Mini 1088: Cookie Thief Mafia (Game Over)

[Elleran]

vote andrew nough said

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik for trying to start a "wagon".

[Elleran]

UNVOTE: drmyshottyizsik

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik for real. Overreacting to a random vote on him.

[Elleran]

It wasn't a reason. It was sarcasm the first time. I put wagon in quotes for that purpose.
So no, I did not contradict myself.

[Elleran]

@drmyshottyizsik: Still nope.

Making a counterargument against your comment on my vote was fine. I simply provided an evidence that was from my past post. You can call it back pedaling if you want, but it's also possible that you took 'wagon' in quote marks too literally.

@Stigmata: Hmm.. You're right. "Sarcasm" was the wrong word. The intention of the quote marks were to show that I was being unrealistic. I voted shotty the second time with more seriousness for overreaction.

[Elleran]

It wasn't serious. Sorry to disappoint you guys.

Were you guys really expecting anyone to vote someone seriously within the first page when the average number of posts posted by each person was nearly 0? I did not have enough information. Far from it. Even the vote that I have proposed the second time isn't strong. My shotty vote remains because I have a reason to keep it there. Unless another evidence that I can work with arises, my vote isn't moving.

[Elleran]

That's fine. I dislike RVS. Too little information is really given off.

I'm almost convinced of your innocence, drmyshottyizsik. Only a scum would want to extend RVS. Getting out of RVS is critical if we want to make the most of the time we have.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: Re: post 22 -- Why did you sarcastically accuse drmyshottyizsik of starting a wagon? He was the first and only to vote for andrew94 so far. Plus Darox had 2 votes at the time...

Why? For two reasons.

First reason: As an random vote.
Second reason: To get any reaction from the random player that I have chosen to randomly vote by providing an intentionally random reason.

By the way, guys, there are no VI (the role) in this game. The mod confessed that before pre-game on the Queue thread. So no, I'm not a VI.

========================================================================================================

As I explained in my previous post, early votes tend to be based on reachy accusations (or nothing at all in RVS).
These early votes apply pressure and help generate content.
They do that best when there is at least a modicum of logic behind them,
so it is best to place early votes on whoever is scummiest, even if that player is not incredibly scummy.

I agree with this. I hate RVS. Why? It leads to nowhere. I prefer games in which the RVS is completely skipped. I put serious votes on people for two reasons. One, to put pressure and to make people talk. I use it as a tool to incite reaction. Two, because I think the person is scum. You guys are accusing me of 'having a contradictory logic' or 'making buddying comments'. I can't disapprove the second comment at this point because unvoting now will look like I'm completing my 'buddying process' or even complying with the pressure of the rest of the players that my vote was too quick and unreasonable. Keeping my vote on him still looks good to me. Like you guys said, it's too early to decide on people's alignments--I completely agree. That doesn't mean I can't have opinions.

[Elleran]

@RobCapone: Look at my gender before assuming what it is. I'm a guy.

[Elleran]

So let me get your story straight. You random voted drmyshottyizsik and gave a joking reason that made no sense in order to provoke a reaction. drmyshottyizsik reacted. You declared it an overreaction and serious voted. You vow to keep your vote on him until you see a reason to move it. drmyshottyizsik says that the argument moved the game out of rvs. You respond by saying you're convinced of his innocence, yet you didn't unvote him.

Does that about sum it up correctly?

I didn't say I was convinced. I said I was almost convinced.
Otherwise, it's pretty much that. I don't like how you simplified some of my adjectives or turned them black and white, but I guess your version is the basic skeleton.

FURTHERMORE, when neighborized in Vi's Holy Order mafia, as town, I responded vehemently and ended up getting my neighbor lynched. It is in my town meta to behave this way towards people who are my neighbors as opposed to be mason/scum in which i know their alignment.

This leads people to ask me "how do you KNOW they're scum"
Here is how: When investigated, girl's club members will not be aligned as a cookie thief or a cookie scout
they will be "girls club". I know my alignment, and by my behavior you all should have it indicated that I am pro-town at this point, even if my concept is above a lot of your heads and appears anti-town. If you knew my meta, you would realize I don't put in nearly this much effort when I am scum, and I am a blathering idiot. I don't know why this is, and even if you consider me an asshole as town, I am way worse as scum and this is not my scum meta. I was very sad, when, at first I thought I was scum. THEN I READ MY WIN CONDITION/ROLE/HIDDEN MESSAGE in my personal pm, which i guarantee is different from theirs. Because we show up as "girls club", i am fucking certain one of those two with me (rob, ivy) are scum, hence why I'm voting rob.

I don't know about this. I want to stay with Shotty especially with his style recently but I really want to vote Furcolow.

@Fur: Are you sure you're making a wise decision to reveal all this...?

[Elleran]

@Elleran: Almost convinced. Noted.

Let me put it this way: It'd be stupid to assume that Shotty is of any alignment so early in the game. I should have said 'almost convinced that Shotty is not scum' rather than saying 'almost convinced that Shotty is town'. There is a difference... At least to my eyes.

[Elleran]

And now my opinions are changing seeing some of Shotty's recent posts.

[Elleran]

I like Furcolow's case against Poison.

Poison seems to be scummunicating with Andrew and Llamarble. Although there is no clear sign that Andrew and Llamarble are scummunicating back, Poison really seems to be trying to push the other two to act more.

UNVOTE

Shotty isn't really bright on my radar right now. I feel more interesting vibes from this Poison/Andrew/Llamarble.

Also, I want to see more from Zed. He hasn't been addressed to and he hasn't addressed anyone else (except me). I can't feel any clear relationship involving Zed.

[Elleran]

@Elleran. Lemme get this straight. You are doubtful of Llamarble because i told him to hurry up and vote. And you are suspect of andrew because i am suspect of andrew? Right?

No, you must have misread my post. I never said anything about Andrew's suspect or being doubtful of Llama. In my last post, I commented that you were pressing both Llama and Andrew into action.

