Open 218: Two-fold C9 - Game Over

[Chevre]

XScorpion (1) Chronopie
inHimshallibe (1) Elscouta
Chronopie (3) ODDin, Mr.Sandman, Mr. Chaos
ConfidAnon (1) Chevre
Beefster (1) Scott Brosius
Elscouta (1) XScorpion
Scott Brosius (2) easjo682, ConfidAnon
(No vote) Beefster, inHimshallibe
12 alive; 7 votes lynch.

Hi guys!

I'll read and post some stuff.

[Chevre]

First of all, I'm not taking the setup into account at this point, as it is Day 1 and we should concerned with finding scum.

---

I see a need to change my vote,

vote: inhim
because he's been on this site the longest out of anyone else playing the game (I just lost the game) and is therefore is automatically more scummy, that and he came up with a reason to switch his vote in RVS which as we all know is the single most scummy thing ever

This isn't very good posting. First of all, seeing how I trust Korejora assigned roles randomly, there is no connection between longevity on site and role. Second, who are you to decide when RVS starts and ends? Third, you seem to be hypocritical in the fact that you are changing your vote during this apparent RVS.

Good. I'm happy to know you are town. Unvote

easjo's responses definitely did not make him town. Comically, he talked about voices in his head, which isn't really a town thing to do, and seriously, I see no correlation between his responses and normal town behavior.

I did not jump on ODDin because he placed a "serious vote." I voted ODDin because he claimed his vote was better than a random vote. I would have been OK with "more than a random vote" or "finally, something besides a random vote" but "better"? No, that's dishonest.

On a statistical level, I see inHim's point here. 1 out of every 3 players is scum. Therefore, one would have to be more than 33 percent sure to make a serious vote "better" than a random vote. However, players rarely delve this deeply into vote statistics, and I'm doubting that inHimshallibe would have really not voted ODDin had he stated it differently.

You're trying too hard. eas' actions feel to me like he's trying to joke around. Don't really see a deep scum motive behind them.

On the first sentence, Xscorpion had a point about easjo's contradition. On the second and third sentences, joking around after we have serious stuff to discuss isn't a town motive.

As far as I'm concerned, RVS ended on page 2.
I find RQS is only useful when scum are sloppy, i.e. a scum says something later in the game that contradicts one of their RQS answers.

You say this; however, you did answer the questions. You are contradicting yourself.

Misquoting is also a scumtell.

I'm not sure I see the misquote here. When I first read your post, I thought easjo had voted again and that's why he said that. Yet when I go back I see he did not. Could you please explain?

===

Not as much as I thought I would say, but as it's been iterated multiple times in the thread, this game is lacking. I'm not sure I could pick out four scum, but I'm going to start with a

vote: easjo862

.

Other than easjo, I have slight scum feelings about:
Elscouta
Mr. Chaos
Mr. Sandman

[Scott Brosius]

I'd like to see some links to Scott's completed games to see if he's this reluctant to say anything as town

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13537
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12108

I can be brief, which leads people to think I'm scummy. There really has been a lack of substance in this game, I know it's D1 and all but it seems worse than usual.

[inHimshallibe]

I'd like to see some links to Scott's completed games to see if he's this reluctant to say anything as town

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13537
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12108

I can be brief, which leads people to think I'm scummy. There really has been a lack of substance in this game, I know it's D1 and all but it seems worse than usual.

It's not your briefness that has been the worst, it's your general lack of specificity regarding your opinions on other players' alignments.

That's been my major beef with Scott Brosius. Vagueness, poor generalizations, and no major stances.

[Elscouta]

I'll do my catchup tomorrow (yes, only 3 pages, but still, i need a full reread because i'm a bit lost in that game now)

After a quick read, I can already say that I like the Chronopie wagon. Inhim looks a bit better.

[Beefster]

And now for the Elscouta analysis I promised.

There's too much debate around easjo and not enough votes on inHim.

You were one of the first ones to put a vote on easjo, yet you say there's too much debate on him. This is just strange. I never liked the statement in the first place because it appeared diversionary.

On the other hand, i'm happy to see my vote in a good place.

I still can't figure out what you meant by this. If you can poke through your V/LA to tell us what you meant by this, I probably wouldn't be so bothered by it.

I haven't been suspicious of him until just recently. 'Nuff said.

