagree with GIEFF's logic, but I do think he's tunnelling a bit here in a singleminded attempt to lead a bandwagon that 8 other players (besides mykonian) don't seem to see as the #1 scumtell in the game (or else they'd be voting with him). Also, the name thing isn't the primary tell I'm going on, but I think it's enough of an issue to solidify my other suspicion into a vote.

Why are we not hearing from so many players in this game? Where is qwints? Where is ting =)? Why has spring not posted any real content since last Friday?

[Dourgrim]

Long-ish post coming, just want to doublecheck something before I post.

[Dourgrim]

I am suddenly VERY glad I didn't chime in until this conversation got to this point, although I wish I wasn't up at 1am.

BB, you do realize that your entire defense post up there could be distilled down to "You're right about everything, but I'm not scum, honest!" don't you? How is that even a defense? How can you say that people's methods for scumhunting suck and then agree with the person that the person you say "sucks" is agreeing with?

(Wow, that

sentence

sucks, but moving on...)

Believe me, I

totally

get how irritating GIEFF's playstyle can be. but you're not helping your case at all by repeated use of the word "suck" and vulgarity in general, not to mention the CAPS. I'd much rather you try to convince the Town of your innocence with eloquence than an attack on GIEFF's playstyle (which, again, can certainly be annoying, true). At this point, by your own admission, your playstyle (ignoring the game, following others' votes without reasoning, etc) isn't much better, and you agree the case against you is strong, and you agree that you look scummy at this point. So, in all seriousness, tell me one thing: why shouldn't anyone vote for you at this point?

unvote: GIEFF

FoS: GIEFF

for the same reasons as my vote was. I think the case against BB is just plain stronger at this point, and considering the playstyle of the suspect, I won't be sad to see a lynch here.

vote: Beyond_Birthday

(Oh, and by the way, BB, GIEFF said he'd be OK with lynches of Panzer, myko, and BB. That's three, which is far from half the town, BB. Matter of fact, that's almost exactly the number of scum I'd probably put into a mini game if I were designing the setup,

maybe

four if there were strong Town roles in play. Hmmm...)

And your vote at the end of your "defense" is a vote for Zilla because you're suspicious of being defended by someone who didn't vote for you? I'm going to assume you're NOT trying to imply that you've been intentionally playing poorly to see if scum would jump out and defend you, correct? You say that people too quick to jump on a bandwagon that results in a lynch should be suspected, but then you criticize someone for not being quick enough to vote while presenting a case. Shouldn't you pick one here?

Goatrevolt: I didn't miss your request above, but I think the conversation since that post has kinda changed the nature of the request, hmm?

And what's with the non-players in this damn game, anyway?

HUGE FoS's: ting =) and qwints

for excessive lurking.

slightly smaller but still pretty big FoS: springlullaby

for not-quite-so-excessive lurking.

[Dourgrim]

I don't know who is scummier at this point, BB or zilla.

Care to elaborate?

[Dourgrim]

I've read the posts in question, thanks, and I'll take that as a no. I was trying to get you to

elaborate

(i.e. provide more detail) as to why you weren't sure which one was scummier.

Two full days

of conversation have elapsed since your analysis of the situation, and an experienced player like you doesn't have any kind of deeper read on the situation? Or is this more a matter of you being happy to fly below the radar of two other suspects? Here's why I say that: since the posts you referenced, you've made 7 posts total. The first was a one-liner "spin doctor" post, and I'm still not sure exactly what that was referencing. The next two were snide comments made at me because of your hurt feelings in another game we were in, and then came this:

I would be OK with a BB lynch, and I would be OK with a mykonian lynch. I still like the Panzer lynch best though, based on other things like his active lurking (i.e. parroting), the "townie" slip, and the use of "truly" and "honest."

So let me get this straight, my "active lurking" aka parroting aka something you said I do when I'm town and 2 semantics issues?

Gieff, I'm starting to get a very scummy vibe from you and you are definently tunneling me if you think I'd be a better lunch the BB or Zilla.

So you're trying to summarize GIEFF's post, and then you say you're "starting to get a scummy vibe from" him. Interesting, considering this:

@Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons. A supposed "lie" the intentions of my random vote, and me calling dejkha "confirmed town". Both of these honestly go into semantics. First of all, I used the word townie instead of spelling a specific players name. Oh Please, this isn't a slip. Also, you believe I truly wanted to lynch Myko, when clearly in my exchange with him i told him slips were minor tells and simply told him I'd just be keeping my eye on him.

Regardless of the debacle afterward, you're blowing an IGMEOY out of purportion in a way that is leading me to believe you are rolefishing scum.

FoS:Gieff

Hmm... make up your mind. Since then you've posted this (and I'm combining it all into one quote box to save space, this is actually three posts):

Yes GIEFF because I don't see how Mykonian is scummy. Also I don't understand why you do.

I don't know who is scummier at this point, BB or zilla.

Read my 28th, 31st, and 32nd posts.

And you wonder why you're being accused of parroting and active lurking. It sounds like you're just really not sure about much of anything in this game... maybe asking you to elaborate was a bad idea on my part. Sorry.

At this point I still think BB's case is the strongest out there, and I'm flat-out disgusted with all the lurking going on in this game (and no, Panzer, that comment isn't really directed at you, at least you acknowledge the game's existence by posting

something

), but I think Panzer is easily the second-best choice for a lynch today based on the above, even trumping my suspicions of GIEFF.

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: the bolding in the first two quotes above is mine for emphasis. Sorry, should've made that clear in the post itself.

[Dourgrim]

I am going to re read and carefully consider all arguments put forward (I appreciate your efforts to get simplified versions Dour) and choose where to place my vote.

For the record, I wasn't necessarily trying to "simplify" people's cases. I was trying to force the people who were voting to reassure me that they believe in the strength of the cases enough to be able to explain them without a wall of text. The way I figure it, if you can't explain in one or two sentences why you're voting for someone, you don't have enough conviction behind the vote to be able to sustain it. Simplification is a helpful side effect.

I have been said to be avoiding a firm stance on the game and it's main arguments and being an active lurker. I am activley trying to correct this perception to by adopting a stance. I shall be back tommorow...

Thanks for that, but why is it going to take you another entire day to do so? Why not just post your initial thoughts in this post and then do a readthrough to refine your stance later? Meh, I'm not sold on this until I see it actually happen.

@Panzer: so now you think Zilla, BB

and

GIEFF are equally scummy?! Or are those separate thoughts that were accidentally combined into one sentence? Also, I'm not exactly clear why you believe nothing Zilla says can be trusted. Can you please give me specific examples as to why this is the case?

Furthermore, do you understand my points in the above post on why you're being called out for parroting and active lurking? Do you have any defense besides "no I'm not" to that accusation? I'm trying desperately to coax some in-depth discussion out of you without goading you into an emotional outburst here, so please, rather than just say "like I said before" when justifying your stance on the current discussion, try to summarize clearly the exact points that led you to cast your vote.

I wish I had four votes to throw around, I'd vote all the lurkers -and- BB -and- Panzer.

MOD: where the heck are qwints

(no posts since Monday's "Hi, I'll read and post" one and only post)

and ting =)

(no posts since Sunday)

?

I got prodded on a

Sunday

for 48 hours inactivity, for crying out loud...

[Dourgrim]

For now, Vote: Mykonian

For being the first person to even say Serial Killer (either he's mafia looking to create a scapegoat, or an SK trying to get the drop on anyone beforehand, I don't really see town introducing a serial killer, even as a jest, in RVS), for parroting goatrevolt's response to my opening, for general goading but non-commital behavior, and, mostly, because he asked me to.

And here she uses as a reason to vote it, and bringing up the reason that she thought was ridiculous and out of hand that had been essentially dropped. This completely goes back on what she was saying and used it as a reason to vote someone who was suspicious of her because she saw that her accusations of Goat, were not going anywhere. I don't see town doing this because it is not only dishonest but she has twice voted people who disagreed with her. Basically OMGUS. Town shouldn't OMGUS because disagreement is okay, because it means people are trying to hunt scum, and deliberately voting and trying to eradicate those who disagree and think you are scummy, is scummy.

I saw the post you're talking about, but in my mind this post is Zilla justifying the vote on mykonian because he

began

the whole "stupid" SK discussion in the first place, not because she bought in to the discussion or placed any weight on it. She seems to be questioning his motives for beginning the discussion, not the discussion itself.

whoof. Long post take effort.

Thank you, that was much more informative. However, you seem to again have missed my question:

Furthermore, do you understand my points in the above post on why you're being called out for parroting and active lurking? Do you have any defense besides "no I'm not" to that accusation?

[Dourgrim]

I have nothing to add at the moment exceot to respond to Dour's question:
I do realize I am agreeing with Goat's assesment of my play (though he assumed the slightly better reasons of his two assesments on my thoughts, but he gave me a bit more credit than I deserved). Not only is there no point in me defending my scummy play but there really isn't an upside to defending it either. Any explanation aside from claiming that it was some insanity gambit (it kind of worked out that way, but wasn't intended) would probably be more likely to be created by scum than by town. All town arguments would be very stupid, and I'm not stupidly going to claim that the play I made while not paying attention to this game makes any damn sense. It doesn't thus looks scummy, and I am forced to agree with this.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like it essentially boils down to: "I know I look scummy, I'm sorry I've been playing scummy, but no good scum player would look this scummy, so I can't possibly be scum." WIFOM if ever I've heard of it. It's a bit stunning to hear you admit it, but there it is. Hmm...

However, I know I am not scum, and Zilla's arguments reach a certain level of stupidity or confident assumption. Either Zilla is a complete moron townie or a scum who knows I am town aligned. Given the possibilities, I think that Zilla was blinded by the fact that she *knows* I'm town and couldn't pull this out very well in her skim read of the thread. As a result, she sees that I am possibly going to be lynched (semi justified by Goat's arguments) and she gets townie brownies while also (this assumes Goat is town) getting to push for a Goat lynch for having what she percevied previously as a stupid case. As a result, I think Zilla is mafia.

Please explain why her arguments are either stupid or overconfident. Of

course

you're going to say you're not scum, and therefore your accuser must be, but you can't say that's evidence with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously. I'm not being sarcastic at all here: please explain this to me.

Oh, and speaking of eloquence...

*takes militint's arm, and slices open the wrist.*

Heheh... it flows as a warm trickle down your skin before gathering together to slide and fall as a droplet of blood to the ground. *licks the wound* And so sweet...

Um, yeah, that's creepy... eloquent, sure, but creepy.

@Dour, Yes I understand, I don't agree, but It's a difference of opinion. I believe I've been actively contributing to this game. I have raised some valid and even original at the time points as of late. I don't find anything wrong with my one liners.

I would agree that you

were

contributing original content to the game, but over the last four days I don't think you have, and I believe that you're doing so in order to avoid unnecessary attention to the cases made against you in the past. That's my point in a nutshell.

Thanks for prodding, Mod. I hate lurkers.

[Dourgrim]

Myk needs to answer, militant, SL, ting=), and qwints need to participate.