===========================================================================================================================

Here's my case and reason. I find the Poison-Llama relationship more juicy, so I'll focus on that:

If you iso-Llama, you'll notice that he has mentioned your name twice in all of his posts combined (and one of them isn't even addressed to you). Here's the post that you are mentioned in: Post 102. He doesn't mention you again afterwards.

When I iso-ed you, I noticed that you started off by defending Llamarble. As the game went on, you began to be attacked. Then you made the comment:

Llamarble! Get your ass in gear and stop wasting your vote or are you delibrately avoiding the recent outbursts?

Which can be

possibly

interpreted as a scummunication from you to your accomplice. In your latest post, you directly supported lynching Llamarble compared to Darox:

Llamarble. Darox is a waste of a vote.

Looking at this, I observed that the scummunication was mostly one-sided, with most of the comments made by you and directed at Llamarble. I believe that either of the two following is happening:

1. Llama and you are partners (in addition to a third person) and to get the pressure off of yourself, you're bussing Llama. This way, you'll get town-cred if the bussing is successfully done.

2. Llama is town and you are scum. In this scenario, you're under pressure and need someone else to take it away from you. By pretending to have scummunicated to Llama, you make the town believe that Llama is your accomplice. This way, getting Llama lynched will be easier and will result in a townie killed and a scum alive for another day.

Seeing the lack of posts directed at you, Poison, from Llama, I believe that this scum relationship is one sided. Therefore, I believe that the latter scenario is the more probable.

VOTE: PoisonIvy

[Elleran]

@Darox: I'm curious. You haven't voted (except yourself, which I take it that it wasn't serious) throughout the whole game so far. What do you consider a vote to be and what would you use it for? You seem to have suspects in mind but you seem reluctant to actually place a vote. Is there a reason for that as well?

@Poison: You never said any specific instruction. You basically said "step up your playing style". I don't necessarily find it relevent whether Llama actually took this advice or not (if he is even a scum) because that's beside the point. My accusation stems from the fact that I observed a one-sided conversation take place and inferred some possible scenarios.

[Elleran]

if she flipped town i would almost be willing to quit playing mafia completely

You don't need to make such ridiculous comments. This kind of post is more AtE than real evidence.

@Elleran so on a scale of 1-10 how much am i ACTUALLY scum? And could you BREIFLY explain why.

If 1=SUPER TOWN and 10=ABSOLUTE SCUM, then I give you about 7 or 8. I really do believe that you were either bussing or accusing Llarmarble with a malicious intent.

If we're lynching one of the neighbors today, I'd vote for Furcolow.

I'd vote PoisonIvy.

[Elleran]

I'm not scum, so that connection-business is meaningless.

Yeah, I've explained that even if you aren't a scum, Poison may be using you to take votes away from her. I find her relationship TO you more meaningful than your relationship back to her.

[Elleran]

i took multiple cookies to replace my cookies when nobody is looking.
i am odd olivia.
i have 3 cookies(lives) (2 blank)

i am a cookie scout

Why claim so early?... I have mixed feelings about this.

My vote's staying on Poison. My opinion hasn't changed since my vote.

But if Poison flips town, I want to see what Furcolow has to say about it.

P.S.

My internet was down yesterday. Comcast failed me.

[Elleran]

Wow.. I dislike that this scumhunt has come down to arguing about what color was in each person's PM. We've been derailed from the traditional scumhunting, which using observations and logic and relationships.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: I also prefere old-school psychological and logic-based scumhunting. But when I notice a scumslip, I cannot pretend it just didn't happen, can I?

I suppose not. Meh.

I don't want to participate too much right now in this Ivy case going on. These arguments are revolving around role PMs and colors; something that I feel should not be used to scumhunt as part of a mafia game. It's like playing mafia with playing cards, then asking everyone to recite which card represents Doctor or Cop or each VTs then accusing those who don't get them right.

I'm moving on until something more interesting arises.

Meanwhile....

@Andrew: What was the purpose of your claiming? Like Zed said, there was almost no pressure. You simply provided information to scums, which was detrimental to town. What was your purpose and reasoning behind it?

[Elleran]

I'd rather hear your backstory. The neighbors are investigation imune because their investigate as "Girls Club" instead of Club Scouts or Cookie Thieves. What about you?

because this guy rolefished me

You didn't need to reveal your role to answer his question.

*Sigh*...

Whatever. It happened. Let's move on.

[Elleran]

this was a prod dodge, i got an email about this game, sorry i will be totally cought up and thoughful on monday or tuesday, right now i would just like to say that you guys need to look more into Zed.

Zed needs to post little more for a full analysis, imo.

[Elleran]

We should discuss perhaps about what we should do now. We should consider each scenario; PI being scum or town.

[Elleran]

My agenda says go after Furcolow if PI's town. I don't know about you guys'.

[Elleran]

ok so some one was spying on me :/

How do you know that?

VOTE: Furcolow or RobCopone. One of you is a scum girl.

[Elleran]

So does anyone actually believe Andrew's incredibly flimsy role claim?

@Darox: I believe him.

[Elleran]

I was informed by our moderator

Do you have a power that can allow you to be informed when you are spied upon? Do you have any clue about what form of spying it was?

[Elleran]

one of these three is scum:

shotty
darox
andrew.

simple wagon analysis tells us that. what is "girl's club"?

What is your reason for each person?

I personally disagree with andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim.

I am not exactly sure what the Girl Club is either. I believe it is a variant of masons, but there is apparently a scum among one of the three. Ask Furcolow or RobCapone (who claim that they are all part of the Club).

[Elleran]

So just like yesterday, I think we should lynch based on who is scummiest not who the GCs are.
VOTE: DAROX
He was scummy yesterday, coasting all the way through.

I don't understand this. How was he scummy yesterday? I believe Shotty is more scummy at this point than Darox.

