Mini 850: Werewolves in the WAMB! - Game Over!

[ConfidAnon]

Vote: Looker

[ConfidAnon]

@ Cirdua: Vote or be voted, bud.

Also, we need someone to vote Deejaycee until the replacement gets in and votes.

I'm happy to oblige.

Unvote, Vote: DeeJayCee

[ConfidAnon]

I should have used the word "follow". But okay, it sounds good to me.

@Toro & ConfidAnon (& DeeJayCee's empty slot): Who should we randomly bandwagon? My vote goes to Raskol

First, I apologize that my posting style is going to be a tad strange. Right now I can only post via Wii which is a major pain.

In response to your question, I'd say I can't choose without a random number generator, something I can't access atm, but I don't believe we should randomly bw on Lowell. The way he is being pushed does not feel ranfom at all.us

I'm coming home, oh yeah, I'm coming home Vote Count

- accurate to post 77

lewarcher92

(2) - banana 563, Looker

Lowell

(2) - Cirdua, Raskol

ConfidAnon

(1) - Toro

DeeJayCee's Replacement

(1) - ConfidAnon

Looker

(1) - Slepz

Raskol

(1) - Snow_Bunny

Slepz

(1) - lewarcher82

Snow_Bunny

(1) - BolingBroke

Toro

(1) - Lowell

Not Voting

(1) - DeeJayCee's Replacement

7 to Lynch

[ConfidAnon]

Depends on the way they do it, man. Perhaps they could start the BW, have a couple of people join and then hammer: this could last even 24 hours or more and no1 would notice.

Well, I have seen stuff like that before, thats all...

hope you do not mind if I keep my vote on you.

The last line of this post bothers me. I might be overanalyzing, but it sounds likeability scum overcompensating for their vote. (i probably didnt say that right, but its kind of hard to verbalize my thought process right now, long day.)

[ConfidAnon]

The whole discussion of pr's on the bottom of p. 3 irks me, but I'm not sure if that is looker's sense of humor or some blatant rolefishing. Because we are no longer in the RVS,

Unvote.

The possible rolefishing plus the jumpiness from earlier does warrant an

FoS looker

[ConfidAnon]

Throwing suspicion at someone without being willing to vote for them is scummy, unless you're only not voting for them because your vote is seriously on someone else.

ConfidAnon just took his vote off "because we're out of the RVS" so presumably that means he thinks we're at a stage where there are good reasons to vote people. He even gives a reason to be suspicious of Looker, but he doesn't vote for him. There's no good reason for a townie to hold off voting for the person they find most suspicious, unless they think it might end the day too early. Since Looker only has one vote on him at the moment, that's not a concern. The only way that extreme degree of caution makes sense is if CA doesn't really find Looker suspicious at all, and/or he's trying to see whether he can get support before he commits to a vote. Both are scummy motivations.

Snow Bunny is guilty of much the same thing imo...unless her vote on me is really serious, in which case her lack of a vote for Looker is understandable.

The reason I FoS'd Looker rather than voted him is because both of my suspicions on him could be his personality/playstyle showing through rather than motivated by a scum pov. Ordinarily I would meta him, but due to my current access limitations I can't.

[ConfidAnon]

unvote

Slepz's Post 74 - You can keep your insults to yourself, shithead. If you don't understand what I'm doing, that's fine, but all this calling people stupid bullshit just ain't gon cut it. Chill out wit dat, I'm playin da game like everybody else. I play to have fun, not to get called names by some anonymous internet profile, so relax.

Snow's Post 78 - So would you say you agree with everything that's been said? Because that's all this post was, a regurgitation.

Is

your vote on Raskol random? Hmmm....

Raskol's Post 79 - Suspicious isn't scummy. He's curious, not afraid I guess I would say. Or at least that's what I'm thinking. But God knows I can't think for myself, that's what

you

people are for...

Boling's Post 83 - Look, I keep answering yo fuckin' posts and shit which actually have no direct questions. What exactly are you trying to get me to say? What are you asking me, because this is gettin' ridiculous. What do you want? O, and general aura of scumminess? What's up with the ambiguous BS? Are you and Snow in cahoots?

@ConfidAnon - Do you think that we could come to some agreement as to who is scum?