QFT

[Dourgrim]

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

Here's the other problem I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of

your

lists. How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch? Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself

be

a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone. The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

I'm thinking Panzer is the right choice for today's lynch. However,

before we start voting,

I want to hear the lurkers' opinions on my logic, and I want to hear from GIEFF (who has been strangely absent today), Goatrevolt, and (brace yourselves) mykonian. I think myko's reaction to this could be key, and so I urge the Town to not lynch anyone until we've gotten a clear, detailed answer from him.

Make sense?

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: I'm not trying to lead the Town here, I'm just presenting my opinion on what I think optimal play is here. Do what you want.

[Dourgrim]

(Why, oh why, am I incapable of a normal-sized post in this game? Sorry, guys.)

Hm.. somehow Panzer's vote change rubs me the wrong way though it is explained well enough. I'm going to assume it is paranoia.

For once, I think Panzer explained himself pretty clearly: he's voting for you because you're the other lynch choice currently on the block besides him. It's a self-preservation vote, pure and simple. Hardly noble, but understandable considering how long he's been under the microscope, regardless of his alignment. No tell.

Moving right along:
I still think Zilla is scum, so:

GIEFF, Goat, and Dour, do any of you think Zilla is scum?

Forgive me for speaking on other players' behalf, but personally I think Zilla and Goat are having a pretty big playstyle clash right now that both are interpreting as "scummy behavior" on the other's part. I think this is causing both of them to nitpick too much at each other and is distracting them both from the game at large. (Incidentally, in retrospect I think this may also have happened between GIEFF and I in the early game.) Zilla doesn't feel all that scummy, she feels pissed off and therefore blowing up everything. Ditto for Goat (re: Zilla, anyway). And both of them seem like they're misrepresenting each other as a result. Therefore, no tell.

(GIEFF is still annoyingly calm, as always.)

Also, Zilla, the wall of mini-quotes above is downright annoying and is not helping your case at ALL, at least in my eyes. All you're doing is eliminating all context from the sentences you're quoting, and no matter which side you're on, you're making your case nearly impossible to read without being overwhelmed with your spin. Please stop.

If any of you feel differently about your cases, please feel free to disagree, but that's the read I'm getting as of right now.

You're saying that since the BB case involves WIFOM, we should ignore it. I would agree if the case on BB was based on WIFOM. The case on him is based on solid evidence suggesting he has been scummy. Evidence he agrees with. The WIFOM is entirely based on how he has chosen to defend himself (via not defending himself).

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that I don't believe that he's the correct choice for lynching

right now

. I most definitely do NOT want to ignore BB's scumminess, but I do think we can learn more from a Panzer lynch than we can a BB lynch... and, let's face it, BB

could

theoretically just be a lazy Townie who got busted not playing the game. I think the only way to find out is to let him live a bit and see what he does. I don't think he is just a lazy Townie, mind you, but it is a possibility that should at least be considered. Let me try to rephrase this: I think that either BB is scum, or up until now he's been playing in a fashion that is not helping the Town. Either way you're right, that makes him a good lynch. However, Panzer meets both of those possibilities in my eyes as well, and Panzer has links to myko and others, whereas BB doesn't (except negatively with Zilla since her flip, which will actually become more relevant as the game continues). If we lynch Panzer and he comes up scum, we learn something interesting about GIEFF, myko, and BB... I'm not so naive to think we

prove

anything about them, but we definitely learn things. Linkage is not the end-all-be-all of scumhunting techniques, but we've got a 18+ page Day One to study after this is all done... it seems like there should be some easy patterns to pick out on Day Two, don't you think?

I agree with this. I think it's unlikely that we're going to break much more ground in Day 1, and though I think that the case against BB and Panzer are both fairly strong, we have a lot more to gain from knowing Panzer's alignment.

While I'm flattered that you agree with me, you get a

medium-sized FoS: subgenius

for implying that this Day's usefulness has neared its end. Long days = good for Town, and the longer the better. The more discussion there is to be analyzed later in the game, the more chances there are for sharp players to find scum. You look like you're trying to end the day, and that's a very very bad thing while we're still debating.

OK, on to other points of my late-night rants. I HATE FRIGGIN' LURKERS! Considering the Watched Topics function of these boards, the ability to receive email when a thread receives a reply, and the funny little light-up icons in front of each thread, there is NO EXCUSE for lurking this long. A day or two I can see, but come ON, people!

MOD: can we please see prods in the thread whenever they're required?

[Dourgrim]

OK, I just noticed something that changes my viewpoint here: both Zilla and Goat are nuking the hell out of each other in the thread, and yet neither one is voting for the other. Zilla's voting for myko, and Goat's voting for BB. At least Goat has said that he thinks BB is the correct lynch for today and is voting accordingly; what gives, Zilla?

And, to live by my own standards...

unvote: BB

vote: Panzer

[Dourgrim]

I don't see those two statements as contradictory, and frankly I'm confused how you would. The first quote was in reference to the original Panzer wagon, and I was saying I didn't think it had happened too fast considering it had developed over 7 pages worth of Day One. The second post says that I think long days benefit the Town (YMMV on that theory, but that's not relevant to your specific question here). To my mind, they're more

similar

than anything: 7 pages isn't too fast, and neither is 18, because I don't think there

is

such a thing as "too fast" when it comes to Days in a game.

[Dourgrim]

I was rereading the above point and what you're seeing suddenly clicked in my head. I said that all kinds of backwards in my earlier explanation post because I wasn't reading your question clearly. That's what I get for trying to post immediately after waking up. Let me try to clarify.

In the first quote, I was saying that I didn't believe the wagon on Panzer was too fast after 7 days, and I stand by that because, as I've said before, I think bandwagons are a good source of information and conversation. However, I did

not

say that I would've been happy with the Day

ending

with a Panzer lynch at that point. There is a difference... unless you think every bandwagon should end with that person being lynched, in which case I think we'll have to respectfully disagree. Long days are good for the Town, but bandwagons don't necessarily have to progress slowly in order for them to create useful discussion.

Sorry for the confusion in the above post.

[Dourgrim]

I am going to re read and carefully consider all arguments put forward (I appreciate your efforts to get simplified versions Dour) and choose where to place my vote. I have been said to be avoiding a firm stance on the game and it's main arguments and being an active lurker. I am activley trying to correct this perception to by adopting a stance. I shall be back tommorow...

I'm sorry for the long no post guys, I've been busy. I know it's not an excuse. I'm reading the game now. Post soon-ish.

At this point I'm seriously considering a "lynch all lurkers" strategy in this game. There are WAY too many people who aren't contributing to this game, instead watching from the sidelines while big conversations go on and attract all the attention. From this point forward, every time someone gets prodded on a Tuesday through Friday (because I don't expect anyone to post much on weekends), I'm giving them a . Every time I see a "oops, sorry I'm not being helpful" or "sorry, I'm here, I'll contribute some other time" post like the ones above, they get a . When someone compiles enough 's, I'm going to vote for them. A player may cancel a with a when they contribute to the game at large with three posts without a . It may sound simplistic, but I'm really getting irritated with this crap, and this way everyone can see exactly how mad I'm getting.

[Dourgrim]

@dour.
I really, honestly, am sorry. I'm not normally this lurky in my games. I'll do pages 15,16 tomorrow; 17,18 on saturday, finish off by sunday. I'm free-ish this weekend, so I don't see any reason why I won't be able to.

Thank you. Self-imposed deadlines make me happy, as long as they're held to. Fair warning, though: if you fail to meet these deadlines, I'm likely to become more annoyed. Also, one weekend of awesomeness does not excuse you from further lurky crappiness... just sayin'. I'm not entirely sure if you're all that worried about my level of annoyance, but there it is.

Now, to actual game stuff:

but we've since defaulted back to the Panzer/mykonian alliance Zilla alludes to. I can see it being a very real possiblilty, and I think lynching one or the other of them is going to be the only way to confirm or deny it.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable answering this in the thread for all to see. If we were to lynch Panzer or myko, it could be later misconstrued as me trying to lead the Town, and I'm not trying to do that at all. However, Panzer and myko pretty clearly linked themselves early on in this game, agreed? And, although I don't think links are foolproof ways of finding scum, they can be crucial at times and should be pursued when the case against the lynched and the link are both strong enough. In this case I believe both of those criteria to be applicable. Make sense?

And, just to be clear, I don't think it's just the other of that duo that we'll learn quite a bit about. GIEFF, BB, and others also weighed in heavily on this, and it could very well speak volumes to their intentions as well...

especially

GIEFF and his uber-focused case on Panzer.

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

That's because you've taken this out of context. The passage you quoted was part of a larger post analyzing GIEFF's case against the possible Panzer/myko link. As my vote (up until recently) indicated, I also believe BB to be a good lynch choice for today... just not the

best

choice. Therefore, obviously I'm not fixated on a dichotomy here.

[Dourgrim]

(I'm breaking one post into three separate quotes for ease of reference later in this post. Not that they have been left in chronological order to prevent accidental removal of context.)

Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset.

On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel). I don't feel confident enough either way to either vote for him or stick up for him.

Right now, I'd say Panzer is about 3rd/4th on my suspicion list, behind BB and Macavity (qwints), and roughly equal to the lurkers.

One thing I will say, though, is that I think "lynching for information" is a terrible idea. Every lynch gives information. When people end up being town, it really doesn't mean much in terms of linking players. For example, if we lynch Panzer and he is town, do we really know more about GIEFF and Mykonian? Isn't it plausible GIEFF was attacking Panzer town on town? Isn't it possible Mykonian was defending Panzer town on town? If Panzer were to end up scum, then yes, we'd learn a lot about both Mykonian and GIEFF. However, that's because he was scum. We got lucky that our lynch for info hit scum.

We should be lynching to hit scum. Regardless of who we lynch today, we will have information for tomorrow. Panzer only gives us a wealth of information if he's scum. In that case, we should be lynching him because we suspect he's scum, not because we want information from his carcass.

While you don't come right out and name me in it, I get the impression that Part 4 is aimed at my theory of learning from a Panzer lynch. This is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding, I'm not entirely sure which.

I happen to believe that Panzer is one of the two scummiest-looking players in the game at this point (BB is the other), based in part on your excellent summary of his behavior in Part 1. I have said this before in the thread fairly recently, so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Part 2 indicates you disagree, but Part 3 says you don't think he's completely above suspicion. All of this is fine; we certainly can disagree about the amount of suspicion we have on a particular suspect. BUT, Part 5 says we should try to lynch scum. SO, if you combine

my

read on Panzer (scum) with my desire to lynch scum, what do you get? The "lynching for info" angle is only the thing that tips the scales in Panzer's favor vs. lynching BB. It is certainly not my main motivation here, and implying it is is most definitely misleading.

And Panzer agreeing with you is unsurprising at best.

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: the first sentence should read "

five

separate quotes" instead. I wrote the rest of the post, then wrote the first sentence, then went back and rewrote the rest of the post for completeness. Oops.

[Dourgrim]

Post coming later tonight.