@Shotty: I support you fullclaiming... But you should think before you claim, depending on what your role is.

And Hungry Herold... Perhaps it means he can one-shot vig by eating someone's cookie? He doesn't NEED to be a scum. He could be a Townie.

[Elleran]

@Furcolow: Why would you believe Rob at all if you "know" that he's a scum? Why not just maintain a vote on him? Your move does not make sense.

[Elleran]

@Furcolow: Why would you believe Rob at all if you "know" that he's a scum? Why not just maintain a vote on him? Your move does not make sense.

excuse me?
if i have ever made bold speculation, so be it, but don't try to defend your vote with piss-poor questioning...
do you really expect to catch scum with this question?
it doesn't feel like it.

I want a good answer to my question because I have suspicions in my own mind. Answering my question will help me scum hunt better by allowing me to further develop and rethink my thoughts.

Now, an answer, if you please.

[Elleran]

I don't feel the need to answer you whatsoever. I do not know your goals are for the town. Your "scumhunting" and questionasking feels very forced to me.

@Furcolow: I don't understand you at all. You already said that you are completely sure that either you or Rob is a scum. Yet, you follow his lead or at least agree with him. My question was why not vote Rob if you are town and you know that Rob is a scum? How is explaining this feel forced?

Also... This:

after the first few pages i can certainly agree that elleran might be scum. if you are convinced that rob is scum, though, you should be pushing that lynch as a robscumflip more or less confirms you, right? did the mod guarantee you that there was scum in the girls club, or are you guys just "neighbors" with a saucy thematic title? it seems people are playing "outguess the mod" here. does anyone have a case on someone else based on something other than set-up speculation? moving on...

he agrees elleran might be scum? rob is scum?
OMG IM SO GLAD I FOUND THIS POST LOL
IT PROVES MY POINTS SO MUCH
ELLERAN + DON JOHNSON + ROB SCUMTEAM
BOOK IT

How does this proves your point at all? You quoted a question posed by Don to you and you say that this suddenly confirms your points. I am basically saying the exactly the same thing Don is asking. Why do you not vote for Rob if you know that he is a 'confirmed' scum? To me, this seems extremely unproductive if you are really a townie.

@Don: Why do you think I am scum?

[Elleran]

Elleran

dude, you have been here since day 1, while DJ just joined the game. It is normal for him NOT to know that furco explicitely stated that he had the impression his PM IMPLIED someone in the GC was scum. This is different from saying he is completely sure rob is scum. Furco is chaotic and it is hard to understand what he says, but you should know, like any of us, that furco has no proofs to be completely sure of what he says. If he had any, we would all be voting rob right now... therefore, why are you dwelling on this point? It is evident to me that he changed his mind in the post in which he said he believes rob. You can ask him why, and this is what DJ did and I just did above in this post. But using the argument of furco "not voting his confirmed scum" sounds weird coming from someone who has been here the whole day 1, and furco is so annoying that he is the perfect target for scum to try an easy VI lynch.

I understand that Furcolow is a hard one to take well. I am not going for an easy lynch, but merely asking why Furcolow is not following through with his suspicion that Rob is scum. One of the main reasons why Furcolow voted Poison was because of his Role PM evidence (that he never really supplied...).

Meh, but I get your point. Rob is not a confirmed scum to me (which is why I am voting Furcolow currently). The point of my question was to get the information of why Furcolow was not voting for someone for the same reason as he did yesterday.

For now, I will vote Shotty, who I believe is the most scummy right now.

VOTE: drmyshottyizsik[/qote]

[Elleran]

Oops...

EBWOP:

Unvote

, VOTE: drmyshottyizsik

[Elleran]

@Elleran:

For now, I will vote Shotty, who I believe is the most scummy right now.

How is he scummy? Except the name, I mean.

Mostly the name, tbh. :\ The name seems to actually have a relationship to the role, seeing "Pretty Patricia" was in the Girls Club and that "Odd Olivia" has 3 lives. (If he's telling the truth, which I think is true) Hungry Herold seems like a role with a kill ability. Sounds dangerous to me.

But I also think his play has been mostly unproductive. Even since day 1, he hasn't done much nor has he posted much opinion about many things.

@Furcolow: Yes, I believe that Andrew's claim is true. Here is my reasoning:
1. He wasn't in any pressure to claim, which means that he didn't really need to be creative, but he was creative regardless.
2. He claimed really early. If he is a scum, he wouldn't risk even fake claiming so early. Too risky.
3. I think the claim was a mistake... But still a claim regardless. I personally think it was a n00b-too-early claim.

I didn't vote Shotty for a quick lynch. I have a reason, like I said. (see above)

[Elleran]

No way am I giving my name out, I feel it is very anti-town
Reason being is namefishing is similar to losing potentially for the town
What if the mafia had a scenario in which they won by us losing a certain player?
That is why I should have stalemated Rob, but the position I'm in right now I couldn't.

There would be screams for my head on an old, rusty pike if I was to actually oppose him after pushing the Poison lynch.
Look at it from my eyes, though:

1. Rob is town. I am a jackass for having exposed us all, but I will always view neighbors as null if it's 2 people. 3 people, however, and I feel like it is higher the % one of them is scum. I know I'm not scum, so the % it is Rob has gone up to 50% to you guys, and was already 100% to me. Him being scum or town is now like 80% Yes and 20% No for me, whereas I was 50-50 on him and Poison before. I knew I kept leaning towards it being Poison before, but to me this was like a chainlynch of Rob Capone, Godfather.

Lynch me, lynch Rob, whatever
if you don't lynch me, by God, I hope there is a medic or doctor out there to protect me

unvote
vote: rob

Okay... So let me get this straight. You

finally

realized that Rob is a confirmed scum in your eyes and

now

you are voting him? I've been asking why you didn't see this before and you avoided the question and called it 'forced'. I don't understand your logic before.

