/in-Vitational Game 4 (Game Over!)

[Xylthixlm]

VP especially left his vote on me for all of Day 1 while I was conveniently V/LA, meaning he didn't have to commit himself to much else. Read him in iso and he really doesn't commit to much at all textually.

Noting for reference.

[mith]

Vote Count:

8 to lynch.

ekiM: 4 (Kmd4390, populartajo, Thesp, VP Baltar)
SerialClergyman: 4 (elvis_knits, roflcopter, Yosarian2, zu_Faul)
charter: 1 (PookyTheMagicalBear)
Kmd4390: 1 (ekiM)
PookyTheMagicalBear: 1 (Xylthixlm)
roflcopter: 1 (iamausername)

Not Voting: 3 (charter, Ojanen, SerialClergyman)

[Ojanen]

I like iamausername's post a lot.

About roflcopter, the concerning things I've been thinking without any reareading are that

-Some of his points have been far-fetched enough for me to question whether he actually believes them
example:

i get the feeling kmd/bridges found themselves in a 4 person scumgroup, assumed that the sample role pms would simply state as much and therefore presented the information. upon discovering that the sample pms actually account for up to five scum, they are both now struggling to come up with reasons why they assumed 4, with such charming excuses as "i thought there were only 16 players." really? you haven't been paying attention to the more than a month long game placement process and announcement which very clearly indicated you had been placed in a 20 person game with only people who you were interested in playing with, or at the very least were not adverse to playing with? i don't buy it.

-Throwing around the word chainsaw defence and calling most anyone who disagrees with his scum candidate their buddy doesn't feel good. Scum's nature of relation is mostly subtle. He isn't convincing me that he's actually trying to hunt for connections, it seems so crude, more like bullying people to agree with him. Because of his meta he can get away with a really a lot but he must stay hyperaggressive, I've wondered if it's constructed here.

However I liked when he ate up the elvis wagon.

I think I'm switching to back up a VP Baltar lynch. This is the point of the game where one starts to get a better picture of a bigger scope. VP would fit to a "vague scum" archetype.
His posts and points have just been so very small in a way. The majority of his posting doesn't feel like he's actually trying to construct information.
He spends the whole of day 1 saying from the sidelines that BaB is a decent lynch but never actually bringing points against him, and then agrees with a couple of points in the L-1 post and says overload of information.

What's your point? I stated my reason for voting BaB in the very post you quoted. I would have preferred ekiM or iamausername at that point, but I didn't really see that happening due to lack of anyone paying attention to anything but BaB. As I basically said in the post you quoted, I didn't find it a bad lynch, just not my main preference.

The lack of substance from you trying to find out yourself much about someone so high on your willing to lynch list is still noticeable.

I mean, even at the point wagons were BaB 6-Elvis 5 you had a catch up post and the comments you had about them

I think her attack on Kmd was pretty weak, and she acted a bit strangely when attacked in reply. I think the wagon is probably warranted to get a better read on her.

@BnB--do you feel a majority of the votes on you are merely for bandwagoning purposes and/or are the result of lazy play?

Which really isn't engaged at all. Openended like many of your points, as if to leave suspicion options open.

I think the point about the questionability of him voting the V/LA ekiM the whole time because of the early facetious comment is valid. Also him not switching to iamausername when he said he was sure username's scum, strange that read didn't overrule the early "deeply concerned" comment.

VP talking recently about SC's continued neglect here seems malicious wording after SC's current activity.

I'm not comfortable with him on the ekiM wagon. Also, unquantifiable meh feeling when playing Bach today. Those are vital .
Several people seem to be up for a Baltar wagon, anyone wanna join me? (Thesp?)

vote: VP Baltar

[VP Baltar]

Wow, some of his earlier posts have a whole lot of words for saying absolutely nothing. Very much a feeling of posting just to stay active, there's absolutely no strong stances taken on any subject at all.

I'm not saying my play was stellar yesterday, but this is pretty strong exaggeration. It's not like I was lurking and commenting on nothing.

Then again I ask, why do you think I said I supported him claiming, if that had nothing to do with the fact that I obviously intended to vote him

And I replied to this already. My stance hasn't changed.

Now I believe you're just reflexively disagreeing with everything I say. How on earth would leaving my vote on alex have served any purpose at that point?

I'm not just disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I'm saying your vote on rofl was pointless if what you are saying about the BaB claim was your true intention.

(Not from that post, I know.) The problem is that you are terming it as "an RVS comment" instead of "a joke". THERE IS NOT A DISTINCT LINE DIVIDING THE 'RANDOM' PART OF THE GAME FROM THE 'SERIOUS' PART.