[Dourgrim]

First off, I noticed you never responded to my Post 224, which I feel disproves your claim in Post 219 that I am blatantly misrepresenting your case, which was your reason for voting me.

I believe post 224 is in and of itself an oversimplification meant to be cute. Gosh, but that was witty how you "can't make it any more simple than that" for us other not-GIEFF players. Once again, your condescending nature leaps to the fore. Furthermore, it was a gross oversimplification that disproves nothing. Quoting without actually quoting what people say

is

misrepresentation at its core. Do you disagree? Stop trying to paraphrase other people and base your questions off of actual in-game text, please.

Secondly, your Zilla-WIFOM post is mind-boggling. You make a lot of faulty arguments and come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense even if your arguments weren't faulty.

OK, see, the problem here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However, the worst part about it is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means we could end up mislynching twice in a row based on a crappy WIFOM decision if we just blindly followed. Bad Town play.

"if we blindly followed, it would be Bad Town play." Agreed, but that hardly is enough to argue against a B_B lynch.

OK, how many times can I say this? I'm

not

saying lynching BB is a bad idea. He's

second on my list

behind Panzer, as I just said in post 466 about an hour ago. Why is this so hard to understand?

IF B_B fips town, and IF Zilla is also town and IF the town blindly follows a town-B_B lynch with a Zilla lynch, then lynching B_B will have been a bad idea. What do you think the odds are of all three of those things being true? I put it at well below 5%.

You're forgetting BB's assertions that Zilla must be scum because she's pushing for a BB lynch (who insists he's Town), and I was addressing the faulty nature of his assertion. If we make the assumptions he's asking us to make in his "defense," we engage in a WIFOM. I was refuting that possibility, not endorsing it. Furthermore, as I've said numerous times recently, I do

not

believe BB will flip Town because

he's #2 on my scum list.

Here's the other problem I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists. How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me. What does scummy players suspecting Zilla have to do with a B_B lynch? Are you still talking about the nested possibility of lynching B_B, B_B coming up town, and then the town focusing in on Zilla? Why? Doesn't this seem very unlikely? Even if they are both town, why do you think we' would just blindly lynch Zilla? Because an over-emotional dead townie asked us to?

This entire quote is senseless. Read above; I'm refuting BB's argument that Zilla is scum and explaining why I can't possibly take his and Panzer's reasoning for Zilla being scum at face value. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

So, how do we avoid the WIFOM problem with you vs. Zilla and yet still pursue a valid lynch?

What does Zilla have anything to do with B_B's scumminess or his inability to defend himself? Here is your vote for B_B. Explain to me exactly which parts of this post are invalidated by B_B's Zilla-WIFOM.

I'm not at all sure of why you think I think it is invalidated. Again, I'm just refuting BB's logic.

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

As Goat and I have both said, this is NOT the reason for lynching B_B. This is NOT the reasoning you presented at the time of your B_B vote, so why are you focusing only on this now?

Um, I'm not. If I

was

focused on this, I'd have continued making it a main point in my posts, and I haven't.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory. The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

So in your mind, all a scum has to do to avoid a lynch is to say "well, if I come up town, be sure to lynch Player Y tomorrow?" Because that's what it looks like.

Huh? Seriously, GIEFF, your logic is usually pretty good, but you

desperately

need to stop trying to restate people's opinions for them. I never said that at all, nor have I been able to find a post that implies that I think that. The part of my post that you quoted says that I'd rather avoid a WIFOM and pursue a lynch of one of my suspects that also happens to have great potential for giving the Town more information. How you came up with your spin on my quote is beyond me.

Furthermore, immediately after this post, you say this:

EBWOP: I'm not trying to lead the Town here, I'm just presenting my opinion on what I think optimal play is here. Do what you want.

What? You most certainly ARE trying to lead the Town. There is nothing scummy about it; if you feel a certain strategy is best for the town, of course you will try to lead the town to follow it. What IS scummy is leading the town while pretending not to, as if you are trying to distance yourself from whatever results from your actions. "Hey, that was your guys' choice, not mine."

I intend the word "lead" to mean "try to get the Town to follow me blindly" here. I do not want that.

The decision becomes, what do we like less: GIEFF's case or mykonian's defense?

I don't like this. Granted, they took up most of the game, but I still don't think that we have to pick one or the other. Why not neither? Or both? I don't see a dichotomy at all.

Agreed. It is a false dilemma, trying to get the town to think they must choose between one or the other: a Panzer lynch or a mykonian lynch.

Did you read post 457? Before nesting this little tidbit into the middle of an anti-Dourgrim rant, you really should have read the last paragraph of that post.

This is interesting. If panzer flipped town, what do you think it'd say about myko and why? If he flipped scum? If myko flipped town/scum - panzer?

I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable answering this in the thread for all to see. If we were to lynch Panzer or myko, it could be later misconstrued as me trying to lead the Town, and I'm not trying to do that at all.

You seem quite conscious of the need to not look like you lead the town when we look back on today after a lynch. It is also quite clear that you ARE trying to lead the town. Why do you think that leading the town is bad, if you are really so certain that Panzer is the best lynch for today?

Because I want 11 other players to play with their own minds, formulate their own theories, discuss...and more importantly, I

don't

want people who think 19 pages is too much to just "get this over with" by following my lead. I'm

not

specifically trying to lead the town, but I

am

trying to work through my train of logic and convince the other players that I'm genuinely right because I believe I

am

right. Besides, the accusation of someone "leading the Town" after a mislynch is an overused crutch people use to make themselves feel better about making a mistake.

You're really a hardcore semantics guy, aren't you? You're nitpicking again, and you're paraphrasing, and you're forcing me to post a wall of quotes and text because you're irritating me. Stop it.

[Dourgrim]

I will respond to everything tomorrow morning, and I'll do my best to be clear and logical. GIEFF, I apologize for the confrontational tone of my last post. My only excuse is that I had a very stressful end of my day at work and was rushing to post before leaving. Unfair to you and the rest of the game. My apologies.

[Dourgrim]

My ISP has been down up until about 15 minutes ago, and I have a meeting in half an hour that I now have to prepare for. I apologize for not delivering on my last post's promise of a logical reply this morning, but I now won't have any time at all until perhaps Sunday, or if not definitely Monday. I'll give myself a for that, just to keep things fair.

A quick skim, though, tells me that Zilla, Goat, and ting =) are all most likely Town. GIEFF I'm still not 100% sure about, mostly due to his nitpicky (and occasionally spin-based) style of play and his fixation on tearing my posts apart, but he seems slightly less suspicious than I originally thought because of his mostly logic-based analysis, of which I find myself agreeing with more and more. Panzer and BB are still our two best lynch prospects (in that order). militant is lurking again, which is really pissing me off. Play the @#$%! game already!

That's where I'm at in a nutshell. I'll try to give this game the time it deserves at some point Sunday, but otherwise it'll be Monday.

[Dourgrim]

It looks like it'll be Monday before I can post in any depth, but here are things to remind myself of for tomorrow's post:

1) respond to GIEFF's questions and points raised before

2) I have finished reading through page 21, have to read 22-24 (or wherever we end up) tomorrow

3) lynch all lurkers

Tomorrow, then!

[Dourgrim]

POSTING IN ALL GAMES: I'm here, I was home with a nasty cold and fever yesterday and so didn't check any of my games, I'll post either today or tomorrow with meaningful content.

[Dourgrim]

OK, first of all, I apologize profusely for my hypocrisy. I do NOT usually lurk in games, and I should have made a point of posting content yesterday regardless of being ill. I was home all day, I just didn't trust myself to post clearly in an environment where we've all shown that every single word of every single post can and will be analyzed to the Nth degree. GIEFF has made a living out of pointing out my inconsistencies all game, and I was (I believe rightfully) worried that any analysis I might've provided would be flawed at best.

GIEFF: I am

not

ignoring your question of my stance re: Panzer/myko, but I'm having a very tough time trying to figure out how to phrase my thought processes in that regard. I am going to need to reread the whole frigging thread to figure it out. Not sure about GIEFF still, but I think most of that is because I was in his crosshairs for so long before. There's still the "Dourscum" thing, but that's not really enough to base a case on.

Did I see earlier in the thread that I'm being linked to Zilla now? Is this because I said above that I believed Zilla to probably be Town? I did say that, but I'd be a liar if I said that my opinion hasn't changed since Goat/GIEFF's analysis of Zilla's case. The most telling part for me is Zilla's vote for Goat while BB is supposedly her top suspect. That makes no sense at all. The vote switch later is "too little too late" IMHO.

I can only hope you guys will give me time to read through things and develop more informed opinions here. I have to reduce my posting time, though; work started to suffer in the weeks since I've come back to mafiascum, and I can't let that happen.

I'll say this, though: I don't think Panzer is the best lynch choice anymore today. Not sure whether it's BB or Zilla. I will reread tonight or tomorrow morning and weigh in again.

Sorry for lurking, guys.

[Dourgrim]

I think GIEFF's right: that is a gross misrepresentation of his vote. His vote for qwints is based on logic and voting patterns, not a simple disagreement. As such, I think his case has merit, although it's certainly not the strongest case presented today.

GIEFF, regarding my Panzer/myko case from forever ago: I think the defenses of each other were odd, but myko didn't lie and Panzer did, or at the very least changed his mind. I still feel like they both were stating their cases similarly and were therefore linked, but I'd have to attribute most of that feeling to pure hunch at this point. I can't really come up with anything more substantial than that at this point, which sounds weak even to me, but there it is.

Goat's case on Zilla is pretty damn good IMHO, but I don't think we should discount BB (or even Panzer) entirely just yet. I'm going to try and make time to reread again today before voting, but just to be sure...

unvote

[Dourgrim]

GIEFF: I wasn't intentionally ignoring anything in post 224. I just lost track of the debate amidst all of the other conversations, and then when you forced me to go back and read it again, it struck me at that moment as condescending. For some reason your style of debate has that effect on me quite often, I'm noticing.

Regarding the four numbered points: #1 is correct. #2 is completely incorrect, and here's why:

OK, I just noticed something that changes my viewpoint here: both Zilla and Goat are nuking the hell out of each other in the thread, and yet neither one is voting for the other. Zilla's voting for myko, and Goat's voting for BB. At least Goat has said that he thinks BB is the correct lynch for today and is voting accordingly; what gives, Zilla?

And, to live by my own standards...

unvote: BB

vote: Panzer

I have never once said that lynching BB is a bad idea. I said that I believed we had better targets for lynching because of the WIFOM, and as the above quote points out, I said that I thought players should vote for their #1 suspect (for me, Panzer at the time), but I did

not

say that lynching BB was a bad idea, WIFOM notwithstanding.

Back to your numbers: #3 is correct, but #4 is not because it's based on #2 being correct (which it isn't). Does that make more sense to you?

[Dourgrim]

It does make more sense, but if you change the words "a B_B lynch is a bad idea" to "a B_B lynch is less viable, to the extent that I will unvote" then I think my point is valid.

My general point is just that the WIFOM you used to justify your unvote of B_B was injected BY B_B HIMSELF, and should therefore not be taken into consideration, at least not to the extent that you did.