Two things: responding to an insult with an insult leads to flaming. Not good.

In response to the question, huh? I don't understand the purpose for asking, but I do believe that an agreement can be made eventually.

[ConfidAnon]

Moreover, if you think I am scum, you should vote me, Conf.

As for me, I am glad to see that my policy of switching votes lead to an attempted rolefishing. Therefore:

Unvote. Vote Looker.

FoS: Conf

I have both you and looker as suspect, but right now I see nothing that would make me vote one suspect over another.

[ConfidAnon]

Depends on the way they do it, man. Perhaps they could start the BW, have a couple of people join and then hammer: this could last even 24 hours or more and no1 would notice.

Well, I have seen stuff like that before, thats all...

hope you do not mind if I keep my vote on you.

The last line of this post bothers me. I might be overanalyzing, but it sounds likeability scum overcompensating for their vote. (i probably didnt say that right, but its kind of hard to verbalize my thought process right now, long day.)

When I overcompensate, I do it better than this.

Posts dripping with wifom like this are scummy.

[ConfidAnon]

Snow's Post 100 - You're absolutely right but it's hard to have fun when everytime I try to take a risk and do something, I get called pathetic, scum (which isn't that much of an insult really), or stupid town. I mean, I know I'm not the smartest girl in the bunch but that doesn't mean I appreciate someone calling me names all the time.

Lew's Post 102 - You are out of your frickin' mind if you think you're going to insult somebody and expect nothing back. If that's the kind of person you are and that's the kind of energy you put out into the world, that's

exactly

the kind of energy you're going to get back, so all that trying to sober up and put on a stone face - I don't care. If you don't want nobody saying anything off-the-wall to you, keep your insults to yourself.

ConfidAnon's Post 104 - I know, I know. Insults are bad and it's making me want to avoid the thread, but, I mean, how do you handle stuff like that? Do you be nice even though the other person isn't? Do you apologize even when you didn't start it? I don't know and I really don't want to get into it. I really don't.

But about that question. You act as if coming to an agreement is going to take forever with that word, that "eventually" word.

unvote
vote DJ C

And back to Snow, I'm sorry, dude, but that lame reason is like my only one. As far as I can tell, we haven't found any scum yet, only personality conflicts and that's it, so back to DJ C it is.

Personnaly, I would ask the oerson to stop. If things get too offensive and the other person won't stop, call in the mod. We are here to play mafia, not engage in flaming, which deteriorates the game until it's not fun anymore.us

[ConfidAnon]

And about my use of the word eventually, I don't mean to stall things, but we have someone at L-2 on

page 5

. This day is going really fast. The speed at which the wagon on looker formed makes me think she is a scummy townie, and makes me suspect the people on the wagon. EVERYONE BE CAREFUL WITH VOTES, WE DON'T WANT A HASTY HAMMER.

Don't get me wrong looker is suspicious, but lynching her this quickly would be a mistake.us

[ConfidAnon]

@Conf: Mod was already called and he asked to stop "the flamefest". I cannot help observing that you did not read very attentively all the posts, except mine.

For what regards the fact that looker may be a scummy town, I agree, but since we all have been talking nonsense for 24 hours, it is hard to say... I still

FoS Conf and Looker

.

But now I would like to read the opinions of all the others, if possible.

One of the reasons that posting via Wii is a pain is I can't cnp. All of my posts are made while I am reading the thread. I uad not gotten to the mod's post when I made my own. I cannot help but notice how eager you are to paint me as scum.

[ConfidAnon]

Yes, this is true. Thanks for remember me. I almost forgot the Lolwell stuff.

Besides:

1/p/s = s/p

s/p =

probablility that 1 player is scum

n(s/p) = ns/p = n

times the probability that 1 player is scum

this is NOT the probability that at least one of

n

player is scum.

Since the number of scum is finite you need to consider stocastic dependance, hence:

1-Π₁ⁿ(c-1)/(m-i)

But nevertheless, it will be convenient to use your method starting from tomorrow.

I believe it would be more convenient to look for scummy moves rather than discuss math.

[ConfidAnon]

@confid: I am not eager. Actually, this game is not that exciting. I am not voting you, so what is the matter? If you are not scum, it will become evident sooner or later.