P.S. I am a guy. Stop calling me 'she' or 'her' and look at my gender please.

[Elleran]

point is - a 3 town neighbour is too powerful, hence one of them is scum?
if so, why not furc be the scum???

Do you have evidence? Otherwise, that's just a speculation.

Unfortunately.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: you called shotty scummy, and then you have nothing more than his name and his lurking? You called HIM scummy, not his name. You better have more scumreads on him to share, otherwise you are definitely getting serious scumpoints for this.

Here are some of my observations and analysis:

Shotty has failed to place any serious votes so far. His reasons for votes are extremely simple and shallow. An example:

unvote
vote furc

blatant ate

Shotty has been only defensive and has almost no opinion. His questions and interrogation have remained, again, shallow or just clarification-based, such as "Why am I scum?" An evidence:

At everyone

- what is scummy about me, besides the mod's terrible name for me.

Most of his posts were very short and contained little substance, if at all. Although lack of substance does not

directly

make him scummy, this style has gone on since Day 1. Lack of opinions, lack of substance, lack of stance, and lack of serious play and votes are leading me to believe that he is not a productive player for town. In addition to all this, I believe that his Role name gives him a scummy background. I don't know Shotty's meta very well, but his current style is definitely NOT pro-town.

Those are my reasons to why I think Shotty is scummy.

[Elleran]

@Darox: Why would you even joke about daykilling? Couldn't you have proven your point without such a drastic action? :\

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: I agree with you about your first paragraph.

However, I disagree with your second. Darox didn't necessarily "laugh it off". He simply remained calm and didn't overreact. I see overreaction as a better scumtell than an under-reaction.

[Elleran]

Darox, in case you did not notice, you are not looking very bright. This is mafia, not "the narcissistic clown personal show". The next time you insult anyone, I will replace out.

Too bad I do not think you are scum.

Elleran is probably mafia, and he is trying to generate some confusion by defending a town VI (you).

I also don't trust Zed: she is playing it very safe, posting very little content.

This game needs someone to quit reasoning about flavour and start scumhunting. I will start.
1) Elleran 119: is KK right or wrong? Elleran contraddicts himself. Mild scumtell.
2) Elleran 124: "not a backtrack, I am just changing my mind"
3)E 175: "nope, my bad, I was wrong twice about shotty. I now think it may be andrew, Poison or Llama" (guess what? The 3 of them are already fosed by someone else). MIld scumtell.
4)E 199: "yeah, well, I criticised furco, but now I vote Poison" (EASY WAGON)
5)E 213: "Darox is lurking, but he is not scum".
6)E 284: "andrew shouldn't have claimed so early".
7)E 326: dislikes the case on Poison. But he votes her.
8)E 341: more doubts about andrew's claim
9)E 352: but Elleran trusts him. Ok, fair enough.
10)E 445: why would you want to go after furco and not after me? It was me who built the case. Is furco an easier target? Mild scumtell.
11)E 454-456: ok, consistent to 445. E votes a GC. But he says he believes andrew's claim, even though Darox, his best friend, does not.
12)E 457: bad! Knowing the every player is notified when investigated by GC helps scum. Asking is bad. Mild scumtell from Elleran AND from shotty. Never out this kind of info.
13)E 497: Elleran sez that shotty was scummy and darox was not! They were both lazy posters: what the hell is the difference? And why does Elleran believe andrew's claim, but not shotty's?
14)E 521: already commented on this. Attempt at intimidating furco with a question, the answer to which is already known to anyone.
15)E 566: failed attempt at answering my point. Basically, he admits he was pushing a VI.
16)E 608: after stating that shotty is scummy, it turns out Elleran has little more than the name HH to justify his vote. Strong scumtell.

Vote: Elleran

I'm not defending Darox because he's my 'scum mate'. I will stand by my defense for Darox.

As for Shotty, I reviewed his posts. I have come to the conclusion that I believe his claim and that he is not a scum.

UNVOTE

I have narrowed down my scum list. However, revealing my thoughts would only help scum. All this discussion is helping. No vote from me for now.

[Elleran]

^ why is this player still alive? When attacked he just backtracks. This, and everything I posted above. More votes on Elleran plz.


P.S. I said I don't think Darox is scum. You defending him can also be explained a different way: scum often defend VI's to get town credit.

Your case has absolutely no basis on reality. Your case against me is a series of speculations. Stop pushing for my lynch and do something more useful.

You speculate my actions as scummy. However, my actions can be interpreted as town actions as well. Just because an action

could

have scummy implications doesn't mean it does. My unvote was an action that could have been taken either directions. Unvoting does not make me scummy. You are making one-sided speculations.

You also claim that my votes and cases have been against those who are seen as 'easy lynches'. I terribly disagree.

You are then saying that after someone is seen as a such target, any and all new cases against the person is suddenly seen as scummy. I suggest you broaden your outlooks and consider other town-motivations.

For the player who led the Poison Town Lynch, you seem to talk like you are still in control. Listen to others and consider more possibilities before trying to lead another bad lynch.

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: I don't see what Darox has done that is scummy. To me, he's better than Shotty in terms of posting, and there is nothing (like a funny name) to convince me that he is scum. I defend him because I do not see why he should be a scum.

However, I would like to say that I am indeed very dissatisfied about his recent actions. His fake-daykill has put me in a meh mood.

@Andrew: Wow. What should I say to this? Nothing. You're just following someone else's lead.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: speculations? Cases are always based on speculation unless someone is confirmed scum by a power role. Please, if you want to defend, address the single points of my case on you, and explain why single scummy actions were, in fact, pro-town.
Also: you are suggesting that since I lead a mislynch I should not make cases on anyone anymore? My case on Poison was solid, and she simply did not defend; instead, she posted stupid limericks and mocked the other players. Weird that you use this against me NOW, when I started a case on you.

When I said speculations, I meant that you were seeing my action X and then always saying "if he was scum, then that'd make sense."