But neither portion of that is accurate. I didn't say lynching BB was a bad idea... I just said that I believed lynching Panzer was a better idea. You're mixing two separate ideas here. I didn't use the WIFOM to justify the unvote, I simply moved my vote from BB to Panzer because I stated in the above quote that I thought players should be voting for their #1 suspect, and I believed Panzer to be more scummy than BB because of the lie, etc.

I also still don't agree that this WIFOM makes B_B's lynch any less viable. So what if he's linked to Zilla? I thought that links were good things? If B_B and Zilla are both town, and we blindly lynch one after the other flips town, then of course that is horrible play. Why didn't you make a similar point about the myko and Panzer? Is there a reason to fear Zilla and B_B both being town MORE than you fear myko and Panzer both being town?

I have said numerous times in the thread that I believe BB to be my #2 suspect (although recent developments hint strongly at Zilla), and so I'm not and never have said that I thought BB wasn't a viable choice for lynch because of WIFOM. Since Goat's case against Zilla, however, I've revised my opinion of Zilla's Townie-ness and am not all that worried about both her and BB coming up Town anymore.

And I didn't make a similar point re: myko/Panzer because I had gut suspicions of both of them at the time and believed that the link would be telling if/when we lynched Panzer (who I still believe is a viable lynch choice). Since then I've revised my opinion of myko somewhat, believing that there is a language barrier that may have caused players (including myself) to interpret some of his posts differently than his intentions may have warranted. The link between him and Panzer is still there, though...

[Dourgrim]

Dourgrim: I assumed that your first two paragraphs laid out the reasoning for the conclusions you made in your third and fourth paragraphs in this post. Is this assumption wrong?

No, this is correct.

I also assumed that a large part of the reason you unvoted B_B was the logic you put out in that post. That post was the first time you brought up any problems with a possible B_B lynch, and the first time since you voted B_B that you said you think Panzer would be a better lynch.

This is incorrect. The sole reason I unvoted BB is because I believed Panzer to be a better choice for lynch at the time. I did not at any point (in that post or any other that I've been able to find so far) say that I believed BB to be a poor choice of lynch. I did not so much

un

vote BB as I did

re

vote Panzer due to my conviction at the time that Panzer was the

best

lynch choice,

not

the

only

valid lynch choice. Do you understand the difference I'm trying to draw here?

Again, were the first two paragraphs unrelated to the conclusions you made in the 3rd

(B_B lynch has problems with it)

and 4th (Panzer lynch is best)?

The underlined point is incorrect. I simply chose to move away from the Zilla/BB debate to pursue what I believed to be a

stronger

lynch choice, Panzer. A BB lynch doesn't necessarily "have problems with it," but that doesn't necessarily make it the ideal lynch choice either, does it? If there is another stronger case that I believe could provide more useful information for future Days, isn't that a better play to make regardless of the validity of the first case? If not, please explain.

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum? This entire conversation feels like you're nitpicking, and I feel like I'm explaining myself over and over again saying the same thing. It's frustrating, especially since it doesn't seem like I'm able to adequately communicate what I'm trying to say to your satisfaction.

[Dourgrim]

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

[Dourgrim]

Just realized that I failed to answer GIEFF's latest questions, and I certainly don't want to get accused of evading.

I don't feel like I'm nitpicking. You voted B_B, and at the time I believed it was because you thought he was the scummiest player. You presented reasons in the Zilla-WIFOM post that seemed to convince you the B_B lynch was no longer the best one. Whatever you want to call it. And then you later voted for Panzer.

I voted for BB because I thought he was a scummy player, I thought he would be a valid choice for a lynch, and I wanted to help apply pressure to him to gauge his reactions. Panzer and you had been my other two choices up until the BB case was made, and the case against Panzer has been consistently stronger throughout.

And the "whatever you want to call it" line in the above quote bothers me. It reads like you're trying to invalidate the differences in what I'm saying and what you

thought

I was saying by reducing them to a difference in semantics, which is not at all the case. You were repeatedly stating that I had a problem with lynching BB, which is untrue (and has been untrue for quite a long time). I think this is why I've felt off and on that you've been misrepresenting me in the thread. These are

not

simply semantic issues; they're differences in intent and meaning that either I wasn't clearly communicating or you weren't correctly interpreting.

It just looks to me like you had decided to unvote B_B due to logic that seemed so odd I didn't think it was genuine. Has Panzer always been your top choice for a lynch, even after you voted B_B? If not, at what point did he pass up B_B?

As far as the timing of exactly when one suspect outpaces another in scumminess, I'd be a liar if I told you it happened at X time. My opinions change over time in mafia games, and I don't have any sort of "+x" or "x%" system in place that empirically measures a player's scumminess... and even if I had such a system available to me, I probably wouldn't use it because it would strip the fun out of playing the game for me. I read, I analyze, I react, I read some more... rinse and repeat. I'm going to assume by the nature of your questions here that you do not play the game similarly.

Now, would you kindly do me the same courtesy by answering my above questions?

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?

It seems to me that the answers to these questions should determine how much more of the Town's time we spend on this issue. If you believe any of this points to me being scum, then feel free to explain why. So far, it looks like you're just saying that you believe my logic to be "so odd" you "didn't think it was geniune." Could this potentially be a difference in play styles, or do you truly believe I'm scum because of my "odd logic?" If you don't truly believe I'm scum, I think we're just creating thread noise that isn't going to help the Town.

[Dourgrim]

"Whatever you want to call it" because anything you want to call it is fine with me; I don't mean to misrepresent. Call it something, and I'll agree. You list reasons against a B_B lynch, and that's all that's really relevant for the point I'm trying to make.

But this statement is

also

misrepresentative of what I said because I was

not

at any point reasoning

against

a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?

I do play the game similarly. There is no +x%, -x%, no formula. But I usually know who my top target is. You said Panzer has been your top target the whole time, though right? And that answered my question.

I did not say

this

either. I said that, between Panzer and BB, my choice for lynch would be Panzer. Let's not forget that you were a top suspect of mine for quite awhile earlier in the Day due to what I felt was intentional misrepresentation and spin-doctoring. I feel like that's what's happening again here. I tell you in what I believe to be plain English what the intended meaning of my posts was, and you try to paraphrase it down into something else.

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?

[Dourgrim]

But this statement is also misrepresentative of what I said because

I was not at any point reasoning against a BB lynch! All I said was that I believed Panzer's case to be stronger

, and I thought we would gain more information from a Panzer lynch than a BB lynch (which is a point we haven't resurrected in quite a while). Why is the difference between those two sentences so obvious to me and yet seemingly so hard for me to clearly communicate to you (or for you to understand)?

Because it's not what you actually said.

See bold below:

Dour: I know I am town. I think Zilla is scum. I have nothing more than this and I believe a few, even though they think that I am scum, would agree that under the assumption I am town in this situation, Zilla is scum. However, I have no way of proving I am town right now, and can only hope my future play better reflects my alignment.

OK, see, the

problem

here is that we're almost forced to lynch you with this logic, if only to "prove" that Zilla is scum. However,

the worst part about it

is even if you do flip Town, there's a reasonable chance Zilla is also Town (because there isn't a real case against her aside from your WIFOM and Panzer's "mistrust" issue, which I obviously don't believe is solid), which means

we could end up mislynching twice in a row

based on

a crappy WIFOM decision

if we just blindly followed.

Bad Town play.

Here's

the other problem

I'm seeing: it seems like many of the rest of the Town have you and Panzer at the top of their scum lists (including me), and both of you have Zilla near the top of your lists.

How can the Town in good conscience follow the leads of the two scummiest-looking players in the game? Also bad Town play.

So, how do we

avoid the WIFOM problem

with you vs. Zilla and yet

still pursue a valid lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for your lynch based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

The catch is, if we lynch Panzer or myko, we're going to learn a LOT about the rest of the game, whereas lynching GIEFF doesn't really lead us anywhere because he's not clearly linked to anyone at this point.

It is clear that you FIRST present reasons why the B_B lynch is less-than-ideal, and THEN say "OK now that I've established your case is not as 'solid' (your word), let's go back to my other two cases, GIEFF and Panzer." Then you rule out a GIEFF lynch, and therefore settle on Panzer. You said yourself that the first 2 paragraphs informed the conclusion of the 3rd, and your first 2 paragraphs are riddled with reasons why you don't find the B_B to be as solid.

NO.

Seriously, GIEFF, you're paraphrasing AGAIN.

Do NOT just "see bold below."

Read the entire quote

in the context in which it's presented instead of fixating on individual phrases that fit into your predetermined view of the situation.

The first paragraph: I am addressing BB's statement that he has no defense for his play up to that point, his assertion that he thinks Zilla is scum, and his hope that once he flips Town we'll lynch Zilla. I am attempting to refute this line of logic by pointing out that it's WIFOM, and I say that if we were to blindly follow this line of thought we'd be playing poorly as a Town. The "solid" part is referencing Panzer's "mistrust" of Zilla and, therefore, Panzer's case against Zilla, which I obviously don't put a lot of weight behind.

The second paragraph: pointing out that, since BB and Panzer were at the top of people's lists of suspects at that time, it was unlikely that their case against Zilla would be followed by the Town.

The third paragraph: I propose that, since Panzer is still one of the top suspects in my mind (as well as the minds of others, including yourself at that point), we ignore the BB/Panzer vs. Zilla WIFOM situation for now and instead concentrate on a lynch choice that is already well-established.

At no point do I say that BB is a poor choice for lynch; I say that BB and Panzer's case against Zilla appears to be lacking, isn't worth pursuing, and instead go back to either you or Panzer. These are unrelated issues that you keep trying to link together, and they're not.

So I disagree with your assertion that you just found Panzer more scummy. This looks like process of elimination-type logic to me, with Panzer being the only one left. And I found it scummy because I don't agree at ALL with the logic you used to find the B_B lynch less "solid," and I get the feeling you don't either, especially based on your inability to be truthful about your reasons for unvoting.

This entire quote is bullshit. Again, the word "solid" isn't referencing the BB lynch, it's referencing Panzer's case against Zilla. And I unvoted

in another post

because I thought Panzer was a better lynch choice and had asserted that I thought people should be voting for their first choice for lynch in a given Day and didn't want to be hypocritical. Are you now claiming that your carefully-built case about how Panzer lied and LAL is a good policy to follow is now somehow nullified, and therefore somehow I

shouldn't

have believed Panzer to be a good lynch choice for the Day?

Yes, I believe you may be scum, but you're not going to be the lynch today, so we can drop it and focus on Zilla/B_B.

You failed to answer the first of my two repeated questions above. What is the relevance of all of this, aside from you attempting to paraphrase my posts?

I did not fail to answer it.

Also, can you please help me understand the relevance of all of this? Do you genuinely believe that I am scum?

It is relevant because I found it scummy. Yes, I genuinely believe you may be scum, as I said before.

This is not an answer to the question I asked you. You find the conversation relevant to my scumminess because you find it scummy. I was asking you why you find it scummy.