The fact that after I called one of your posts scummy it seems like youve been trying to paint me as scum. This feels like OMGUS, and something about your play this game rubs me the wrong way, I'm not sure why.

[ConfidAnon]

First: YAY FOR PC ACCESS!!!!!!!!! At least for now, I can actually post at a reasonable speed!

Ok. Good answer. I am not trying to paint anyone as scum, and I am actually almost convinced you are not now (I did a reread). I just want to ask you a few questions.
Keep in mind your post 77:
1) Why didn't you vote Looker if you FoS'ed him?
2) Does the fact that I am strongly supporting Looker's lynch imply that You do not FoS him anymore?

Thx

As I had already stated before, I was debating between two possible scenarios: "Looker is bad scum," or "Looker is town with a scummy playstyle." A lot of his posts read to me as if he was joking, specifically the rolefishing. That early in the game, when I had two suspects (yourself and looker) and both were based off of fairly circumstantial evidence, I saw no reason to place my vote. Bandwagons can form fast (just look at the looker votes, no pun intended), and I had no idea if I would have time to unvote before things went too far because of my limited access.

As of right now, I am about 75/25 in favor of Looker being town, not because of his behavior, but because of the behavior of others who are voting him. Many people bandwagoned very quickly on him, at least one of whom I hold as my top suspect (lewarcher). This bandwagon reeks of scum, and I think today's lynch would be better used on someone from that wagon.

Sorry, a moment of weakness.

Now, I read some of the posts by Looker in other games. He usually makes jokes, which is ok, and he is not acting differently from the way he normally acts. Also, this would not be the first time he votes someone "so that he wouldn't be forgotten".

I do not know if this is any help. I keep my vote on him because, as long as he keeps posting jokes instead of discussing the game, I have to assume his goal is to confuse town.

I hope I was clear enough. This is my point of view. Sorry if I am wrong.

The last line of this post bothers me a lot. The argument about Looker is ok, but the "sorry if I am wrong." line screams to me of scum distancing themselves from a mislynch. It also implies that you have your mind set on lynching Looker, and will not deviate from said lynch. This also kind of ties into my early post about you overcompensating for a vote. All of the above, in addition to you being one of the people on the Looker bandwagon, warrants this:

Vote: lewarcher82

Is it just me or is the signal to noise ratio in this place really bad? I think this is the reason that the only thing we seem to be able to latch on to is Looker's bizarre play. So man posts are taken up arguing points of mathematics (I am deeply unconvinced of the utility of mathematics in scumhunting even if we know the exacr scum-town ratio, which we don't), trading insults, trading not-insults-honest and generally not saying very much, which leads to some people having dozens of posts yet not really having *said* anything, while those who are contributing get lost in the shuffle. I don't feel I fall in either camp, btw - haven't posted huge numbers of times, yet also feel that I haven't made huge inroads in scumhunting.

Presently, regardless of how Looker normally plays, the play in this game is still coming across as scummy, particularly the uber-defensiveness. Cirdua also makes some good points above - Looker is backpedalling trying to distance himself from his actions it seems.

QFT

I admit that Looker is scummy, but I don't think he is scum. I know that sounds wierd, but some people have an inherently scummy playstyle, regardless of alignment. While I am not ruling out the possibility of Looker being scum, I think that lewarcher should be a prime lynch candidate for today. If I have time later on this evening, I'll try to do a post-by-post analysis for lewarcher to outline his scumminess in detail.

[ConfidAnon]

Happy birthday Toro!

[ConfidAnon]

It's interesting to see how people react when a little pressure is on them. Anyways, it's time for a post-by-post analysis to see if my thoughts on lewarcher hold up. (started typing at post 164, in case anything gets posted in between this.)

Ehi thanks man now I feel way better!!!

@Looker : you divided groups basing on what?

This is his first post of substance, nothing scummy here, but just saying that I think it makes Looker/lewarcher as partners less likely.

Unvote. Vote: Raskol

you seem to have a pretty good idea about whom you wanna vote... so early... how come?

Not a bad vote there, nothing wrong with it.

oh Looker, please, pay attention, let us not start forgettign to unvote. This generates confusion.

Alright, I know I just said that Looker/lewarcher was unlikely, but I take it back. He's had a lot of one-on-one interaction with looker in thread, and this is only page 2. Snow Bunny's observation was very good.