Again, keep harping on the same shit to chainsaw for your buddy ekiM. This may have been a jumping off point for why I first started watching ekiM closer, but it is most certainly not one of the reasons why I want him lynched. Look back at the points I made against him if you want to know why I think he's scum (which you have chosen to ignore for this insignificant BS).

I'd like you to comment on those points, please.

I've seen too many times when people have been pushed close to lynch, but haven't because a majority of people had not expressed a desire for such a person to claim (in their opinion).

Do you think this was really the case with BaB yesterday? I'll have to look back, but I'm pretty sure there were several players not on the lynch who said they would join and I'm positive he had been asked to claim already. If that's the case, what you're arguing here does not apply to that specific instance.

VP Baltar needs to die.

No?

----
Preview edit:

VP talking recently about SC's continued neglect here seems malicious wording after SC's current activity.

What are you talking about?

Tag fixed. - Mod

[VP Baltar]

I think I'm switching to back up a VP Baltar lynch.

You were voting me before?

I'm sensing you feel there is a tide gathering against me and you want to get on early.

[Ojanen]

Preview edit:

VP talking recently about SC's continued neglect here seems malicious wording after SC's current activity.

What are you talking about?

[/quote]

I have a stronger scum read on ekiM and username, though SC's continued neglect here isn't exactly making me not want to kill him. Like I said before, I'd like to hear more actual opinions and comments from him so I can either prove or disprove my suspicion.

I think I'm switching to back up a VP Baltar lynch.

You were voting me before?
I'm sensing you feel there is a tide gathering against me and you want to get on early

.

Wasn't voting you before, don't see where I implied so.
Also, seeing my 730 where I said that wow I really don't like you from iso-perspective, I'm very tempted to call BS on the accusation of sensing tides but don't have the time right now to confirm whether there was more suspicion floating around than I remember or not.

[Ojanen]

Also, if I'm sensing tides, why detract from Mike wagon now.

[VP Baltar]

re: your first quote Oj, if you look at that quote in context it very much makes sense.

Wasn't voting you before, don't see where I implied so.

I'm referring to you saying you're going to "switchback" to me. Never knew you were there in the first place other than vaugely saying you didn't like me in iso.

Also, if I'm sensing tides, why detract from Mike wagon now.

Maybe you're his buddy. For how much you talk about him being scummy (a considerable amount more than me), you seem at ease with slipping off that wagon after it has now gained some steam.

[Ojanen]

I think I'm
switching to
back up
a VP Baltar lynch.

Either you're not reading properly or I'm mixing up definitions of words (ESL kid here).
Divided to separate rows for clarity.
I switched to back up.
I did not switchback.

Maybe you're his buddy. For how much you talk about him being scummy (a considerable amount more than me), you seem at ease with slipping off that wagon after it has now gained some steam.

Yeah. Real sneaky of me to contribute so much in arguments and vote him the whole day to get the wagon going and then change my mind. I'm inclined to say pfft to you (although, heh, does that make me commit the same scumtell as BaB?) but I'll let others decide if this is a reasonable point or an attempt to undermine my motivation without much substance.

re: your first quote Oj, if you look at that quote in context it very much makes sense.

The context is that rofl asks why you left the wagon. Don't see the difference.

[Ojanen]

Never knew you were there in the first place other than vaugely saying you didn't like me in iso.

The post he's referring to as vague is here, and strong language for me, btw.
viewtopic.php?p=1837257#1837257

I'm pretty excited about VP's reaction though! Like my vote.

[VP Baltar]

Either you're not reading properly or I'm mixing up definitions of words (ESL kid here).
Divided to separate rows for clarity.
I switched to back up.
I did not switchback.

Sorry, that's my bad. I was reading it wrong. *needs sleep desparately*

The context is that rofl asks why you left the wagon. Don't see the difference.

I'm referring to the context of SC slipping back under the radar at that time, not the question it was in reply to. And iirc, I stated a couple times after this that I was feeling better about SC as he posted more. You're either being lazy town or selective quoting to try and pad your case.

Yeah. Real sneaky of me to contribute so much in arguments and vote him the whole day to get the wagon going and then change my mind

Well, it is odd that you would spend so much time going after a player and then suddenly go, 'Oh, hey, I don't like baltar's contributions D1 and he's voting ekiM...so I'm going to switch.'

[Ojanen]

The context is that rofl asks why you left the wagon. Don't see the difference.

I'm referring to the context of SC slipping back under the radar at that time, not the question it was in reply to. And iirc, I stated a couple times after this that I was feeling better about SC as he posted more. You're either being lazy town or selective quoting to try and pad your case.

Ummm. Baltar. the post is from

yesterday.

You said you were feeling better

before

it.
I'm loving this tone!
Can we lynch him folks, pretty please?

Yeah. Real sneaky of me to contribute so much in arguments and vote him the whole day to get the wagon going and then change my mind

Well, it is odd that you would spend so much time going after a player and then suddenly go, 'Oh, hey, I don't like baltar's contributions D1 and he's voting ekiM...so I'm going to switch.'