TO THE REST OF THE PLAYERS:

please don't just gloss over this entire conversation between GIEFF and I. If you agree with GIEFF's assessment of my play and therefore scumminess,

please

say so and point out why you agree. If you disagree, please say so and point out why you disagree. I am flat-out sick of explaining myself over and over again to a single player and getting absolutely no reaction from the rest of the players one way or the other. Seriously, this needs to be resolved, if only because I'm not enjoying the game when I constantly have to re-explain myself.

[Dourgrim]

I say that BB and Panzer's case against Zilla appears to be lacking, isn't worth pursuing, and instead go back to either you or Panzer.

Again, the word "solid" isn't referencing the BB lynch, it's referencing Panzer's case against Zilla.

Are you really trying to claim that the below quote by you is talking about a Zilla lynch, not a B_B lynch?

Your lack of any sort of defense shouldn't it and of itself be a valid defense, and I'm kinda tempted to just push for

your lynch

based on that axiom itself, but

I don't think that's really a good enough reason to lynch anyone.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to more solid cases that don't involve WIFOM: either my GIEFF case (which doesn't seem to have much support from the rest of the Town) or the Panzer/myko "team" theory.

You are talking about a B_B lynch here when you say "your lynch." You cannot convince me otherwise. You are talking about why lynching B_B is a bad idea here, too. You cannot convince me otherwise.

Yes, the last quote above is indeed referring to the BB/Zilla situation, but you're misinterpreting it. I'm merely suggesting that the entire situation be tabled in favor of what I believed was a stronger case. AT NO POINT do I say that lynching BB is a bad idea. Find ONE SENTENCE that clearly states that with none of your "this is what I think you're saying" spin on it.

And, for the record, your statement of "you cannot convince me otherwise" (used twice in the post) says to me, plain and simple, that you have no business playing Mafia. If you're really so tunnel-visioned that you can't possibly be swayed away from your preconceptions of what other people's words actually mean, you're a poor player, good logic or no. For the sake of argument I'm going to assume, however, that you are NOT a poor player and are instead trying to use this sentence to emphasize your convictions. There have to be better ways of expressing your convictions, GIEFF.

If you continue to try to do so, you are not being truthful, whether intentionally or not. Does ANYBODY think the above quote is NOT talking about reasons why a B_B lynch is less-than-ideal? Or even that it's not talking about B_B? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

Parroting my call for other players to weigh in on the conversation with your witty sarcasm is unproductive. However, this actually

is

an accurate summary of your case for once, except that it's not the same as what you've been saying up to this point (surprise, surprise!). I

was

saying that I believed Panzer to be a more ideal lynch than BB, correct, but I was

not

arguing

against

a BB lynch; these are different and separate ideas. I felt that BB was a valid lynch choice but not the ideal one.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

That will answer about 80% of your questions in this regard, I think.

So I will repeat the question; why did you immediately fall back to either me or Panzer/myko, ignoring B_B?

I was not ignoring BB, I was suggesting we move away from it in favor of a more well-established case against Panzer.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

Even if you really were talking about Zilla the whole time (which you obviously were not), you STILL decided to ignore B_B and focus on either me or myko/Panzer, even though B_B was who you were voting for at the time. This was the original point I raised back in Post 469.

No, I didn't. I decided to table the Zilla/BB situation, not ignore it.

Why did you try to make it a binary choice (read: false dilemma) between me and the myko/Panzer connection if B_B was still #2 on your scumlist? If you wanted to make it a binary choice, shouldn't it have been between B_B and Panzer?

Because I was suggesting that we table (not ignore) the BB/Zilla discussion in favor of a more established case, which left me with two other cases I felt strongly about: you and Panzer/myko.

Do you understand the last sentence as it is written?

I found it scummy because it looked like you threw up some horrible reasons for not wanting to pursue a B_B lynch, and because you disagreed so vehemently with me saying that you were pointing out reasons against a B_B lynch (which seemed clear as day to me, and still does, and should to everybody else, too).

OK, this makes sense to me: you disagreed with my logic and found it scummy (IMHO probably because of a failure in communication), but then you cheapen it with the part in parentheses, in which you seem to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong. Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

I also didn't like your claims that you were not trying to lead the town, and the way you voted Panzer, as if you were trying to give an excuse for doing so. "Well, I said this, so I'd better be consistent; my hands are tied!" is the vibe I got from it.

Again, stop laying your "vibes" on my posts and instead read them literally and in context; I think that will help greatly in our apparent failure to communicate.

Again, I don't think you are going to be the lynch for today, and I don't want you to be, but when I see scummy behavior, I'm not going to just ignore it. If I get killed tonight, I want this information out there for the town to analyze in my absence.

I agree that players shouldn't ignore "scummy behavior." I have a question in return, though: if you don't think I'm going to be the lynch for today, and you don't want me to be the lynch for today, why are you going so far out of my way to prove my scumminess?

[Dourgrim]

You voted B_B. B_B presented WIFOM for Zilla. You felt this WIFOM was enough of a deterrent to either a B_B or Zilla lynch that you decided to focus on other leads that you yourself were more involved in creating, and that did not contain this degree of WIFOM. Therefore, you settled on Panzer being the best lynch choice for the day, and soon unvoted B_B to vote for Panzer.

Is that correct? The only problem I have with your behavior is the fact that the WIFOM was enough to get you to change your mind, but this is not so major a point that we should continue to quote-war each other. Can we agree that I find it mildly scummy, you think it isn't scummy, and move on? If you wish, I will let you have the last quote-war if I can restrain myself from responding.

I agree with your boxed consensus (and note to self: remember that "area" tag for future use). We can also agree with your assessment of the situation and move on.

Thank you.

[Dourgrim]

I don't like Dour asking for the rest of the town to weigh in to prove his case. I felt he was doing an adequate job, but this is exceptionally minor as a point.

To clarify: I was asking people to weigh in on either side of the case, not just to prove my side. I was looking for validation on the conversation itself, and having everyone just ignore it was making me feel like I was wasting my time writing posts no one was reading (besides GIEFF, that is).

[Dourgrim]

I don't like the way Dourgrim hopped on the wagon after I hopped off. I thought you wanted to avoid the WIFOM in a Zilla lynch, Dourgrim?

My vote had nothing to do with you, GIEFF, that was coincidence. Don't flatter yourself.

As for the two people who jumped on the wagon, one was Panzer, who had expressed both his willingness to lynch Zilla before and his preference in lynching someone who was not him. I don't think you can be surprised in any way by his jump on the wagon. The other was Dour, who admittedly, was a little fishy, in that he admitted that my case was solid, but didn't immediately commit, and only committed later when I noted that Panzer could be a Zilla scum-bud.

Your case for Zilla's scumminess was/is solid, and the possible pairing of Panzer and Zilla is a definite factor, agreed. Also, I'm a believer that bandwagons are a good source of information, especially when they're on people who have had good cases made against them already. That's why I jumped.

Here's my reads as of right now, if anyone cares. A lot of this is "gut reaction" rather than PBPA, so sue me:

Panzer: solid LAL case made in early game and getting scummier by the minute. Announcing to the world that you're going to intentionally ignore posts by certain players because you don't like the topic of conversation at hand is, at best, poor play. I agree that my debate with GIEFF didn't end up producing a solid case in either direction, and regardless what you think, NO ONE was more annoyed with that conversation than me, but deliberately ignoring it is deliberately ignoring potentially useful information down the road (see my read on GIEFF below)... unless, of course, you're asserting that you know GIEFF and I to both be Town. The only way you could know that is if you were scum. Therefore, you're either scum or a bad player. Either way you rocket to the top of my list yet again. Also, Goat's correct that there could be a Zilla/Panzer pair, which would mean that Panzer's scumminess could corroborate the Zilla case somewhat by association, but that's a minor point here.

Zilla: Goat's case against Zilla is solid. However, I initially got a Town read off of her when she first replaced into the game, and that shouldn't be completely ignored. While I agree that she's a good lynch candidate because of Goat's case, Panzer is still better.

BB: The case against BB was pretty solid, and even BB admitted as much. However, since that time he's given me a fairly strong Town read in his posts. Also, GIEFF has been pushing pretty hard for this to be one of the Town's choices, and whenever GIEFF starts pushing hard I tend to be suspicious (see our huge debate to understand why).

GIEFF: I am still very suspicious of him, although contrary to what he says I am

not

pissed at him (any more). I think he mini-quotes sentences and phrases out of longer posts to suit his interpretation, I think he tries to paraphrase and oversimplify other people's opinions to try and spin them into something they're not, and I think the "Dourscum" thing was significant despite his repeated claims that it was an honest mistake. I refuse to believe it's even

possible

for that to be an honest mistake. It also goes well with the misrepresentation I've accused him of before (which, incidentally, is one reason to read our longwinded debate thoroughly). I think he might be a perfect example of how a good grasp of logic isn't relevant to a players's scumminess. He's still near the top of my list, but Panzer is still higher.

springlullaby, subgenius, ting =): flat-out lurking. Play the damn game. Very good policy lynch choices if all else fails (I'd lean toward springlullaby because of the many "I'll post soon" posts), but

only

if all else fails.

qwints: I understand the case made against him since he joined the game, and it makes sense to an extent, but I don't have a very strong feeling about it one way or the other, and I did have something of a Town read on MacavityLock before qwints replaced in. Meh.

Goatrevolt: I'm really not all that fond of his playstyle, to be brutally honest... it's kinda nitpicky and unnecessarily confrontational at times. However, I've gotten a pretty consistent Town read from him all game so far, and his case on Zilla is solid and has yet to be clearly refuted IMHO.

mykonian: there's a definite link to Panzer here based on early play, but since then I've realized something: there is a language barrier here that makes myko's posts sometimes less clear than I'd like and could conceivably cause misunderstandings from time to time. Also, my top suspect's lynch might tell me more about myko in Day Two, so any suspicions I may have of him can kinda sit with Panzer as well (although they lose significant weight in doing so because links aren't a super-solid reason to lynch anyone, as has already been pointed out by others in this game).

militant: I really don't have much of a read at all on him, except that he's also ignoring the conversation with GIEFF and I, and I believe that to be a mistake (see Panzer above).

unvote: Zilla

vote: Panzerjager

[Dourgrim]

GIEFF: I answer your question re: my vote for Panzer in the above "wall-o-text." And, I believe the "Dourscum" thing to be part of a larger case, which is also in the "wall-o-text" post. Remember, though, you're not

at

the top of my list, you're just

near

it, so let's not focus too much on it for now, agreed?

[Dourgrim]

I agree. Zilla, why aren't you claiming?

[Dourgrim]

I'm here, reading and keeping up, trying to keep thread noise down on my end.

This is a knee-jerk reaction to the thread as of late: Zilla/Goatrevolt = GIEFF/Dourgrim. Both seem to be pairs of players whose play styles seem to clash, and although Goat's case on Zilla is still solid, the whole debate seems to be breaking down into "You lied!" "No, YOU lied!" stuff, and neither one seems to be convincing too many people in the thread that their case is airtight. Any of this sound familiar, GIEFF?