Come on, Snow IS funny
Moreover, a little RPG is always welcome. And it is a good strategy to confuse people, btw.

About BW's: I do not see why we would need one. I have been playing several versions of Mafia for 3 years, even if I am new to this site, and I really think daystart BW are unuseful. Be patient and we will find scum. Please, let us not rush, we have still time to hammer.

This post is very odd when compared to his speed jumping on the Looker wagon.

Post 46 - Nothing to comment on.

Depends on the way they do it, man. Perhaps they could start the BW, have a couple of people join and then hammer: this could last even 24 hours or more and no1 would notice.

Well, I have seen stuff like that before, thats all...

hope you do not mind if I keep my vote on you.

I already commented on this, but I'll state it again so the entire case is all here in one post. The last line of this post sounds like scum overcompensating for a vote.

Actually the probability is the complementary to 1 of the probability that all the n players are not scum. If we are m players, and we take a group of n, the probability that at least 1 is mafia will be given by:

1-Σ1nc/(m-i)

where c is the number of not scum players. In other words, you take the first and he has c/m probs of being clear, you take the second and he has c/(m-1) probs of being clear and so on.
P+¬P = 1
QED

Noting that math is pointless to discuss in this game, and discussing it distracts from scumhunting. Others are guilty of this too, to be sure, but this analysis is only about lewarcher.

...and I posted a Σ instead of a Π. My bad. Ok, then:

1-Π1nc/(m-i)

which closes the question... Sorry banana.

anyway, I am still not joining a bw, and I will not take part in the "groups" strategy. I am keeping my vote right now.

More math. The little update at the end, telling us that he's staying the same, feels contrived, almost as if he's trying too hard to appear like he's scumhunting, if you understand what I'm saying. (Sometimes stuff makes sense inside my head, but I don't verbalize it right. If that ever happens, tell me, and I'll try to rephrase it.)

terribly sorry, this was wrong again... I am tired tonite... 1-Π1n(c-i)/(m-i)

and enough, or u guys r totally justified in lynching me for being boring

More math. Note that he said "enough," which I take to mean as he's done with math.

fine, I am right, ban is wrong, and now let's go back to the game.

yes, banana is voting me out of kindness...

Looker, why are you voting DJC, someone who is not even here? what if he is a power role and does not kno it yet? He cannot even react, since he does not exist... I assume we better wait: he is being replaced.

Nothing wrong here.

Unvote. Vote Slepz.

Because this is turning into a wall of text, I'll bold all questions I have.

Why did you vote for Slepz in this post?

We've been out of the rvs for a bit, so an unexplained vote is fishy.

When I overcompensate, I do it better than this.

Posts that contain nothing but wifom and are used to defend oneself are very scummy. This is one of those posts.

Moreover, if you think I am scum, you should vote me, Conf.

As for me, I am glad to see that my policy of switching votes lead to an attempted rolefishing. Therefore:

Unvote. Vote Looker.

FoS: Conf

I don't know why, but this post bugs me. GAH! I hate it when you think somethings wrong, but you don't know what it is. Anways, moving on.

"Lewar" was sleeping and just turned the computer on... I have not being waiting for the others to vote, if this is what you mean. And your argumentation is pathetic. Answer the question everyone is asking: why did u rolefish? Why among every1 should slepz be a PR?

Questioning looker, nothing bad here.

Post 88 is no answer. I am not scum. If you are not, too, then you are playing poorly. That is all there is to it Looker.

And since I am not a pr, I invite town to decide: if you do not think Looker is playing poorly, please BW me and lynch me. I am leaving my vote on Looker and post only to answer direct questions.

There are a couple wierd things about this post. One, he unneccessarily tells us that he is not a pr. He had no reason to say this at this point in the game, he was not coming under heavy fire. To me, this looks like scum trying to reinforce the idea that they are town by offering themselves up for a lynch, like he did later on in the post.

And at the end, he feels compelled to tell us that he's leaving his vote on Looker. It's another pointless update, and feels like scum making sure we know that they are doing the town thing by voting someone scummy. One could also argue further, saying that he could be placing the emphasis on the vote because he is trying to bus Looker, and he wants everyone to know he is voting scum. Overall, this post is really scummy.