There was more than that. (I was starting to wonder slightly about too many people suspecting for bad reasons earlier, later I thought iamausername had good things to say, and thought about an outgoing nature re: ekiM, the attention grabbing odd fit as truly scummy or not, whether my contradiction catching was set up too much, the difference of him in a previous game where he was scum and I read you in iso and had a bad feeling etc. etc.)

[Thesp]

Several people seem to be up for a Baltar wagon, anyone wanna join me? (Thesp?)

Choo choo!

Unvote: Ekim, Vote: VP Baltar.

[Ojanen]

Hi again. I did a superfast ninja skim of the last 10 pages or so (the whole of D2) and I'm reporting for your convenience to bring verification that this is a rubbish reaction.

I'm sensing you feel there is a tide gathering against me and you want to get on early.

Before my post 730 of pointed VP Baltar dislike on Friday, during the game whole day, the only people that had vocally suspected VP were iamausername (they had some spat 10 about pages ago), and the very popular ekiM more recently. Noone had voted VP at all. He made tajo's and elvis' neutral list and Kmd's "town I think" list.

@Yos: What do you think about Baltar?

[Ojanen]

Same question to Serial also, actually.

[ekiM]

So, I was in a bad mood on Thursday. Sorry for being a dick.

Also sorry for upcoming megaposting.

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

To let you know I found your comment seriously scummy. It clearly worked since you've taken so much offense to it. Also, while you were gone were some of my largest posts of the day. How does that fit with your not commenting on stuff argument?

I've not said you didn't comment on anything. That's a strawman that you've put up then repeatedly eviscerated. Well done.

What I have said was that you didn't commit to very much. Especially in terms of your own suspicions and your feelings on the bandwagons of the day. And your vote, of course.

Asking questions isn't exactly committing yourself to anything.

I think my suspicions were plenty clear from the types of questions I was asking. Should have also been clear when I said I'd eat a whole hat if iamausername is not scum. Doesn't that impress you?

Let's look at this in detail, then. Everything you said about iamausername, all of Day 1:

Bridges is a reasonable enough wagon for D1, though I would hope we can put the brakes on a little bit until some of the more background players (ekiM, iamausername, SerialClergyman, etc) weigh in and answer some questions.

Also, if iamausername is not scum I'll eat my hat (see photo).

Who else is scummy?

ekiM remains scummy to me until he comes back and provides some answers to the questions I put. I think BnB is a decent lynch, which also has the potential to provide some information. zu_Faul and Shabba have shown minor tinges of scumminess, but I wouldn't say I have a great read on either as yet.

Do you think iamausername is bussing?

Possibly, but BnB's alignment needs to be known before it's worth speculating on that. His vote on rofl after stating the scumminess of BnB was weird, and now the quick switchback at very mild questioning is strange enough for me to think he is potential scum.

I'm confused why he isn't voting iamusername if he said that

I'm comfortable with my ekiM vote until he addresses the points made against him.

It's not a 'switchback', since I wasn't voting BaB before

Just because you didn't actually vote doesn't mean you weren't saying you were going to. In fact, you spent most of the post building up to it and then dropped the rofl vote. Now, maybe you were indeed waiting for a claim before voting or maybe you were just hesitant about looking scummy so close to the hammer. I think that is where I am interpreting your rofl vote differently. I mean, if what you are saying is true, why spend so much time stating your intent to vote BnB? Why wouldn't you condense it down and say something like 'I support the BnB wagon, but I think we need to hear a claim first'? Seems to me like you were telegraphing your punches.

Then in your last catch up post (490) you don't even mention iam.

You said directly that iamausername was scum, without giving any reasons. And you didn't vote for him. You can easily give this up later if you feel like it.

When you give a reason, the only thing you seem to have is that he was supported a BAB claim without voting for him immediately, which seems utterly innocuous to me. Supporting a claim is obviously support the wagon/lynch, too.

Here's the interesting bit:

Who else is scummy?

ekiM remains scummy to me until he comes back and provides some answers to the questions I put. I think BnB is a decent lynch, which also has the potential to provide some information. zu_Faul and Shabba have shown minor tinges of scumminess, but I wouldn't say I have a great read on either as yet.

So your main suspects were myself, for making a facetious post, and iamausername for supporting BAB claim without voting him yet. I note that both of those are awful, awful reasons to suspect someone.

You think the BAB lynch is decent, but don't comment on how scummy you actually find him. He's claimed vanilla so of course it's a decent lynch. Is he actually scummy to you? You don't tell us. And you hedge with "might provide information".

And you have "minor tinges without a great read" on two very easy targets.