Scott really only has active lurking and confusing posts against him. If I had more time to actually take a look at him before, I probably wouldn't have put him on my scumlist. There isn't enough evidence against him.

[Beefster]

Forgot some stuff.

@XScorpion: who do

YOU

think is scum. You've been doing an awful lot of asking other people who they thought was scum lately and not a lot of your own scumlists. I can see scum motives behind this sort of thing.

FoS: XScorpion

@Chevre: It's hard to remember what I was referring to when you take things out of context like that. IIRC, I believe I was referring to something XScorpion was misquoting.

[Beefster]

EBWOP:

@XScorpion: who do

YOU

think is scum?

Forgot the question mark. Don't want him to miss an important question.

[Elscouta]

On the other hand, i'm happy to see my vote in a good place.

I still can't figure out what you meant by this. If you can poke through your V/LA to tell us what you meant by this, I probably wouldn't be so bothered by it.

I already explained this. By this sentence, I wanted to say that after inHim poor rebuttal, I was happy of having my vote on him.

[Scott Brosius]

That's been my major beef with Scott Brosius. Vagueness, poor generalizations, and no major stances.

I have placed a vote on who I think is scum, and I am leaning towards scum on you. Unless you expect me to have nailed down all 4 scum at this point, not sure how my stances aren't "major".

[XScorpion]

@XScorpion: who do YOU think is scum. You've been doing an awful lot of asking other people who they thought was scum lately and not a lot of your own scumlists. I can see scum motives behind this sort of thing. FoS: XScorpion

Pay attention. I already said that I think there was scum on Inhim's bandwagon, hence why I asked the four of you about your motives.

You say this; however, you did answer the questions. You are contradicting yourself.

You seem to be confused as to what it means to contradict oneself. To say "I need to change my vote" then later "I voted for no reason" are contradictory, because a need to change a vote implies the existence of something (a reason) that enforces such a need. To say that RQS is useless yet answer the questions is simply compliance for something that I don't think will have a major effect on the game anyway.

[easjo682]

This isn't very good posting. First of all, seeing how I trust Korejora assigned roles randomly, there is no connection between longevity on site and role. Second, who are you to decide when RVS starts and ends? Third, you seem to be hypocritical in the fact that you are changing your vote during this apparent RVS.

I thought I'd gone through all this...
It wasn't intended as a serious post, as you say your self, it not up to me, or you for that matter to decide when RVS ends, it can be left open to interprtation, and under my interpretatation it was fine for me to do an RVS style post, that post was me joking around under RVS even if others have different opinions on when RVS ends.
I'm not a moron, I know that roles are completely randomly assigned, have nothing to do with how long you've been on the site, or your sig, or your username, etc, etc...
The post was meant to come off hypocritical, It was meant to seem I was doing exactly what I was accusing inhim of doing.

@beefster, are you going to answer my question a page back?

[ODDin]

I've been prodded

I'm sorry, just had lots of stuff on my mind and things I needed to do. I'll catch up with everything later today and will have a post.

[Chevre]

Beefster: I was seeking a more fruitful analysis. Where are ISOs 1-7 and 10+? Even if they have little content, they were still part of Elscouta's play, so they must mean something.

[Mr. Chaos]

Scott really only has active lurking and confusing posts against him. If I had more time to actually take a look at him before, I probably wouldn't have put him on my scumlist. There isn't enough evidence against him.

Just noticed some flawed reasoning. Active Lurking is an anti town action. I don't really see how lack of evidence = less scummy. If anything, it should make him look even more scummy.

[ODDin]

OK, an actual attempt at scumhunting will come today. Lynch me otherwise.

AtE much?

I think you're picking and choosing your targets. I don't like the inconsistency in your play. Why do you dislike the way I 'jump' on inhim, but you have no qualms with the 3 players that raised similar points before me? My point was that I saw a contradiction in what he had said.

Well, in much the same vein, why do you accuse chrono of saying that, while inhim said that much earlier?

Check out posts 146 by Beefster and then post 149 by inHim. They've been voting for each other, and then they suddenly go all "oh I was wrong" and unvote. inHim's post 149 is especially disturbing: one post and suddenly beefster is all town. Not to mention that the quoted post was there for some time yet inHim didn't react to it (although it would appear he wasn't really following the game, so this can be forgiven).
Still, this looks to me like they're scum who were trying to distance each other, but then panicked somewhat when they saw both their wagons are the most prominent wagons at the moment, and suddenly they have a revelation that they're wrong.