Note that at this point I'm getting tired, so I might not sound as smart xD.

Defining an argumentation pathetic is not the same as calling my mother pathetic or insinuating that my nation has something wrong. You can write what I post is stupid, but you cannot call me stupid. This is my policy. Now I really want the mod to post a reply to all this asking everyone, including me, to quit insulting AND complaining. This is a game. Could be a clever game if played by clever people. And I am confident we all are.

Nothing to comment on here.

and besides, I am not voting Looker cuz I think he insulted me, I am voting him cuz I think he is a werewolf.

Again, he emphasizes the fact that he is voting Looker because he thinks he is scum. Townies don't normally feel the need to reiterate over and over again the reasoning for their vote. Scum do.

Oh my God Looker, do you see the difference between saying:
A) the absent player might be a power role and cannot defend himself;
B) the absent player IS LIKELY to be a power role?

Please man. Please.

Nothing wrong here.

Ok ok people stop. I have suggested that we stopped insulting AND complaining. Now I ask the Mod for a Votecount, and please, Mod, could you create a new post with it? I don't like to have to count the posts every time to see when you counted. Thx.

Nothing scummy here, even though I find it mildly amusing that he tells people to stop complaining and includes a complaint in the same post.

Thanks Mod.

Now, I hope the other players agree on the Votecount being posted in a new post. If it is only me, feel free to do it the other way.

Now that the personal fights are definitively over, I will give up my policy of answering only direct question.

Here my considerations about this game.

1) I do not see any scummy behaviour, the only exception being the possible rolefishing by Looker.
2) nevertheless, ConfidAnon was distributing FoS (me, Looker: the posts are 76 and 77) and at the same time he is not voting. If he FoS Looker but does not vote him, it is possible they are both mafia.
3) the "mathematical" posts by Banana are formally inaccurate, but it is true that isolating groups will be helpful in the future. I'd say we keep that move for tomorrow.

Your argument for point 2 is completely valid, but point one kind of bothers me, but it's not something that I can use as evidence because it's personal opinion.

@Conf: Mod was already called and he asked to stop "the flamefest". I cannot help observing that you did not read very attentively all the posts, except mine.

For what regards the fact that looker may be a scummy town, I agree, but since we all have been talking nonsense for 24 hours, it is hard to say... I still FoS Conf and Looker.

But now I would like to read the opinions of all the others, if possible.

We have another reiteration of his stance from five posts ago. I've already explained why I find this scummy, no need to say it again.

Yes, this is true. Thanks for remember me. I almost forgot the Lolwell stuff.

Besides:
1/p/s = s/p
s/p = probablility that 1 player is scum
n(s/p) = ns/p = n times the probability that 1 player is scum

this is NOT the probability that at least one of n player is scum.

Since the number of scum is finite you need to consider stocastic dependance, hence: 1-Π1n(c-1)/(m-i)

But nevertheless, it will be convenient to use your method starting from tomorrow.

Wait, more math? You implied that you were done with math several posts ago, and now you are helping further a distracting discussion about math? Not good.

Towns lie sometimes, Snow. What you know is just that scums always lie. Which makes your derivation a sample of "fallacia consequentis".

Logic and maths are being severly harmed during this day 1.

I wanna be modkilled.

Nothing protown or scummy here.

@confid: I am not eager. Actually, this game is not that exciting. I am not voting you, so what is the matter? If you are not scum, it will become evident sooner or later.

There's nothing scummy here, but it irks me. It's like four completely unrelated sentences randomly placed into a post.

Ok. Good answer. I am not trying to paint anyone as scum, and I am actually almost convinced you are not now (I did a reread). I just want to ask you a few questions.
Keep in mind your post 77:
1) Why didn't you vote Looker if you FoS'ed him?
2) Does the fact that I am strongly supporting Looker's lynch imply that You do not FoS him anymore?

Thx

What exactly led you to change your mind on me?

Ok Looker, I have to admit I cannot read you. You keep acting a strange way. Someone wondered whether you are a jesterplayer... five people are voting you. Last time I posted about your strange behaviour in the game, your reply was:

QUOTE OMMITTED

Could you please post a little more words? That would be helpful.