What I'm saying is that you are failing to consider the possibility that if I was also town, that'd still make sense.

[quote="lewarcher82"[/quote]1) Elleran 119: is KK right or wrong? Elleran contraddicts himself. Mild scumtell.
2) Elleran 124: "not a backtrack, I am just changing my mind"
3)E 175: "nope, my bad, I was wrong twice about shotty. I now think it may be andrew, Poison or Llama" (guess what? The 3 of them are already fosed by someone else). MIld scumtell.
4)E 199: "yeah, well, I criticised furco, but now I vote Poison" (EASY WAGON)
5)E 213: "Darox is lurking, but he is not scum".
6)E 284: "andrew shouldn't have claimed so early".
7)E 326: dislikes the case on Poison. But he votes her.
8)E 341: more doubts about andrew's claim
9)E 352: but Elleran trusts him. Ok, fair enough.
10)E 445: why would you want to go after furco and not after me? It was me who built the case. Is furco an easier target? Mild scumtell.
11)E 454-456: ok, consistent to 445. E votes a GC. But he says he believes andrew's claim, even though Darox, his best friend, does not.
12)E 457: bad! Knowing the every player is notified when investigated by GC helps scum. Asking is bad. Mild scumtell from Elleran AND from shotty. Never out this kind of info.
13)E 497: Elleran sez that shotty was scummy and darox was not! They were both lazy posters: what the hell is the difference? And why does Elleran believe andrew's claim, but not shotty's?
14)E 521: already commented on this. Attempt at intimidating furco with a question, the answer to which is already known to anyone.
15)E 566: failed attempt at answering my point. Basically, he admits he was pushing a VI.
16)E 608: after stating that shotty is scummy, it turns out Elleran has little more than the name HH to justify his vote. Strong scumtell.[/quote]
1) I said that KK's summary was a basic skeleton of my argument. Despite my dissatisfaction with the details of my arguments, I agreed that he was right. (i.e. I did not contradict myself)
2) So I can't change my mind without looking scummy. The point of mafia is to try to convince others of your point and of others' innocence/scumminess. When the game progresses, so do my thoughts.
3) So I can't unvote without looking scummy, even when I provided a good reason. When

can

someone unvote without looking scummy in the heat of an argument?
4) Again, it is unfair that you are attacking me for building a reasonable case against someone who I thought was scummy. Just because Poison was already suspected as being scum does not make any further accusations against her scummy. So if I had blindly followed your case that was already out there, (like what Andrew is doing right now) then I would have looked less scum? I believe your logic is flawed.
5) I rarely associate lurking with scummy. Lack of posting is a super weak evidence of someone being scummy. I like to look at the posts that the player makes rather than how often the player is posting. To get more information and posting from Darox, I asked him a question in that post. (You misrepped me - because you forged/inferred the information about "...but he is not scum")
6) No, he shouldn't have. I still believe this, but it is no longer important.
7) No, again, misrep. I said that I did not like how the scumhunting has become basically a "what color was your PM" argument. I still held my own case against Poison, and in

no way

did I say that I "dislikes the case on Poison".
8) There was no doubt. Already at the time, I had believe Andrew's claim. I explain this later in my iso-post 33. My questions were aimed at his motives, not his credibility.
9) Yes. We move on.
10) Because he is part of the Girl's Club, and he has claimed that one of them is scum. I considered the possibility that perhaps it was Furcolow's gambit to expose the fact that there is a scum in the Club when he is the scum. It was better to choose between Fur or Rob at that point.
11) So what if I disagree with Darox? Do you have a problem with this?
12) This is a fair point. Curiosity beat my reasoning at this point. I admit to slight role-fishing.
13) I explained already why I believed Andrew's claim (iso-post 33). And how does this post in any way say that I do not believe Shotty's claim? He even hinted at his role on Day 1. You misrepped me again.
14) No, Furcolow did not answer me until post 601, when he finally sees his own logic as to why he should vote Rob. (in my opinion anyway.)
15) I did explain myself. If you are unsatisfied with my explanation, please post what you are looking for, rather than just saying "he failed at answering my point." Clarity begets more meaningful discussion.
16) Look at my post 648. I explain my reasoning against Shotty. However, I no longer believe Shotty is a scum.

[Elleran]

EBWOP (Quote fail):

@Elleran: speculations? Cases are always based on speculation unless someone is confirmed scum by a power role. Please, if you want to defend, address the single points of my case on you, and explain why single scummy actions were, in fact, pro-town.
Also: you are suggesting that since I lead a mislynch I should not make cases on anyone anymore? My case on Poison was solid, and she simply did not defend; instead, she posted stupid limericks and mocked the other players. Weird that you use this against me NOW, when I started a case on you.

When I said speculations, I meant that you were seeing my action X and then always saying "if he was scum, then that'd make sense."

What I'm saying is that you are failing to consider the possibility that if I was also town, that'd still make sense.

Here's my answers to your points:

1) Elleran 119: is KK right or wrong? Elleran contraddicts himself. Mild scumtell.
2) Elleran 124: "not a backtrack, I am just changing my mind"
3)E 175: "nope, my bad, I was wrong twice about shotty. I now think it may be andrew, Poison or Llama" (guess what? The 3 of them are already fosed by someone else). MIld scumtell.
4)E 199: "yeah, well, I criticised furco, but now I vote Poison" (EASY WAGON)
5)E 213: "Darox is lurking, but he is not scum".
6)E 284: "andrew shouldn't have claimed so early".
7)E 326: dislikes the case on Poison. But he votes her.
8)E 341: more doubts about andrew's claim
9)E 352: but Elleran trusts him. Ok, fair enough.
10)E 445: why would you want to go after furco and not after me? It was me who built the case. Is furco an easier target? Mild scumtell.
11)E 454-456: ok, consistent to 445. E votes a GC. But he says he believes andrew's claim, even though Darox, his best friend, does not.
12)E 457: bad! Knowing the every player is notified when investigated by GC helps scum. Asking is bad. Mild scumtell from Elleran AND from shotty. Never out this kind of info.
13)E 497: Elleran sez that shotty was scummy and darox was not! They were both lazy posters: what the hell is the difference? And why does Elleran believe andrew's claim, but not shotty's?
14)E 521: already commented on this. Attempt at intimidating furco with a question, the answer to which is already known to anyone.
15)E 566: failed attempt at answering my point. Basically, he admits he was pushing a VI.
16)E 608: after stating that shotty is scummy, it turns out Elleran has little more than the name HH to justify his vote. Strong scumtell.