My stance on Panzer hasn't changed, and his bullshit "I refuse to post until Zilla claims" crap makes me very happy with my vote on him, whether the rest of the Town sees him as a valid lynch target or not at the moment.

[Dourgrim]

1. The manner in which he hopped on Zilla was suspect. However, he immediately hopped back off. Most important, though, Dourgrim acted exactly the same way towards the BB wagon. He jumped on, then back off for Panzer. If this is an issue for lynching Zilla (I don't see it as one. Scum buddy reluctance to lynch her. Indecisive townie? there are plenty of explanations) then it should also be an issue against lynching BB.

The issue with #1 is that Dourgrim's hop on came AFTER his post about the WIFOM inherent in either a B_B or a Zilla lynch. The B_B unvote was partly due to Dourgrim wanting to avoid this WIFOM, so it made little sense for Dourgrim to get back on a Zilla wagon, especially as the 4th or 5th vote.

I don't know if I should reveal all my cards, but I think Dourgrim is a scumbuddy to Zilla. In fact, he would be my first priority target tomorrow if Zilla is scum.

Let's see, Dour is opposed to lynching BB because of WIFOM related to Zilla. What WIFOM? You mean the WIFOM that says if BB is town Zilla is next on the block? Ok...

NO. Dear sweet Jesus, why is this so friggin' hard for people to understand? I have never said that I was opposed to a BB lynch, I said I thought it'd be better to table it and go back to cases I believed were stronger at the time: GIEFF and Panzer. You're making the EXACT SAME misrepresentation that GIEFF was during our gigantic argument before, and you're wrong just like he was about this point.

He then votes for Zilla but at a point that doesn't make sense. He doesn't vote for her based on my case, but instead votes for her when I make the statement that Panzer could be a scum buddy. That doesn't seem like a normal townie place to make a vote. What about Panzer being a scum buddy makes Zilla a more attractive target, and why didn't Dour even bother to want to know my reasoning behind that statement before voting on it?

This is also a misrepresentation. The post he's referring to is here:

I think Panzer has a decent shot of being a scumbuddy to Zilla, based on my read of her playstyle.

I don't think he's a better lynch, though.

At this point I can agree with that.

vote: Zilla

This puts her at L-2, just so you're all aware.

I was agreeing with your statement that, at that point, Panzer wasn't a better lynch choice than Zilla. Everything else you say above regarding this post is your spin based on your preconceived ideas.

He then unvotes at the first sign of the wagon dying back down, and for weak reasoning (I had a town read on her originally, and I shouldn't dismiss it).

I'm sorry, should I have dismissed my earlier read on Zilla and blindly followed? Should I not have moved my vote to a person whose scumminess I was more confident in as the conversation developed? I moved my vote because I considered the cases involved and believed (and still believe) that Panzer was/is the scummiest-looking player in the game. You're just pissed that your case didn't carry through to the satisfaction of the rest of the players in the game. After all, you're the one who said:

Right now, Zilla is overwhelmingly my top choice for scum. I do not want to lynch anyone else, nor do I support the lynch of anyone except Zilla. I'm going to continue to fight to make this lynch happen. She is dishonest, inconsistent, slippery, manipulative and I don't see how she could possibly be town. Her suspicions are not sincere, they are fabrications for the purpose of appearing pro-town, not for the purpose of lynching scum. I have given plenty of reasons why this is the case.

So you're going to only support one lynch choice, but then you're going to start throwing accusations around based on your preconception of the results of that lynch? Yes, you've definitely given plenty of reasons why you believe Zilla to be scum. You've also accused qwints, Panzer, subgenius and BB to be potential scumbuddies to Zilla over the span of the last week. How many people do you think are scum in this game?

I don't know why his play detracts from Zilla's wagon. In fact, Dour's jumping back off the wagon gives me more confidence in it, especially since Dour was one of my picks for a Zilla scum buddy. He responded exactly the way one would expect a scum buddy would. He bused her when it looked like her lynch was going to happen, and backed off as soon as things started to turn away.

One of your MANY picks for a Zilla scum buddy, depending on which way the wind is blowing at any given moment.

My stances aren't lazy. I've caught scum. I've worked for 10+ pages trying to get this scum lynched. There's nothing lazy about that.

No, you haven't caught scum. You THINK you have, and your case is fairly compelling, but don't even bother trying to misrepresent your opinion as fact, especially when it seems apparent that you can't even convince the majority of the Town that you're right.

Your conviction as to Zilla's scumminess is starting to make you look more than a little bit arrogant, Goat, and I think it's pushing people away. I still think you're pro-Town, but you really need to stop tunnelling.

This game is starting to blatantly suck. I'm usually a proponent of a long Day One, but I think we're starting to scatter too much as we overanalyze every single post that's made to fit our preconceived notions of who we think is scum/Town, whose playstyles we like/dislike, etc. I am voting for Panzer because he got busted in a lie VERY early in the game, and because he's actively lurking behind his "I'm not reading until Zilla claims" crap instead of trying to play the game (as not fun as this game has become). I would also support lynches of (in this order) GIEFF

(spin-doctoring, out-of-context nitpicking, misrepresentation)

and Zilla

(nitpicking, deflection, lying)

. I'm not as comfortable with a BB lynch as I was before, mostly because my doubts on GIEFF are causing me to mistrust his case against BB, but enough facts remain in that case that I could go with it if necessary to end this Day.

[Dourgrim]

GIEFF (spin-doctoring, out-of-context nitpicking, misrepresentation)

I am sick of this. I have not misrepresented anything on purpose. Make a case on me. Ask for help from B_B and mykonian if you like. If you can't make a case(as mykonian couldn't), then stop throwing out these generic statements. If a lie is repeated enough times, it will seem true.

Link to posts where I nitpick out-of-context or misrepresent, and I will show you why either you misunderstood or I did.

I don't want to see anybody accuse me of nitpicking or misrepresentation again without making a solid case, with links to posts and quotes that show exactly what you mean.

I've made my case, you've disagreed with it, we agreed to drop it for now and move on with the game. I'm not going to restart another drawn-out argument with you because it's thread noise, and because we've both said everything we wanted to say about the situation, and because no one else in this game seems to want to bother reading anything we say about it at this point. I stated my opinion, and I'm moving on... why don't you?

[Dourgrim]

Dour: I'm not acting on anything that requires knowledge of Zilla's alignment. Though I may think you a scum buddy, I'm not acting on it until I get confirmation of her alignment. For the record, there's nothing wrong with me saying "If Zilla is scum, I think the rest of the scum come from this pool of 4 players" even if there aren't that many total scum in the game. I can only vote one person at a time, so it doesn't matter if I have 6 plausible scum in a 12 player game, as long as I am pursuing who I think is most likely to be scum.

This is a fair point. However, what I was trying to get at is that you've lumped about half the game together with Zilla at varying points, which doesn't lend lots of creedence to your current theory (me and qwints). Of course, I believe your theory even less than the rest of the game because I know I'm Town, but that's neither here nor there (as pretty much any sane Mafia player would say the same thing).

I was agreeing with your statement that, at that point, Panzer wasn't a better lynch choice than Zilla. Everything else you say above regarding this post is your spin based on your preconceived ideas.

What was the difference? Why was your vote still on Panzer when you first agreed with my case on Zilla? What convinced you that Panzer was no longer the best lynch and that Zilla was? What changed your mind back?

My vote has been on Panzer off and on all game, if you've noticed. If/when I've moved my vote, it's been to apply pressure to other scummy-looking players whose lynch would make sense to me. However, as the pressure of my vote seems to make less and less an impact, I keep coming back to the case I've

always

thought made sense throughout the entire game so far: Panzer. At the point being referenced above, the case on Zilla was strong (and still is), and the case against Panzer didn't have any momentum, so I believed my vote would have greater impact on a Zilla-wagon. However, when the Zilla/BB issue came up, WIFOM was introduced, and I believed at the time that we should table that particular line of questioning for the moment and go back to what I believe(d) was a solid case that hasn't changed its validity: Panzer.

Your conviction as to Zilla's scumminess is starting to make you look more than a little bit arrogant, Goat, and I think it's pushing people away. I still think you're pro-Town, but you really need to stop tunnelling.

Meh, I would guess it's the large walls of text more so than my arrogance that is keeping people away. If my arrogance is driving people away, then I'll shut up. I'm not sure what you're saying with the "stop tunneling" bit. If you're saying that I should quit Zilla and focus on other targets as well, then that isn't going to happen. I'm not interested in lynching anyone besides Zilla.

I'm not saying you should stop pursuing your case on Zilla; I'm saying you should stop announcing that Zilla's the only case you're interested in backing and open your eyes a bit to the other valid cases that are being presented in the thread. I get that you're convinced of the "rightness" of your cause vs. Zilla, but you're intentionally blinding yourself to the other cases that have been presented over the last 33 pages because you're so

sure

you're right. That smacks of arrogance, and while I'm almost positive it's unintentional based on your playstyle, it's there nonetheless.

The walls of text probably aren't helping either of us, either.

[Dourgrim]

My theories about who are scum with Zilla aren't terribly relevant unless Zilla is dead and scum. I pointed out my theory on you specifically because GIEFF was using your on/off the wagon as a point against it, and I didn't see how that affected Zilla-scum at all. I don't care if people aren't giving those theories any credence, because they aren't relevant until we learn about Zilla.

Fair enough. However, if it isn't relevant, it probably shouldn't be crowding the already-long thread posts.

For instance, BB. I don't think he's scum if Zilla is scum. What you're essentially asking me to do is ignore Zilla and then evaluate whether or not I believe BB to be scum. The problem is, it wouldn't make sense for me to do that, because I strongly believe Zilla to be scum, which would make BB likely town. My evidence is that BB is town based on my evidence that Zilla is scum. I'm not going to just ignore that.

If you can't make an objective case on even someone like BB without involving your established case on Zilla, then you're tunnelling. Links are strong, yes, but they can't rule your analysis of the other players. If they happen to go along with another point or two that are strong enough, fine.

You're asking me to compromise and find other lynches I will agree with. That's not going to happen. It's not a matter of me "shutting myself out" or ignoring cases out of my irrational pursuit of Zilla. It's a matter of me being convinced Zilla is scum and my opinion that it would be wrong for the town to lynch anyone else.

And yes, I realize I'm being arrogant. I'm saying that I know who is scum and those who aren't in support of the Zilla lynch are wrong. That's essentially what everyone else is doing as well, though. I'm just doing it more prevalently.

This scares the hell out of me. There are more than one scum in this game, Goat. Why would you not be OK with lynching someone else if they were proven to be scum?

Dour: Can you give me a breakdown of the points that you think makes Panzer likely to be scum? Then could you explain your stance on Zilla. What about my case on her did you agree with? What about her is keeping you from voting her? Finally, could you explain why you think the points against Panzer outweigh the points against Zilla.