The argument could be made that he is subtly helping Looker here, but right now that pairing doesn't seem very likely, and this is about lewarcher anyway.

Post 146 and 148 I have nothing to comment on.

Sorry, a moment of weakness.

Now, I read some of the posts by Looker in other games. He usually makes jokes, which is ok, and he is not acting differently from the way he normally acts. Also, this would not be the first time he votes someone "so that he wouldn't be forgotten".

I do not know if this is any help. I keep my vote on him because, as long as he keeps posting jokes instead of discussing the game, I have to assume his goal is to confuse town.

I hope I was clear enough. This is my point of view. Sorry if I am wrong.

In the games that you read, what was Looker's alignment?

This is the very basic of testing reactions. The point is that Looker's strategy of jokes, if it is a strategy, is the best way to react to pressure: makes it look as if he didn't care...

ps: I am using "he" because gendre is not specified. I sure hope this is not a gaffe.

1. I'm pretty sure she's a she.

2. This posts reinforces the lewarcher/looker idea. You start out saying that Looker's strategy is jokes, and then add a clause making us think you could be wrong. Sounds similar to this: the parentetical is inside lewarcher's thoughts for this example.

"This guy's strategy of jokes (OH WAIT, I SHOULDN'T KNOW THAT IS STRATEGY IS JOKES EVEN THOUGH WE ARE SCUM AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BETTER MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DONT KNOW), if it is a strategy . . . "

You are right Boling. We should try to forget about Looker right now. But the problem is that, since everyone has been speaking only about him (or maths, sorry LoL), it is quite hard to say who is scummy.

Assume Looker is innocent: then prolly some scums are on the BW. But I cannot track down any buddying in the posts so far.

There was a BW before everything happened. It was on Lowell. How about Lowell? How about the people who jumped on Looker after he left the BW? This is also a path, isn't it?

Saying we should ignore your suspect? This screams that you two are together.

I am surely interested in reading my scumminess in detail.

For what I know, your FoS on me was based on a scummy line in post 75, but from posts 76 and 77 I did not evince that I was your top suspect, as you now say. At that time, you acted as if your top suspect was Looker.

Now you have once again something to say about a last line of a post of mine.

The "Sorry if I am wrong" is a consequence of the chaos generated by the "noise" discussed by Boling, not a result of my "scumminess".

I would like to know who else thinks these two sentences of mine make me scummy. I have no problems in dying now, I am not a power role.

I gave up my FoS on Confid 3 pages ago, and I now think he may be town. I beg you all to take any decision you like, but remember that one between Looker and Lowell is prolly scum (this is the consequence of what I wrote in post 155; notice also that Looker and Confid never collided).

Good Luck and Good night, cuz here it's quite late now (sometimes you think it's scum, and it was just time difference, see post 93).

This quote contains a bold-faced lie. Can you find it?

All jokes aside, boling's post came after your apology in 151. Therefore, it could not have been in consequence to boling's post.


This is all I have to say for now, because I'm getting tired and I'll start sounding stupid. Tomorrow I'll give you a summary.[/b]

[ConfidAnon]

ADDING NUMBERS FOR REFERENCE

1

Too bad for me that no one understood what I was saying in my mathematical posts LoL. I did not correct them out of some attempt to look town-sided. I corrected them because they were mistaken (it kind of hurts me to leave something wrong written on the web, especially if there is a signature of mine).

2

I would like to say this is a well constructed frame, Confid.

3

In the Looker's threads I read, the game is still running. This is why I tried to cautiously and theoretically consider the option that Looker was innocent. That was enough for you to jump on me. Too bad I didn't even change my vote!

4

I now see that there are several player who think I am scummy: either Looker's strategy worked, or I made some mistake, probably I posted too much.

5

Please go on and kill me (I assume we have a myslynch), but

if I am inno, do not assume Looker is innocent too: we are not buddying, I keep my vote on him and he remains my FoS

.

6

What I wrote about his innocence was an attempt to test different scenario's.

If Confid is town-aligned, he is overconfident in his ability to read my psychology

: I refuse to consider my behaviour scummy. It is a result of Looker chaotic style.