1) I said that KK's summary was a basic skeleton of my argument. Despite my dissatisfaction with the details of my arguments, I agreed that he was right. (i.e. I did not contradict myself)
2) So I can't change my mind without looking scummy. The point of mafia is to try to convince others of your point and of others' innocence/scumminess. When the game progresses, so do my thoughts.
3) So I can't unvote without looking scummy, even when I provided a good reason. When

can

someone unvote without looking scummy in the heat of an argument?
4) Again, it is unfair that you are attacking me for building a reasonable case against someone who I thought was scummy. Just because Poison was already suspected as being scum does not make any further accusations against her scummy. So if I had blindly followed your case that was already out there, (like what Andrew is doing right now) then I would have looked less scum? I believe your logic is flawed.
5) I rarely associate lurking with scummy. Lack of posting is a super weak evidence of someone being scummy. I like to look at the posts that the player makes rather than how often the player is posting. To get more information and posting from Darox, I asked him a question in that post. (You misrepped me - because you forged/inferred the information about "...but he is not scum")
6) No, he shouldn't have. I still believe this, but it is no longer important.
7) No, again, misrep. I said that I did not like how the scumhunting has become basically a "what color was your PM" argument. I still held my own case against Poison, and in

no way

did I say that I "dislikes the case on Poison".
8) There was no doubt. Already at the time, I had believe Andrew's claim. I explain this later in my iso-post 33. My questions were aimed at his motives, not his credibility.
9) Yes. We move on.
10) Because he is part of the Girl's Club, and he has claimed that one of them is scum. I considered the possibility that perhaps it was Furcolow's gambit to expose the fact that there is a scum in the Club when he is the scum. It was better to choose between Fur or Rob at that point.
11) So what if I disagree with Darox? Do you have a problem with this?
12) This is a fair point. Curiosity beat my reasoning at this point. I admit to slight role-fishing.
13) I explained already why I believed Andrew's claim (iso-post 33). And how does this post in any way say that I do not believe Shotty's claim? He even hinted at his role on Day 1. You misrepped me again.
14) No, Furcolow did not answer me until post 601, when he finally sees his own logic as to why he should vote Rob. (in my opinion anyway.)
15) I did explain myself. If you are unsatisfied with my explanation, please post what you are looking for, rather than just saying "he failed at answering my point." Clarity begets more meaningful discussion.
16) Look at my post 648. I explain my reasoning against Shotty. However, I no longer believe Shotty is a scum.[/quote]

[Elleran]

^^ignore the [/quote] in the end. I forgot to erase that.

[Elleran]

Elleran, while I read your answers - for which I thank you - could you please explain this?

I have narrowed down my scum list. However, revealing my thoughts would only help scum. All this discussion is helping. No vote from me for now.

Don't out any information you feel could be dangerous to town, of course, but please try to explain me how can the results of your scumhunting be dangerous to town if revealed? I do not get it.

I mean that I have a constantly changing scum list on my mind. Some players get on and some get off as the game goes on. (I'm sure we all do this.)

What I meant by "revealing my thoughts would only help scum" was that if I revealed my newest scum list, behavior changes could take place, which would artificially throw off my line of thought. For example, I took Shotty off my scum list--which is the reason why I unvoted.

Also, I forgot to address one of your points...

Also: you are suggesting that since I lead a mislynch I should not make cases on anyone anymore? My case on Poison was solid, and she simply did not defend; instead, she posted stupid limericks and mocked the other players. Weird that you use this against me NOW, when I started a case on you.

I agree that Poison stopped defending herself as the case against her began to build. I also know that I was leading my own case against Poison.

As one of the main pusher for her lynch, you have to take responsibility for your mislynch. I absolutely did not tell you to

stop building any case against anyone, especially me

. I was telling you to broaden your mind and observe more behavior before making a strong case against anyone. Basically, be more cautious about who you are going after. Definitely continue to make cases against others for that drives the game. I just thought your case against me was reckless. (not that I don't see the merit of it, but in my eyes most of your argument against me seemed to assume things that I did not do or think)

[Elleran]

1) this is an acceptable justification. Contradict was not the right word. What I see, all over your game, is a tendency to politely agree with every attack moved to you, in order to gently backtrack from the position you previously took.
2) and 3) the difference between changing mind and backtracking depends on the weight of the "reasons" one provides.
4) your case on Ivy was based on the hypothesis that her asking 2 other players to be more active meant that she was actually asking her scum partners to help her. This looks like a joke, not like a case, to me.
5) still lurking is all you have against shotty except his name.
6) and 7) ok. And what is your reading of Llama now?
8) ok, you are totally right on this point. I now realise I misrepped your question.
10) and what is your idea about the GC right now?
11) Nope, I do not. My real problem is how you justified your total trust in Darox and Andrew and your FoS on shotty, since you were not able to provide a real case on him, although you said he was scummy.
12) meh
13) still, do you realise how terribly hard it is to put a player with 3 lives in a balanced setup?
14) and 15) Don't dodge. I explained my problem with this, and you even stated you saw what I meant.
16) I read your 648, evidently. But you said lurking is no scumtell, didn't you? Btw, the description you give of shotty could be applied to darox as well.