No. I'm not going to start rehashing everything that I've said about Panzer and Zilla yet again. I've announced my reasons for voting Panzer (earlier

today

, for Christ's sake!), listed the other people whose lynch I would support, and I'm not going to continue filling the thread with rehashes to satisfy one player who admits himself he's only interested in one lynch today. If you're happy with your target, fine, good for you. Your target happens to be #3 on my list as well, and if no one wants to pursue Panzer as a viable lynch, and GIEFF appears to be above reproach right now, I'll join on the Zilla wagon. The case you've made is valid enough to warrant a lynch.

unvote: Panzer

vote: Zilla

vote: end the damn day

(Just noticed GIEFF's simulpost: he's right about Panzer. Well said.)

[Dourgrim]

I'm telling you all right now, if momentum moves back to Panzer, so will my vote. He's still my number 1 choice, and this game is starting to frustrate me a LOT.

[Dourgrim]

BB: I wonder, does your percentage-based system takes into account differences in posting frequency? The "lurkers" overall seem to be rated lower than the frequent posters. I'd be curious to know how this system works.

[Dourgrim]

Goatrevolt: in three sentences or less, what is your stance on GIEFF? I'm genuinely curious here, and not because of my prior stance on him.

[Dourgrim]

I suspect that the entire "role claim" was a joke, militant.

[Dourgrim]

Panzer's explanation makes sense to me. Also, he's not blindly sticking to the "I'm not posting until" thing. He moves down on my list.

[Dourgrim]

I don't have much time to read on weekends, and tomorrow's going to be a hellishly busy day at work for me. I'll try to catch up tomorrow.

[Dourgrim]

My daytime posting is going to be greatly decreased for the near future. Work is starting to get pretty intense, won't have much time to read/post days anymore. If this game proceeds at the same pace it as up until now, and if my work schedule stays as it is now, I may have to request a replacement. I will do my best to avoid that, but I'd rather tell you all up front. Sorry.

[Dourgrim]

I'm here. My day job's recently hectic pace is making it VERY difficult to keep up with this game.

Panzer's responses earlier had moved him down my list somewhat from his previous #1 spot, but I've also said that I would support a Panzer wagon if it gained more momentum than a Zilla wagon. I still think he's a good lynch choice.

unvote: Zilla

vote: Panzer

[Dourgrim]

My top three are probably Panzer, Zilla, GIEFF (with BB being right in the mix as well). Most of this is just gut/hunch at this point, as my daytime work schedule has prevented me from keeping up with the game as thoroughly as I once was.

If this game is going to maintain the same breakneck pace, and if enough of the other players want, I'll accept being replaced. Otherwise, I will do my best to keep up in the future, but it's becoming tougher and tougher. I'm sorry.

[Dourgrim]

I haven't been prodded, I

am

pretty far behind at the moment though. I'll try to read up tonight and post tomorrow, I flat-out don't have time now. Sorry.

[Dourgrim]

I am not counter-claiming.

unvote

Still trying to catch up...

[Dourgrim]

The only thing making me think Panzer still isn't the ideal lynch is the claim. However, we can't lynch someone who claims Cop and isn't getting counter-claimed, and lynching a claimed VT is better than a no-lynch (since there's a chance the VT claim could be a lie) and there's no momentum on any of my suspects at the moment.

I'm ashamed to admit I've pretty much reverted to straight-up bandwagonning in the last half of this Day, mostly because I haven't kept up with this game's posting pace since my day job went berserk.

qwints is an acceptable lynch choice.

vote: qwints

[Dourgrim]

Day one is just not the time. We don't know as much as we will day 2. It is just not a good call to make now, and I don't understand why you keep asking for a panzer-lynch.

I wholeheartedly agree that this is a bad time to question an uncountered Cop claim, but I didn't read Goat's post as him asking for the lynch. He seemed like he was just noting the unquestionning nature of everyone to the claim itself, and I happen to agree with that thought to an extent. Not lynching the claimed Cop is correct play, but questioning the claim is as well... especially considering Panzer has been near the top of many many players' lists all Day.

[Dourgrim]

I would love to hear the Panzer results before we really get started today. That is certainly first and foremost.

This.

If he has a Guilty, we should lynch that person with minimal/no discussion.

QFT

[Dourgrim]

I want to see GIEFF's response here... this seems very telling to me.

[Dourgrim]

Very telling of what? Mind not making half complete statement, open ended statement?
Your post is pointless too. Or are you just hoping to watch which way the wind blows?

No, I'm emphasizing GIEFF's posts because I believe they are important at this point in the game, and I'm saying I want to see what he posts next. It's not "open ended" at all.

[Dourgrim]

Zilla, you're either wrong or trying to mislead.

vote: Zilla

[Dourgrim]

Ironic, isn't it?

[Dourgrim]

Zilla was on my list yesterday, she was still on my list going into today, and I voted in accordance. Didn't realize I was putting her at L-1 (although that wouldn't necessarily have prevented the vote had I known), and I certainly didn't expect anyone to not read the entire thread before voting. Very curious to see how she flips (unless GIEFF screwed up and we're not in twilight).

mykonian/Panzer: I get that you don't like GIEFF all that much, and I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a huge fan of his playstyle myself, but he was instrumental in the qwints lynch yesterday... that has to count for something. qwints flipping scum at the end of the last day alleviated many of my suspicions of him. Not defending him (he can still be annoying), but it's hard to refute what he's done for the Town so far.

[Dourgrim]

I certainly didn't expect anyone to not read the entire thread before voting.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I read to the end of 52, and thought that was the end of the thread.

No, you were clear... I wasn't trying to imply intent, I was just stating fact. No blame being assigned, SensFan.

Bad GIEFF!

[Dourgrim]

Do you want to bet? I say it will go inactive. Too many people rereading. (sens, xtoxm, spring) and people not that interested (panzer) and people that don't have enough time (dourgrim, BB).

Thank you oh so much for speaking on my behalf here, mykonian. I've given this game as much time as I've given any other game I'm in... the difference is the ridiculous pacing of this game, which I managed to keep up with by devoting extra time to it at first. That is no longer an option, but thankfully the pace of the game has become a bit more normal since and I've been keeping up nicely.

Furthermore, when I was overwhelmed with this game before, I said to the game at large that I would allow myself to be replaced if enough players asked, and you were nowhere to be found then. Why suddenly develop an opinion on my ability to devote time?

[Dourgrim]

Wow. Two NK's N1,

no

NK's N2. Color me thoroughly confused... grateful, but confused.

[Dourgrim]

Wow, is it just me or has this game turned decidedly unfriendly?

spring: why should GIEFF unvote you? Why is the burden of proof on B_B? Why are you at "min. effort" in this game?

[Dourgrim]

I'm three pages behind right now. Saturday was my birthday, and so I wasn't around all weekend. I apologize for not posting in V/LA, I definitely should have... my only explanation is that I forgot.

I'm going to do multiple posts, one for each page as I'm reading them. It's the only way I'll be able to keep my thoughts organized and respond.

page 58

I said the game had become unfriendly, and SL questioned what I meant by that. I meant that it seemed like a number of the players had become unfriendly toward one another, with some rude and/or condescending posts. I don't like that sort of play, although I know that when I get mad I occasionally do so. I also try to smooth it over once I realize what I've done, and that doesn't appear to be the case here. *shrug*

[Dourgrim]

I'm dumb, don't need to do a post for every page.

page 59

More dick posts from the same culprits, but nothing specific to address... although I do think it's odd that Panzer feels the need to string along with the investigation results.

page 60

The idea of the massclaim comes out. Fine with me:

Claim: VT

. I know this isn't a convincing claim, but it's the truth. If you guys want to kill me to narrow down the possible mafia left, I understand, but please do so via lynch so you can use the knowledge of my VT flip to guide your night actions. (i.e. you can plan ahead of time who will get vig'd or investigated based on the different ways I could flip). I can't be confirmed (unless you want to investigate me instead of killing me, and that doesn't seem likely), so it makes sense for you to eliminate me as a possible mafia, and since we've gotten two in two days (both of which I voted for, incidentally), I'm an acceptable sacrifice. Sucks, but it's good Town play.

Page 61

I happen to agree with SensFan: Xtoxm really is trying hard to push the Town. Not sure why, but it's there. Of course, so are SensFan and SL... but hey, GIEFF was trying for awhile too, and we've been the better for it. This is part of what I meant by an unfriendly game.

Page 62

I've stated numerous times before that I'm not a fan of GIEFF's "translations" of other people's posts. He works VERY hard to put his own spin on people's posts based on his preconceptions. I will, however, agree that his "translations" are one possible way of interpreting my posts. They are inaccurate, but I can see how he got where he did. As I said above, I'm OK with being lynched... just use the information you gain from the lynch wisely.

I don't buy the Vig claim, to be honest... if flavor text can ever be believed as a clue, that looked a LOT more like a SK kill than a Vig kill, and I think with this many pro-Town power roles in the game, there almost HAS to be a SK for this to be a balanced setup at all. Has anyone considered the possibility of a SK that comes up innocent on a night where she doesn't kill? I've used that in games before, and it would explain a lot.

vote: springlullaby

[Dourgrim]

Alright, which part of the flavor exactly do you think is indicative of SK?

Plus, what exactly make you think I'm more SK than vig?

This is the post with the night kills described in it (I'd have quoted it, but we're forbidden from quoting the Mod, and I wasn't sure if this counted). Goat's death scene just screams "psycho" to me. Disemboweling someone on a pointed stick in the ground and then stuffing them full of straw? Doesn't that seem a little... um, NUTS?! Also, the flavor specifically says something about the evil presence being determined to ward off birds that disturb

their fallen comrade qwints

and so making a scarecrow out of Goat. That's not ambiguous; it flat-out says that the evil presence did it. Read the post.

Then why the the stretch you need to go to justify your vote on me: 'SK who come up as innocent on no kill night'. Hah. You will have to provide link to the game you are talking about because I'm calling bullshit.

I designed Firefly Mafia, which Talitha had to finish running when I lost regular access to the internet (we shared the login "Mr. Whedon" for the purposes of modding that game). In that game, Saffron was a SK who came up guilty to Cops if she killed that night and innocent if she didn't.

Also, why are you attacking Xtoxm, the claimed doc?

I'm not attacking him. I'm agreeing that he's pushing the Town. He may be trying to do so to the Town's benefit, that remains to be seen.

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: I'm assuming that the Mafia would riddle someone with bullets (ting) and a SK would be more gruesome and, well, NUTS (Goat on a stick).

[Dourgrim]

I linked the scene flavour above. Find

anywhere in it

where it says which kill was performed by which role. Besides, both of you are ignoring the part of the scene where the Mod

does

says that the second kill was made by "the evil presence" to guard qwints' body. Seriously, find

any Mod-written post anywhere in this game

that says who got killed by what role, and I'll take back my accusation. I don't see why we shouldn't read potential clues out of flavour text... it's there for a reason.

myk: why

wouldn't

scum kill ting=)? They eventually have to kill everyone to win... maybe they thought ting=) was being quiet because he was a PR trying to avoid attention, who knows?

xtoxm: no, I'm a VT. Like I said above, though, I can't be cleared without wasting an investigation by the Cop, so I'm a logical lynch choice. I won't fight it, but I do think the rest of the Town should consider the SL thing

and

definitely have a plan for what happens when I flip VT. Other than that, there's nothing I can do.