7

Now please, this day has lasted too long. Go on and lynch me (I assume we have a mislynch). I am bothered by the

little savior attitude of Confid

, and by the fact that I have been framed. I hope you all will be, tomorrow. Please note that, as I said, all, or at least 90% of the posts by him are about me:

he is either scum or playing poorly

.

8

About the "bold-faced lie": the "noise" was already there before Boling's post, and for the sake of smartness, people, I have been the very one who tried to cope with it and investigate Looker's position. This accusation is nonsense, I did not say "the apology is a consequence of Boling's post". Summing up:

since I was the one who posted more about Looker's behaviour, I am scummy

. Are you guys really THAT fail?

9

I will answer questions from now on (as long as I do not get too bored or annoyed), without moving my vote from Looker (unless something interesting happens).

There are several things wrong with this post. Your first paragraph, about the math: I am not calling you scummy because you tried to look town-aligned by doing the math. I am calling you scummy because math distracts from scumhunting, and you have been one of the biggest proponents of discussing it.

Third paragraph: You state that I am jumping on you because you ran a meta on Looker to try and determine Looker's alignment. I am doing no such thing. Running a meta is a protown move, and not discussing ongoing games is good. The apology in the bottom of the post is what I found scummy, as I have clearly stated. You are slurring arguments together now, and I'm not sure if this is just poor play or scum trying to make my arguments seem weaker. I'm leaning the former.

Fourth paragraph: Completely pointless, and does not have any relation to the rest of the post. I'm not sure why you included it, mind telling us why?

Fifth paragraph: Wanting to be lynched is not protown. Mafia is a numbers game, and if you are town, you are telling us that you are fine with us losing an ally. Not good.

Sixth paragraph:

Please clarify, I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Seventh paragraph: Oh my, firstly, this day hasn't gone on too long at all. Second, your 90% thing seems very hypocritical.

# of game related posts made by lewarcher82 in first seven pages (not counting fluff, like math): 34

# of posts that are responding to Looker or about Looker: 23

That's a lot of posts that you've devoted to Looker. Therefore, by calling the fact that I've posted mainly about you scummy, you are calling the fact that you've posted a lot about Looker scummy. Try again when trying to call me scummy.

Eighth paragraph: We have lots of things wrong here too. The apology in question was from Post 151. Post 151 is completely about Looker and your vote on Looker. Nowhere in there do you mention that you were sorry for causing noise. I concede the point about boling's post, I read your point wrong. But the fact remains that there is no evidence to support that your apology was about the noise. In fact, it feels like you are pulling this out of your ass to get yourself out of trouble. Additionally, you say that I am calling you scummy because you posted a lot about Looker. I am doing no such thing. You are misrepresenting me in order to make yourself look better. The little appeal to emotion at the end really supports this argument.

And finally, some overall thoughts about the post. You have not defended yourself at all. Instead, the moment I put a vote on you, you started acting like it was the end of the world and left us with final thoughts. You reiterated the fact that you think I'm framing you, blatant appeal to emotion.

I have two things that I would like you to do:

1.

Defend yourself against the points I have against you.

2.

Argue your points about me and Looker being scum, and me framing you instead of repeating them over and over again.

Your post in response to my case has done nothing but solidify my stance on you. However, it would be helpful to us if you would do the things I just asked you.

[ConfidAnon]

Never mind, I just saw your post defending yourself, I'll answer that one next.

[ConfidAnon]

My speed was not speed at all, and I am tired to repeat it. I FoS'ed Looker the night before, I voted him the morning as I woke up. I live in Germany, my timing zone is different. People from the states should look at a map of the world sometimes.

Nice subtle jab at insulting me because I'm from the United States. But anyways, it doesn't bother me, because you are in the wrong. By saying your speed in jumping on the Looker wagon, I mean you jumped on it at the first opportunity you had, as you just proved.

(Btw, I'm smarter than the average bear, I understand time zones. Now, let's work on your understanding of my arguments.)

I already answered this, even if Confid ignores my answer. This is no overcompensation. I was actually trying to explain my position about BW's.

I'm not ignoring your answer, I just don't buy it.

I am a freaking nerd, I work with languages and math, I love this stuff and I posted it. Some people like to post stuff about their taste in music, I like to post about maths. Moreover, I did not start this. It was Banana who posted a wrong formula.