1) I agree with what I believe has merit. I disagree with what I believe is wrong. You can iso-me. I have disagreed often as well.
2, 3) Stop with this "I'm changing my mind" thing. I told you that I think Shotty is town.
4) Regard it as however you want to. It was a mislynch and thus whatever cases we had were wrong.
5) Again, I believe Shotty's claim.
6, 7) I'll talk about this later.
10) I believe that the GC exists. I also believe Furcolow's claim that one of them is a scum.
11) To tell you the truth, I had missed Shotty's full-claim until little later. >.< And no, I do not have complete trust on Darox and Andrew. I don't see where you get this.
13) If you weigh in the imba-factor, then maybe it's more incredible. The name and its associated ability made sense to me.
14, 15) I'm not dodging. I answered your point.
16) Wow, I just iso-ed Darox to see how substantial he was so that I could quote some evidence... To see that I couldn't find any good posts. But still, I can't feel a scummy vibe coming off of him. Do you have a gut feeling telling you that he's a scum? Even if you think your evidences point to scumminess, I don't feel him to be a scum.

^ why is this player still alive? When attacked he just backtracks. This, and everything I posted above. More votes on Elleran plz.


P.S. I said I don't think Darox is scum. You defending him

can

also be explained a different way: scum often defend VI's to get town credit.

Your case has absolutely no basis on reality. Your case against me is a series of speculations. Stop pushing for my lynch and do something more useful.

You speculate my actions as scummy. However, my actions can be interpreted as town actions as well. Just because an action

could

have scummy implications doesn't mean it does. My unvote was an action that could have been taken either directions. Unvoting does not make me scummy. You are making one-sided speculations.

You also claim that my votes and cases have been against those who are seen as 'easy lynches'. I terribly disagree.

You are then saying that after someone is seen as a such target, any and all new cases against the person is suddenly seen as scummy. I suggest you broaden your outlooks and consider other town-motivations.

For the player who led the Poison Town Lynch, you seem to talk like you are still in control. Listen to others and consider more possibilities before trying to lead another bad lynch.

your actions

can

be interpreted as town actions?
that is a weird way to put it, elleran
why did you phrase it that way?
does that imply they can be viewed as scummy actions?

i viewed your unvote as scum trying to deter a wagon on a scumbuddy, and i have suspicions you play on teamliquid, where that is a prevalent strategy

i've got my eye on you

No, I don't play on TeamLiquid.

Yes, my actions can be interpreted as town actions, just like it can be interpreted as a scummy action. You misinterpreted my statement saying this, lol. I said this to tell lewarcher that he was viewing my actions as 'scum actions' when they could equally be interpreted as 'town actions.' I was basically saying that his views were influenced by bias thinking.

My unvotes are used not because the votes seem to be becoming a wagon, but because I no longer believe the person to be a scum.

[Elleran]

@Llamarble:

I am not pushing because I don't know how to. To me, the only evidence I have is the evidence that Furcolow provided--that there is a scum in the midst of the GC. Because I don't know the truthfulness of this evidence, I do not want to use it. I would prefer that one of the GC members be lynched today.

Also, Furcolow should be the one pushing for Rob lynch right now. He is the one who provided the evidence, yet he does not follow through with it. This is the point that I was pushing earlier in the day. How true is the evidence that Furcolow provided in your opinion, Llamarble?

[Elleran]

Do you mean this?
"there is no way that neither of us would have been hit unless one of us is scum"
If both are town the scum might leave them alone in hopes they deadlock,
making them unusually suspicious VTs who think each other are scum.
If one is town and one scum the scum could be trying to help their buddy hide.
As I've said I think being a GC is pretty much null.

Also this
"Because I don't know the truthfulness of this evidence, I do not want to use it. I would prefer that one of the GC members be lynched today."
Is a blatant contradiction. You don't want to use the evidence that a GC is scum, but you want to lynch a GC?

And what do you mean you don't know how to push a wagon?
I suggest voting and presenting clear reasoning.

The mod ISO thing makes sense.

To your first paragraph, I see your point.

To your second, you didn't interpret my meaning correctly. I

do

know how to push a wagon or make one. However, in this case, I don't have enough evidence to vote or to present a solid reasoning because I believe the evidence to be less than tangible. So no, I do not want to use the evidence that a GC is scum because it's like a source that can or cannot be true. However, I do believe a GC is a scum.

[Elleran]

Do you have a gut feeling telling you that he's a scum?

nope, I said like 3 times that I think he is town.

Merry Christmas

Meh. Then what?

Merry Christmas.

[Elleran]

@Rob & everyone: we are in a very obscure setup, in which roles have no apparent connection to a specific alignment. It is the first time I find myself in such a situation, and I want to see what people think about roles being outed. We have already 4 claimed players out of 11, including our name-cops. Calling this question role-fishing is stupid. If everyone think the discussion would be detrimental to town, then I take notice of this communis opinio and we can move on.

To me, Role Names tend to be associated with the role's ability. Pretty was associated with the Girls Club. Hungry is associated with Suicidal power. Odd (hypothetically) is associated with the odd number of cookies above 1. Although the name itself may not necessarily give away which alignment the player belongs to, it does hint at the role which will give hints to which alignment the player belongs to. Saying that this is a very obscure setup is ignoring the aspect of the game in which names and alignment are associated without giving away "scum roleblocker" or "town doctor".

I am for role outing.

We have about 4 days before the deadline. We need to do something and come to a conclusion.

[Elleran]

Another question: What kind of Role-Claim are we doing? Name claiming or role claiming?

[Elleran]

read my #740. We are not claiming, we are discussing the option.

I was aware when I asked. I was asking which one we were going to do if we decided to do it.

@Mod: Thanks.

VOTE: RobCopone because I really do think that one of the GCs is a scum. My gut feeling is pointing to you, Rob. Nothing personal.

[Elleran]

hey I don't mind, you are near the top of my scum list anyway so I sort of expected it at some point, it's becoming more obvious that you are just protecting furclow

lol

Hey, the feeling's mutual. You're on top of my scum list too, and Furcolow matters not.