I'd also agree with other people in not liking scott's active lurking. Lurking can be an especially good strategy for scum in this game, since with two scum teams, one only needs to be faster than one's friend, to paraphrase a known joke. (When you're running away from a bear, you don't need to be faster than the bear, only faster than your friend.)
That is, scum might hope to lay low and wait for the other scumteam to get caught.


So, who I think is scum?
inHim, beefster, scott brosius (I think I've stated my suspicions in various places, including partially this post)
I have less qualms with choron right now, since he does appear to be more active, and the original argument that lead to my vote wasn't that strong.


In choosing between inhim and beefster, somehow beefster seems more new and less experienced, and I'm having easier time believing some of the things he did (like the RVS extension thing) stem from lack of attention more than scuminess, and thus

vote: inhim

.

[Chronopie]

Scott really only has active lurking and confusing posts against him. If I had more time to actually take a look at him before, I probably wouldn't have put him on my scumlist. There isn't enough evidence against him.

Just noticed some flawed reasoning. Active Lurking is an anti town action. I don't really see how lack of evidence = less scummy. If anything, it should make him look even more scummy.

You be in my head, posting my ideas.

Active lurking is anti-town, anti-town actions are scummy, therefore active-lurking is scummy.

[ODDin]

P.S. mr sandman should also probably gain a honorable mention for pinging my radar a few times, but I'm not getting an overall scum vibe from him at the moment.

[ODDin]

chrono, for the record, anti-town actions are not necessarily scummy (at least, not according to some people), though this is mostly pure theory and I don't think it'd be useful to get into that...

[Mr. Chaos]

You be in my head, posting my ideas.

Active lurking is anti-town, anti-town actions are scummy, therefore active-lurking is scummy.

.....That's all your gonna say? Some pretty exciting things have been happening, and all you can think to do is agree with something I posted?

[Beefster]

alright, scott I was over emphasizing when I said 'alot' sorry, but there has been commenting on you in the negative

easjo for having voices in her head

you don't believe what I said about the voices in my head posting?

This question? I didn't know you were asking me one in the first place.
Whether you say it's a joke or not, I just don't think it's at all valid to write off an odd message like that.

[Scott Brosius]

Scott really only has active lurking and confusing posts against him. If I had more time to actually take a look at him before, I probably wouldn't have put him on my scumlist. There isn't enough evidence against him.

Just noticed some flawed reasoning. Active Lurking is an anti town action. I don't really see how lack of evidence = less scummy. If anything, it should make him look even more scummy.

You be in my head, posting my ideas.

Active lurking is anti-town, anti-town actions are scummy, therefore active-lurking is scummy.

Yawn, care to provide something other than standard mafia platitudes?

[ODDin]

Care to actually scumhunt?

[XScorpion]

Beefster and Inhim, is there any particular reason why you aren't voting for anyone?
Inhim, where is that player analysis you promised?
Beefster, if you think Elscouta is so suspicious, why don't you vote with me? And is that really all you found on your Elscouta analysis?
Elscouta, are you going to post or just active lurk?

And for the people on the Scott wagon, does he really look more like an active lurker than Elscouta?

[Mr.Sandman]

I think you're picking and choosing your targets. I don't like the inconsistency in your play. Why do you dislike the way I 'jump' on inhim, but you have no qualms with the 3 players that raised similar points before me? My point was that I saw a contradiction in what he had said.

Well, in much the same vein, why do you accuse chrono of saying that, while inhim said that much earlier?

inHim picked and choosed his targets from those who were on his wagon and ignored those who made the same case?

And for the people on the Scott wagon, does he really look more like an active lurker than Elscouta?

I'm not on the either wagon but the longer this game goes on, the more Elscouta actively lurks

FoS: Elscouta

Also, having looked at the links Scott provided, from those, I think his play style at least seems roughly comparable.

Scott really only has active lurking and confusing posts against him. If I had more time to actually take a look at him before, I probably wouldn't have put him on my scumlist. There isn't enough evidence against him.

Just noticed some flawed reasoning. Active Lurking is an anti town action. I don't really see how lack of evidence = less scummy. If anything, it should make him look even more scummy.

Agree with this. I don't see how beefster would come to that conclusion after taking into account those reasons.