Congratulations, I'm a nerd too! What does that have to do with the game? Absolutely nothing. It does not matter that you didn't start it, I'm going to spell this out a little more clearly:

Someone made a post about math, which had no connection to scumhunting at all. Instead of ignoring it and continuing to scumhunt, you prolonged the discussion, distracting from scumhunting. Distracting from scumhunting is scummy, just like you said in your arguments about Looker.

No, I am just childish, dandy and immodest. As for the question, I voted Slepz because I was still testing reactions.

The first sentence here has absolutly no connection to the game, does not address any arguments, and does not fit with the quote you attached it too. It leaves me wondering "WTF?"

In my opinion, this post bothers you because I FoS you
Tbh, this is the post in which I decided to join the BW on Looker, so I already answer about this choice of mine. It's the timing zone stuff, you know?

Nope, it's actually the line where you tell me to vote you that bothers me, maybe it's just your posting style, I digress.

I actually had been discussing for a lot of time with Looker about nothing at all, so I do not think this post is scummy at all.

How did you discuss for a lot of time in five posts?

Yes, more math, just because Banana insisted on his formula. Why don't you quote the posts I am answering to, as well?

If I posted the posts you were answering too, this post would be way too long. You don't understand the math thing: You were CONTINUING a distracting conversation, which is scummy. Not to sound like an elementary school teacher, but I don't care who started it, you are just as guilty by continuing it.

They look related to me. I am not eager because I am bored by this phase of the game; since I am just FoSing you, you do not need to worry if you are not scum.

You rephrasing that helped, but now it sounds like you were trying to stop me from going after you by saying an FoS is nothing to worry about.

A feeling. And the fact that you had hardly posted at all, so I could not find anything really scummy. Moreover, you had not started this setup on me, yet.

Once you did, I changed my mind again

.

Thanks for admitting to an OMGUS, your making yourself look scummier each post.

Honestly, I am trying to answer everything, but this sounds kinda mental to me. I was just trying to understand if we were right BWing Looker.

Like I said ealrier, some things make sense in my head but not to other people. How about rephrasing it like this: "It sounds like you were adding a disclaimer to make sure no one knew that you knew more information than you should."

One final note, Confid: all your "I am tired" and "perhaps I am not able to verbalize" can be accused of being an overcompensation, exactly as the sentence of mine you accused of that. Funny, huh?

Yep, pretty funny. I'm not perfect, anything can be called overcompensation if you try hard enough. You've made a few "I'm tired" posts yourself, and it's mainly the apologies I consider bad, so this does not hurt my argument.

[ConfidAnon]

Self-voting is very bad, even if rescinded afterwards, in my view. There are very, very, very few circumstances where that could ever be good play for a town-aligned person. Still, I can't buy the idea that Looker and lewarcher82 are scum together, as their interactions are just too messy, so I'll stick with Looker as my top suspect, with my feelings now reinforced by yet more insistence on lynching the person who hasn't arrived yet. Lynching a lurker I can understand, but lynching someone that hasn't even started playing - yikes. And double yikes.

What are your thoughts on lewarcher?

[ConfidAnon]

I would not say my arguments are weak, as I can argue to support them quite well imo. Snow supporting me like that is scummy though, seeing as it could be scum echoing my arguments to look good if you are scum, or to support a townie lynch. While it's not reflective of your alignment, it's worth looking in to.

[ConfidAnon]

Can't make a huge post atm (Wii), but I'd like to say that I've been in several games with Lowell, and he has always lurked. Therefore, his activity does not reflect his alignment.

[ConfidAnon]

Boling, earlier I asked you for your opinions on lewarcher. I'd appreciate it if you'd give them.

[ConfidAnon]

Where did everybody go?

[ConfidAnon]

Don, thoughts on some other notable events in the game would be appreciated.

Looker, I'm starting to think that you

want

people to think you and lewarcher are together.

[ConfidAnon]

This doesn't mean I'm totally convinced lewarcher is town (far from it).

Boling's post neatly summed up what I was thinking. This, plus other scummy behavior, results in this:

Unvote, Vote Looker

ATTENTION THIS IS L-1 NO ONE HAMMER UNTIL HE CLAIMS

[ConfidAnon]

So. Much. Fail.

Gah.

Unvote

, for now.