So what's that:

2 * Actual suspicions, both for awful reasons.
1* Support lynch without assessing scumminess.
2 * "Minor twinges" on easy targets.

Yeah, I'm not impressed.

Ahhh, here's some "suspicions" you had elsewhere that day:

Some of this BnB stuff is becoming a bit muddled for me as I'm going along here. This is the usual setback I find with larger games and lots of competent players, a million lines of questioning happening that lose focus. I can already tell this is going to be a long game.

Shabba suspicions have some grounds, but I agree with whoever (I think zu_faul) said that she may just be noob town since this is her first forum mafia game. More posts from her to analyze would be best, imo.

...

Bridges is a reasonable enough wagon for D1, though I would hope we can put the brakes on a little bit until some of the more background players (ekiM, iamausername, SerialClergyman, etc) weigh in and answer some questions.

So you're a bit muddled about BAB but it's still a reasonable wagon. Shabba is suspicious, unless she isn't, in which case never mind.

Then your last D1 post:

I agree with this. It is this sort of background feel about zu that sticks out to me as scummy. Honestly, until some of the more recent pages he was basically non-present to me.

Other thoughts: I am still really torn over Herodotus. There are moments when he asks some ok questions, and then there are certain things (slowly sliding in favor of BaB wagon) that stink of scum.

WTF is alex? You'd think if he was so worried about people hammering he might put some hitch in his giddy-up and post something. I've never know alex to be a lurker, so this disturbs me.

The zu and alex "suspicions" are just naming two lurkish players. The Herodotus one is super ambivalent.

So yeah. I do think you were undercommital yesterday.

Still waiting. Especially good would be explaining how saying "1 of 5 lurkers is scum" in the RVS is more vote-worthy than anything else you saw all day.

You know, no matter how many times you try to play it down I continue to disagree. I don't care that you said "deeply concerned" or that your said 50 times that you couldn't possibly have been serious. It is still a comment that irked me and didn't strike me as the usual RVS joking.

So explain how it was scummy. IE what the hell is the scum motivation for posting it that a townie doesn't have? How many times do I have to ask?

I don't see how you are saying that it was an RVS comment considering you implied your bandwagoning Xyl vote in that same post to be serious.

Yes, because it's impossible to make a facetious comment in the same post as a serious vote.

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

What harm did it do?

Well I think forcing people to keep their vote on a serious target imposes some accountability. If you allow people to keep their vote in a null holding zone all day they can get away with vaguely voicing suspicions that don't actually mean much when examined closely. It's certainly POSSIBLE to just write what your suspicions are without voting, but if you don't vote its easier to hide that you don't have real suspicions.

Look at what I highlight above, do you think VP was being a bit wishy washy and limited on his suspicions yesterday?

People don't like having questions ignored so I searched for my name and answered everything, just to be sure.

What's the motivation for this complaint?

Fluff is not productive. Slight taste of pointless pleasing attempt.

Your complaint about me answering every question is fluff. Sorry, but it is.

Re: the thing you don't think is a contradiction. It's actually more clear in your catch up.

Page 10

B&B 235, 237, 245 are just.... awful. Pretty sure he's scum. Worst thing: trying to discredit the Xyl+B&B not scum together line. What is the townie motivation?

When you agree with the original thought, I just don't like at all how you have a problem with seeing a townie motivation. BaB was not tryng to discredit anything out of the blue there, he was getting attacked because of the original thought.

Seems like we're gonna have to settle to "Isn't! Is too!" here though.

OK. I don't think it's a contradiction. I did overblow what I said there.

Shit! Just lost my whole post. Ok, doing this the ghetto way. ekiM is scum. I basically just agreed with Rofl and voted.

Vote ekiM

. Serial wagon makes no sense. People are beating a dead horse about my unvote on Bridge by saying I distanced from the wagon when I

expected

to take heat, but I didn't want to lynch someone who I thought was town.

And Tajo, Medeival is my only completed game with TownYos.

MASSIVe dodge here.

What's the tl;dr case on ekiM? Something to do with his interactions with elvis, or what?

Here's why I think ekiM is scummy in brief:

• His scum hunting Day 1 was largely non-existent. When he did finally get around to calling people scum, it almost entirely hinged on BnB being scum.
  
• He has used IIoA and unnecessary repetition to pad some of his posts and seem busier than he really is.
  
• Oj points out a pretty strong contradiction from him here
  
• After 27 pages of play, the best suspicions he is able to come up with are as follows:

  Kmd4390

  - Yeah, I don't like that unvote yesterday. If you unvote for vanilla, does that mean you lynch investigative roles? I don't get it.
  
  If you're sure someone is townie, you should be working your ass off to derail their wagon. He... didn't. Of course if he's scum and unvoted then he's off the wagon when a townie was lynched.
  ...
  