[Dourgrim]

I agree, although I still think you're looking at the kills backward (see below). However, the net result is the same:

both

kills were made by anti-Town sources.

Personally, I think SL the SK killed Goat and the scum killed ting=). Seriously, is there anywhere in this game where the Mod says who got killed by what sort of killer, or are we making inferences based on the claims of the players? SKs LIE, just like SCUM LIE. Of COURSE the SK wouldn't admit to making the Goat kill, because it doesn't look like a Vig kill, it looks like a SK kill.

And, for the record, there's absolutely no reason to dismiss flavor text out of hand without at least considering it as a potential source of information. You might decide it's not strong enough evidence to follow for now, but you should at least consider the chances of its validity.

[Dourgrim]

No, I haven't read kloud's stories before. He is definitely a gifted writer, I agree with that... but it's not his

stories

we're talking about here, it's his

game flavour

that I'm referring to. Are you willing to

guarantee

that the flavour text has no real information included in it? I'm not... which is why I suggest that the idea be given consideration.

The point is, however, that there's

nothing

that proves which role/player killed which victim, so you can't assume that SL is telling the truth... and really, who's going to CC to disprove that kind of claim? All you know is that SL has admitted to making a kill independently and that she says she killed ting=). Consider this hypothetical situation: if you were a SK trying to pose as a pro-Town Vig, would you admit to killing Goatrevolt, considering how pro-Town he looked while he was alive? Me either.

[Dourgrim]

Like I said, I'm willing to be lynched to help the Town, but PLEASE don't be dumb about it: come up with a plan of attack if/when my death confirms my claim.

[Dourgrim]

Here is my plan for if dourgrim flips town:

<snipped by Dourgrim>

I assume maf will kill Xtoxm - if not, things get a lot more complicated.

<snipped again>

Does that make sense?

You need to have a more comprehensive plan than "things get a lot more complicated," especially now that you've said that in the thread

where the scum can read it.

I mean, come ON!

And, this is all junk unless you lynch me today, yet you've said you're more comfortable with a myk lynch today and me tomorrow. Pick one scenario, work out all the kinks, and run with it. Stop trying to hedge your bets; all you're going to accomplish is confusion.

[Dourgrim]

OK, I see where this is going: if you guys don't lynch me, and I don't die via NK, then I'm the lynch tomorrow. That's bad for the Town because I'm VT.

Lynch me.

The ONLY way that can be bad for the Town is if I'm a Jester (or whatever that retarded role is that wants to be lynched), which I understand is a wildly unpopular role to put in games (and so therefore is unlikely at best).

Seriously. Stop trying to decide

who

to lynch, just worry about what you're going to do with the information you'll gain upon my death.

I'll tell you this, though: SL is likely to be anti-Town, and almost all of you are being assholes to one another, whether it's for pro-Town reasons or not. Stop it. It makes the game not fun.

[Dourgrim]

OK, I see where this is going: if you guys don't lynch me, and I don't die via NK, then I'm the lynch tomorrow. That's bad for the Town because I'm VT.

Lynch me.

The ONLY way that can be bad for the Town is if I'm a Jester (or whatever that retarded role is that wants to be lynched), which I understand is a wildly unpopular role to put in games (and so therefore is unlikely at best).

EBWOP: it will also be bad for the Town when I'm lynched because I'm a VT, so you won't be lynching scum. However, since no one's likely to believe that at this point, and since it's a rather obvious statement for any player in my situation to make, it's probably redundant. I just figured I should fully disclose so no one can accuse me of lying.

[Dourgrim]

If you are town, thanks for the sacrifice, Dour. Why wouldn't you prefer to lynch Sens, though, for the same reason he prefers to lynch you?

Because I think SL is the SK, because I don't believe the Vig claim. I also believe that, if I am not the lynch choice, I won't get NK'd because it will frame me perfectly and buy SL yet another day to manipulate the Town. I do not believe that SensFan is the SK, so therefore I have voted for the person I believe is most likely anti-Town.

Would you like me to self-vote? I don't want to do so until you guys have had as much civilized discussion as you're capable of and interested in having, but I will do so when you're ready to end the day. However, I will leave my vote on the person I believe strongest is scum until that time.

[Dourgrim]

However, you DO have to make sure SL declares who she's going to kill in the thread... and even then it won't be a guarantee.

[Dourgrim]

That's correct. Why

should

she get to make the choice, if the scenario being proposed is genuinely for the Town as a whole? Shouldn't everyone agree to the same plan? I mean, I'm agreeing to being lynched, for God's sake. Why do all of you seem to trust her enough to let her make this choice, by the way? Did I miss that part? If the Town as a whole wants to lynch SensFan instead of me, so be it, but make it the

Town's

choice, not SL's.

Point blank: I don't trust SL. I'm predicting that whichever one she's going to "vig" will somehow mysteriously not die, and then she'll have "proof" that the person was NK-immune... and then where will you be?

[Dourgrim]

SL: why are you blatantly ignoring THE ENTIRE TOWN? This is a GROUP decision, not just yours... assuming you're interested in helping the Town win. Stop repeating the same thing over and over, it's useless and annoying. We all know what YOU want to do... you've made that abundantly clear. The issue is whether you should be allowed to choose in a pro-Town scenario, and I say no.

Panzer: why on Earth would you expect someone to kill themselves at Night? Give me one scenario in which it makes any sense at all for SL to kill herself.

SensFan: I get what you see there with myk's post, but the gist of what he said IS correct. Of course, HOW he said it is suspect, but he's right in concept.

Seriously, folks, why is there so much dissent here?

[Dourgrim]

OK, I guess that makes sense. However, you may have noticed that SL doesn't seem to be playing along with your plan. Surprise, surprise.

I'm still willing to be the lynch if it's what the Town thinks is the best play, but I'd be a liar if I didn't say that her constant refusal to entertain any plan but her own is making her look scummier and scummier all the time, don't you think?

[Dourgrim]

It's not a "shit case" SL. Of course I understand why you're saying that: because you can't refute a single thing I've said regarding that case so far, and so you're reverting to the same playstyle you've used all game, rudeness and vulgarity, in an effort to trivialize the points I've made. So, for the sake of argument, let's review, shall we?

• You can't refute the "SK innocent when not killing" point because I linked you to an example of where it's been used in a game I designed, and because other players have agreed that it's a realistic possibility (or perhaps even probability, although I don't know that for certain).
  
  You can't refute the flavor text that explicitly says both kills were made by "the evil presence." And, since you've taken credit for one of those kills, you can't really explain it without outing yourself as being anti-Town.
  
  You claim that reading into flavor is a "shit case," but then rely on the flavor of a report on SensFan as your reasoning to want him lynched and me "vigged" instead of vice versa.

You're scum, I have no doubt anymore.

I'm not making emotional pleas, by the way, nor am I trying to drag the day down. If I were, I'd be trying to stay alive and I'm not. Note that, as convinced as I am of you being scum, I'm STILL not pushing for your lynch... that's because lynching me is correct Town play IMHO. You all have reason to suspect me, I can't be cleared without wasting an outed Cop's investigation, and I'm a VT, which makes me less useful to the Town than a PR.

[Dourgrim]

2.

Fallacy

. Just because the role exist doesn't mean I'm it, I have nothing to disprove in the first place. This is such a crappy argument you can only be scum for it.

You can't refute the flavor text that explicitly says both kills were made by "the evil presence." And, since you've taken credit for one of those kills, you can't really explain it without outing yourself as being anti-Town.

Lie.

Not once in the flavor does Kloud mention an 'evil presence' in relation to ting's death.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 70#1553870
In fact, as far as the flavor goes describe Goat's death as far more gruesome and 'evil' contrasted to ting'death.

Another had been killed by the elusive threat to Merrin, but ting=) was not the only victim that night.

This ONE sentence says that ting=) was a victim of the elusive threat to Merrin. Is that really so hard to see?

The rest of your response is based on the above, and so I'll disregard it. However, you're right about one thing: no one's listening to me anymore anyway, so I won't bother posting anymore.

Have a great game, and remember this when I'm dead.

[Dourgrim]

I know I said I wasn't posting anymore, but this is too much:

1) This is a game. Please try to act in a respectful manner towards everyone.

Very first rule, SL. Knock it off.

Interesting how this rule is selectively applied, wouldn't you say? Why don't you point this out when other players violate it, GIEFF?

[Dourgrim]

Nothing in the rules that says I can't post before the death scene is up, I checked.

Good luck, guys, hope your plan(s) work out.

[Dourgrim]

Very frustrating game. I'm glad Town won, but overall the game proved not much fun for me to play. Dying was almost a blessing. However, I learned somethings about certain mafia players here that I will definitely carry forward with me... 'nuff said.

kloud, you did a fantastic job modding (and writing, you definitely have some talent there), and your death scene for me was spot on: it summed up exactly how I felt about the game at that point. I will say this, though: the case I built against SL in the last day proved a flaw I've found in the past when it comes to flavor text; it can inadvertently mislead players into seeing information where there isn't any. That's a very minor critique, though, and overall you did a splendid job. Thanks!

[Dourgrim]

GIEFF: if you say it was accidental, I have no choice but to believe you at this point. It doesn't mean it's a good thing, though, and frankly I still don't see how one's fingers can "accidentally" type the letters s-c-u-m instead of g-r-i-m without being considered spin-doctoring.

This game brought up something I've noticed here and elsewhere since my return to mafiascum: what's with all the open hostility and just general mean-spiritedness around here nowadays? I know things got a bit heated between GIEFF and myself early in the game, but at no point did I go out of my way to insult GIEFF, and I believe (all spin-doctoring accusations aside) neither did he. Do the rest of you genuinely find that sort of play effective? Do you find it entertaining? Do you think it's reasonable to believe the other players will be equally entertained by it, or is that not a worthwhile factor to you? I'm genuinely curious here.

[Dourgrim]

But at least "lynched" and "linked" sound alike and have many similar letters... hehehe! No hard feelings either way, GIEFF, but I hope you see where I'm coming from with that.

[Dourgrim]

I find it genuinely interesting as well that my questions are being largely ignored. Perhaps it's because many of the players stopped watching this thread... I would be genuinely insulted if it was because they didn't perceive the question as being worthy of an answer.

[Dourgrim]

EBWOP: not completely ignored, of course: thanks GIEFF and Goat!

[Dourgrim]

Do be completely honest, I've largely ignored them because it looks like your idea isn't to ask questions, but to call me out.

Not at all, SensFan. I wasn't even specifically addressing you in particular, to be honest, but rather was asking about playstyles in general. I've noticed a much more hostile playstyle becoming more prevalent around here, and I was trying to figure out how effective it is and whether it adds to the entertainment value of the game as a whole (since the entire point of a game is to provide entertainment for the players). I apologize if you feel like I was "calling you out" specifically... that was not my intention.