  VP Baltar

  - His fixation with me yesterday while I was V/LA seemed like a major cop-out. He didn't comment much on BAB wagon until right at the end.
  ...
  

  Xylthixlm

  - zwet alt? I don't like the huge number of one liners that don't really say anything. Got off the BAB wagon but didn't try and derail it. What does that achieve?

  Notice how all of these are still related to the BnB wagon, and in your particular case he is actually blaming you for not trying to derail it. Funny for someone who would have called you scum for doing that yesterday.
  
  
• Need I say more?

First of all, I love the way you don't think the facetious comment is even worth mentioning now, but yesterday it was worth your vote all day.

Responses:

• My scum hunting when I was V/LA was non-existant, yes. Well done. When I came back and decided BAB was scum, I based the rest of my suspicions on that, yes. How gauche. Now, how is either of those scummy?
  
• Nope.
  
• It's not a contradiction.
  
• How strange that the biggest event of yesterday should inform my suspicions for today. Seriously, what is the point of compalining about that?
  
  You do have a point on Xyl though. He actually unvoted to allow BAB time, not to spare him. So ignore that part.
  
  Anyway I updated my suspicions on you a bit now I'm back in the game and swinging! Woo!
  
• Well, the first of those is stupid and not scummy. The second and third aren't true. And the fourth, well, I wasn't fully caught up on the game. Not much to this case, IMO.

ekiM - baltar case feels good. meta arguments, i dont think ive ever seen miketown being so humurous. his last elvis debate feels forced and i agree that his reads lack substance, something off in what Ive seen of mike in other games.

Baltar's case is garbage. Try saying which bits you agree with, and why. Don't just coast. You are definitely staying too much in the background this game, popping up to make occasional comments, but not really getting involved.

You've seen me as scum as often as town. Is mikescum so "humorous"? Really, I don't get this meta point. Do you think this is a good point?

Elvis spat was unfortunate.

You've mostly played with me in small games where I don't fall behind. Reads are harder in a game this size. Also I was out of the game for a week and failed to hit the ground running on return.

ekiM looked really scummy on page 26, with all the "tell me who they find scummy." thing. What does it have to do with anything if player A can't tell from the top of her head who player B and C find suspicious? Scumminess has nothing to do with player A's memory.

OK, that was retarded. But why is it scummy?

Unvote: Battle Mage
Vote: SpyreX

(L-3)

Hmm. This is a bit of a... swing vote? If BM is scum, here's a connection. If Spy is scum, Vi is very likely town.

o_0

I think we are more likely to hit scum in ekiM than Yos.

Did you suspect me before I voted for you? I forget. Also, you "lost" the post where you explain your vote for me. Why not summarize the reasons now.

Sigh. A scum tell is an action that a scum player is more likely to take than a town player in the same situation.

You asked me if [trying to undermine a line of thought that only damages you if you are scum] is a scumtell. A scum player is much more motivated to do so than a town player, so it is a scum tell.

You haven't demonstrated this at all. (I also disagree with your conclusion.)

How can I demonstrate something that is obviously true? If an argument only damages X if they are scum, they are more likely to argue against it if they are scum. Then, by Bayes, if they argue against it they are more likely to be scum, that is, it's a scumtell.

Unless you disagree that someone is more likely to argue against an argument that hurts them than one that doesn't, that's all just math.

I wonder why nobody is bothered that they don't know what PookyTheMagicalBear's suspicions are?

Are you bothered by it?

No, I was pissed off that Elvis called me horrible and lazy when i was working my arse off to catch up.

[VP Baltar]

Ummm. Baltar. the post is from yesterday. You said you were feeling better before it.

Ok, so my timeline wasn't straight by memory. I thought it was from earlier in the day. At the time I made that post there were something like 3 or 4 pages since his last post. However, checking the timeline of it, it was only a little better than 24 hrs, so I was wrong in that instance. It felt like he was away for longer and saw him post in another game, but like I said above, I'm probably in the wrong in this instance.

Before my post 730 of pointed VP Baltar dislike on Friday, during the game whole day, the only people that had vocally suspected VP were iamausername (they had some spat 10 about pages ago), and the very popular ekiM more recently. Noone had voted VP at all. He made tajo's and elvis' neutral list and Kmd's "town I think" list.

Your "strong" accusations in 730, while having a lot of quotes, don't seem all that strong to me.

Your basic points are that:

1)I wasn't taking enough initiative on the BaB case to warrant voting.
~Well, so what? Every vote on a wagon doesn't need to be a bastion of original thought for it to necessary. Almost all of the large games I have played in recently have been drowned by the town not being able to come to a concensus on the lynch. I don't see a need for Day 1 to go on to 50 or 60 pages. It hurts the town overall, which is what I said when I voted. I'd rather put my vote on a wagon I think is just ok so the game can make good progress forward, than I would argue for other 20 pages trying to convince people that I am right. I have made that mistake before and it's simply frustrating. I'll ask you this as a counterpoint, had BaB lived D1, do you think the cloud of suspicion surrounding him would have gone away or been any help to the town whatsoever? You can condemn it as me being lazy, but I still say it was the proper play for the town at that time.

2) You don't like me questioning ekiM's RVS comment.
~Not the main reason I find him scummy. Iamausername likes to keep bringing this up, but I would say that since he made that comment he has several other scummy actions. I pointed out what I thought were the main points. Those are ignored to talk about the RVS comment ad nauseum.

And that is the extent of your "strong" accusations against me. Like I said before, I'm not arguing that my play was the best on D1, but I fail to see how the points you are bringing up are lynch worthy when there are much better targets out there (in addition to players who are simply getting free lurking passes).

Now, regarding you being scummy. Honestly, I think I overreacted last night. I was tired and pissed off. You're actually one of the players that I felt was more likely town. I don't even want to keep arguing that point because it's not something I really believe. I think what is really upsetting me are that people are buying into iamausernames OMGUS attack on me.

----------------
Preview edit: Giant post from ekiM~I'll get to this in a bit.

[ekiM]

What did keeping your vote on me while I was away accomplish?

To let you know I found your [facetious "1 in 5 are scum] comment seriously scummy. It clearly worked since you've taken so much offense to it.

My facetious comment was

seriously scummy

and worth keeping Baltar's vote on me for almost all of D1.

This may have been a jumping off point for why I first started watching ekiM closer, but it is most certainly not one of the reasons why I want him lynched. Look back at the points I made against him if you want to know why I think he's scum (which you have chosen to ignore for this insignificant BS).

My facetious comment was

insignificant BS

and

is most certainly not one of the reasons why Baltar wants me lynched

.

Odd.

[VP Baltar]

Wow, finding a comment seriously scummy as a jumping off point to keep an eye on you, but later finding it to be less significant than numerous other scummy actions you have made must be some kind of contradiction!

I mean, the word seriously is in there!

More scummy arguments over semantics to ignore the actual points against you please!

[ekiM]

unvote; Vote VP Baltar

Why I am voting for VP Baltar

• He voted me for making a facetious comment towards the start of the day, and left that vote there for the entire day. He was happy to leave his vote there until I "answered his questions". Well, his one question: Explain how that facetious comment was funny. He left the vote there because that comment was "seriously scummy".
  
• Contra the above, VP has totally failed to explain at any point how that comment was scummy, and is now not interested in discussing it. It is, after all, insignificant bullshit.
  
• With his vote safely planted on a V/LAer, his commitments to suspicions yesterday were distinctly underwhelming. See post 765.
  
• Avoiding clear comment or involvement with any of the wagons yesterday. Especially the vaguely saying BAB wagon/lynch was good, without reasons.
  
• Declared iamausername scum then didn't seem very interested in explaining why or questioning him.
  
• Sudden revived interest in me today when I make myself look like an ass and an easy target with my Elvis spasm.
  
• Garbage case. I think he just thinks I'm an easy target.
  
• Accusing anyone who defends me of chainsawing.
  
• Interactions with iamausername all of today are just off.

---

KMD

Please explain:

• Which claims would NOT have prompted an unvote from you yesterday.
  
• Why you barely tried to detail the BAB wagon after unvoting.
  
• At what point you became suspicious of me.
  
• Why you are voting for me.

[ekiM]

Wow, finding a comment seriously scummy as a jumping off point to keep an eye on you, but later finding it to be less significant than numerous other scummy actions you have made must be some kind of contradiction!

I mean, the word seriously is in there!

More scummy arguments over semantics to ignore the actual points against you please!

Please. You somehow found that comment

so

scummy that it was your biggest suspicion all of day one (which is utterly ridiculous, btw). You've never explained that. Now you don't even want people to think about it.

More scummy arguments over semantics to ignore the actual points against you please!

I already responded to your whole case! More unwarranted sarcasm, please!!! Maybe if you use lots of exclamation marks people will think that you're onto something!!!!!!!!

[elvis_knits]

More unwarranted sarcasm, please!!!

Pot, meet kettle.

---

In other news, I do not support a rofl wagon. I have seen him as scum and as town, and I don't think he's scum. I am perfectly willing to vote him if he seems like scum, but he does not.

Also, I like VP wagon at this point. Serial wagon dying. ekiM wagon is good, but I think we can learn more by exploring VP at this point, since he hasn't been under suspicion yet, and we've been beating on ekiM for a while.

I agree that VP keeping his vote on a VLA person wasn't very helpful yesterday. And I think I said already that I never supported the original tell on ekiM about the "one person in 5 must be scum." And it's especially a weak reason to keep your vote on a person the whole day. I do think that VP commented on other things the whole day and made his feelings known, but he wasn't using his vote, which should be his biggest weapon.

Also, when I was voting username, VP also voted username, but for totally different reasons that I never really understood. Something about iamausername asking BaB for a claim, and VP saying that was not clear iam intended to vote BaB? That point is sort of... "so what" to me. I think most of his points have been sort of convoluted/weak to me, which makes me think he's fabricating.

unvote; vote VP Baltar

[SerialClergyman]

So after having a look at my wagon at it's peak, I'm thinking there's probably some scum on there, and probably some scum who were prepared to jump on both. I've never got many scummy vibes from rofl, so I'm cool with him. Xyl wasn't on the BAB wagon. I'm going to keep running with the Yos2 is town theory. Zu wasn't on BAB's wagon either. That leaves elvis knits.

So I did a re-read of elvis and found it wasn't just my wagon she was on, but also iamusername and now VP as well. Seems to be a very go-with-the-flow list. However, I have some sympathy, as soemone who often finds himself on the day's wagon (last time I won as town I was on every wagon, whether the lynch was scum or town). Plus I know elvis' style is to be aggressive and to be aggressive one should vote, but I'm wondering when we're going to see something emerge from the aggression that isn't just relatively shallow bandwagon joining.

Speaking of people who have dropped off the radar as well, charter has made one post in D2 acknowledging he was still around and that's it.

iam - what are your thoughts on the possibility that Yos2 and I had a townie v townie ego-argument? I like most of your reads. I disagree on rofl-scum, especially after he explained his rolefishing point more. I'm curious that noone accused you of rolefishing for your mentioning of the same thing (rofl's assuredness of Yos2's towniness.) I certainly don't think it's rolefishing - I mention it because I don't like that people attacked me for it but not you. Also, Ojanen's comparison of me and rofl making the same 'unless you have knowledge' point reads as double town to me, despite the fact he used it as a scumtell. Just my gut - I'd be much happier to focus on Zu or VP than rofl at this time.

Thesp - you can check out lumberjack mafia which is my latest finished game that I started from the start for my distaste of the first day, or you could look at the fact that I've replaced into more games than I've started from the beginning at MS or the fact that of my 3 prods in about 8 games, 2 of them have been on the first day (one finished and town, the other ongoing). I'm just not into the whole 'jumping at shadows' first day stuff.

Ojanen - I'm into the VP wagon. I like that you're leading it, I like that iamusername approves of it. I haven't found anything in VP's play to latch onto as powerfully protown and in my experience with him as a player usually there is something. And I especially like the fact that he's getting quite a lot aobut the thread wrong (mixing up certain days, mentioning a rising tide that wasn't etc) I'll gladly lend my vote to this worthy cause.

vote VP Baltar

[SerialClergyman]

Oh - I also really don't like Ekim's reasons for getting on Baltar's case.

I think I can sum that up with the words 'interactions with me and iam'. So much repetitionto create 9 bullet points for 2 arguments.

Just a small thing, but it just felt wrong to me.

[iamausername]

As far as the unvote goes, I do think it's perfectly possible to find someone scummy until they claim vanilla, and then start to find them town. From a theory point of view, it is terrible play to run someone up to a claim, then unvote when they claim vanilla, because all that will lead to is outed power roles, but sticking slavishly to what is theoretically the best play is often pretty terrible play too. I'm not sure I'd unvote off a vanilla claim on D1 even if it did give me the feeling that the player was town, but I certainly don't agree that it's something that only scum would ever do.

And since the game is over now, allow me to refer to Page 28 of Mini 811. kikuchiyo claims vanilla town at the top of this page, the nature of her claim (and, to be fair, the way other people jumped onto her wagon) convinces me that she is town when I had previously been a strong proponent of her lynch. Both of us were indeed town in that game.

Yeah it is like I did not attack elvis_knits at all...

Well, yes, it is a lot like that.

There's also a few times where he says something without explaining it, and acts like he has already explained it in a previous post, despite this not actually being the case. Example; "I already said enough times why I disregard the "scum with Xyl" argument" in this post. Not true. He's said several times that he disagrees with the argument, but reading his posts, I don't have a clue

why

he disagrees with it.

It seems I got confused about what I actually said in thread and what was only in my head. If you had asked directly, I would hav told you.

Well, alright, I'll ask directly now, then. Why did you disregard that argument?

I've seen the term "chainsawing" thrown around a bit, and I thought I had a sense of what it meant, but my thoughts weren't consistent with what seems to be expressed by it. Can someone who is familiar with the term as it's being used explain what is meant by "chainsawing"? Thanks.

Straight from the source:

"The general form of this tell is "a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum".

The key to identifying this tell is intent - it is possible to confuse Chainsaw Defense with a player who simply finds the attacker scummy and has no intent of defense. In general, you can be reasonably sure that this tell is involved if a) the player supposedly using Chainsaw Defense has not previously been especially critical of the player he is now attacking, and b) the player supposedly using Chainsaw Defense seems to find the player he is supposedly defending at least reasonably pro-town.

The extreme form of this tell is Mutual Chainsaw Defense, where two players defend each other by attacking each others' attackers. This is a major scumtell, and Tarhalindur would be willing to lynch/vig both players with only this tell as justification.

The Chainsaw Defense is named after the mental image of a player ripping apart another player with a chainsaw for daring to attack his ally. It should not be confused with the Cochrane Defense, which can also be referred to as the Chainsaw Defense (the Wiki refers to the Cochrane Defense this way), which is a gambit made by players investigated as scum. The Chainsaw Defense can also be referred to as the Bodyguard Defense in order to prevent confusion.

UPDATE: After further analysis, Tarhalindur has determined that the Chainsaw Defense is only trustworthy once the player defended has been revealed to be group scum (once the player defended is proved to be Mafia, any player that used Chainsaw Defense on the dead scum should be scrutinized). Otherwise, it is a null tell. Mutual Chainsaw Defense may, however, still be an outright scumtell; more research is required here."

I'm not just disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I'm saying your vote on rofl was pointless if what you are saying about the BaB claim was your true intention.

Let's get a quote pyramid of this full conversation so we can see that VP Baltar is not even reading my posts before he reflexively disagrees with them:

I mean, in retrospect,

the rofl vote probably was pretty pointless

, but certainly no more so than keeping my vote on alex would have been.

Not really.

Now I believe you're just reflexively disagreeing with everything I say. How on earth would leaving my vote on alex have served any purpose at that point?

I'm not just disagreeing with you for the sake of it. I'm saying your vote on rofl was pointless if what you are saying about the BaB claim was your true intention.

---

Again, keep harping on the same shit to chainsaw for your buddy ekiM. This may have been a jumping off point for why I first started watching ekiM closer, but it is most certainly not one of the reasons why I want him lynched. Look back at the points I made against him if you want to know why I think he's scum (which you have chosen to ignore for this insignificant BS).

This "insignificant BS" was enough for you to keep your vote on ekiM over me through D1, despite my hat-eating scumminess, so, no, I'm not just going to let you sweep it under the rug when you've been proved wrong about it.

I'd like you to comment on those points, please.

OK.

His scum hunting Day 1 was largely non-existent. When he did finally get around to calling people scum, it almost entirely hinged on BnB being scum.

He was V/LA for much of D1, that is not a scumtell. I agree that his D1 catchup was overly focused on BaB, which I already said in my big post on everyone.

He has used IIoA and unnecessary repetition to pad some of his posts and seem busier than he really is.

I agree that the repetition was unnecessary. I doubt that it was done to make him seem busier than he really is, because that would be a ridiculously transparent ruse, and I can't see ekiM expecting anyone to read 500 hundred iterations of "It was a joke" and think "Boy, that ekiM sure is posting a lot of words! He must be town!".

The IIoA is more of a valid charge, though. As I said, his D1 catch wasn't great, and certainly I think some of the suspicion he's received has been warranted.

Oj points out a pretty strong contradiction from him here

Already commented on this one, I don't see that as a strong contradiction at all.

After 27 pages of play, the best suspicions he is able to come up with are as follows:

Kmd4390

- Yeah, I don't like that unvote yesterday. If you unvote for vanilla, does that mean you lynch investigative roles? I don't get it.

If you're sure someone is townie, you should be working your ass off to derail their wagon. He... didn't. Of course if he's scum and unvoted then he's off the wagon when a townie was lynched.
...

VP Baltar

- His fixation with me yesterday while I was V/LA seemed like a major cop-out. He didn't comment much on BAB wagon until right at the end.
...

Xylthixlm

- zwet alt? I don't like the huge number of one liners that don't really say anything. Got off the BAB wagon but didn't try and derail it. What does that achieve?

Notice how all of these are still related to the BnB wagon, and in your [Xyl's] particular case he is actually blaming you for not trying to derail it. Funny for someone who would have called you scum for doing that yesterday.

Horrible point. We lynched a player on D1 who flipped town. What is wrong with referring back to people's actions around that wagon to look for scum? The last sentence is particularly bad, trying to give the impression that ekiM thinking BaB was scum yesterday but then not thinking that any more now that he has flipped town is somehow a scummy inconsistency.

Several people seem to be up for a Baltar wagon, anyone wanna join me? (Thesp?)

Choo choo!

Unvote: Ekim, Vote: VP Baltar

.

Can't argue with this.

Unvote, Vote: VP Baltar