[Elleran]

Elleran and Furcolow are pushing a Rob lynch today just as they pushed the Poison lynch yesterday.
They are also diverting attention away from Darox, just like yesterday.
Elleran mentioned yesterday an intent to go after Furcolow, which he followed briefly then abandoned.
Lewarcher, DJ, and Darox also make sense to me as a scumteam plotting an Elleran mislynch.

Wait, is Furcolow trying to divert votes away from Darox too? I'm beginning to think that Furcolow is just copying me.

@Llamarble: Yes, I took part in the mislynch yesterday. But so had Lewarcher. Yes, I did say I was going to go after Furcolow if Poison was a mislynch. I have already mentioned that I'm fine with either GC lynch, but I'm leaning toward a Rob lynch currently. I personally think that Rob is being more productive and sensible than Furcolow, but a Rob lynch just makes more sense to me. (Unfortunately, I think I'm falling into the "Furc is playing too n00bly to be a real scum" fallacy. ) Yes, I am defending Darox. Really, if I was a scum trying to protect a scumbuddy, would I really blatantly just say "I think Darox is town" without a good reason? I'd provide better reasoning than that.

[Elleran]

1. furclow has voted for just about everyone, I think he is more concerend with just getting a lynch no matter who it is. he even voted for you elleran and now he is voting with you, horrible play
2. so I am being more productive and sensible so you are going to lynch me because of it, umm red flag here
3. This seems a bit WIFOM to me

Yes, I am defending Darox. Really, if I was a scum trying to protect a scumbuddy, would I really blatantly just say "I think Darox is town" without a good reason? I'd provide better reasoning than that.

1 and 2) I agree completely. I hate voting on you because of the 'evidence' Furcolow has provided. Like I said, you've been more productive and sensible than Furcolow has hands down. If Furcolow's evidence that one of you is scum is true, then I see you and Furcolow as a 50-50 scum-lynch.
3) It is WIFOM. I don't know how to put it forth anymore straightforward than this. Sorry.

@Rob: If there is a better candidate than you, then give me some evidence. I'm all ears.

PREVIEW EDIT: @Shotty: Read this post because it addresses many of your points.

[Elleran]

Elleran and Furcolow are pushing a Rob lynch today just as they pushed the Poison lynch yesterday.
They are also diverting attention away from Darox, just like yesterday.
Elleran mentioned yesterday an intent to go after Furcolow, which he followed briefly then abandoned.
Lewarcher, DJ, and Darox also make sense to me as a scumteam plotting an Elleran mislynch.

Wait, is Furcolow trying to divert votes away from Darox too? I'm beginning to think that Furcolow is just copying me.

@Llamarble: Yes, I took part in the mislynch yesterday.

IIoA

But so had Lewarcher.

IIoA

Yes, I did say I was going to go after Furcolow if Poison was a mislynch.

IIoA

I have already mentioned that I'm fine with either GC lynch

IIoA

but I'm leaning toward a Rob lynch currently.

IIoA, and please give us reasons why

I personally think that Rob is being more productive and sensible than Furcolow,

HOW AND WHY does this make you want to lynch him more?! only in lylo should you lynch who appears town

but a Rob lynch just makes more sense to me. (Unfortunately, I think I'm falling into the "Furc is playing too n00bly to be a real scum" fallacy.

Or you are playing off of that dumb reason to mislynch Rob

) Yes, I am defending Darox.

Why? All he has done is banter, insult us, and active lurk

Really,

if I was a scum trying to protect a scumbuddy

THAT IS A HUGE ASS SCUM TELL!

would I really blatantly just say "I think Darox is town" without a good reason? I'd provide better reasoning than that.

No you would do wat you did so you can use this excuse to pretend to be town!

How does the Larger portion make sense?

[Elleran]

here is your evidence. Self vote since you are caught.

1. you want to lynch the person who is more productive and sensible to helping town catch scum
2. you are using WIFOM to explain your defense of Darox
3. outright believing andrew's claim is yet another one I will throw in there, his claim is completely unbelievable to me yet you seemed to accept it without any serious reservations

No, I'm not scum. I'm not going to self-vote, so you can forget that.

1) I'm not voting you because you're productive. I'm voting you because I want to vote for a GC member.
2) Is that scummy? Ignore my comment than. That WIFOM I made is basically irrelevent you know. I told you my stance, and I also told you that my reason is lame. Do you want to lynch Darox? Go ahead. If he doesn't flip town, I'll eat my once-use, interent-access laptop.
3) I believe him because I don't see a reason why I shouldn't. If the only reason you think his claim is incredible is the imbalance issue with it, then that's not a very good reason either. I've had games in which the roles were horribly unbalanced. Trying to say "that's impossible because that would be imbalanced" is an easy mistake. Is there another reason why his claim is incredible to you?

[Elleran]

No, he shouldn't suicide. I feel that his role is town.

[Elleran]

You are awfully trusting person elleran, you realize people lie right?

Yes. However, I feel that the situation makes the lie improbable, or at least less likely to lie.

[Elleran]

No matter how many times I say my motives are town based, you guys

choose

not to see it that way.

No matter how I react to a question or how I answer it, I look scummy in your eyes because you guys choose to see it that way.

I'm tired of this.

Someone please unvote before I claim.

[Elleran]

I'm Extraordinary Eli. I'm a Town Jack of All Trades.

[Elleran]

vote elleran

fake

Unvote before I get quick lynched.

I can provide evidence, if you wish.

[Elleran]

Stop Shotty. Darox is Town.

[Elleran]

P-Edit, actually I believe Elleran. so far with what we've seen, a JOAT would make sense.
Elleran please provide evidence

P-Edit again

Why is darox town?
is that your evidence?

Here's Post 497.

So just like yesterday, I think we should lynch based on who is scummiest not who the GCs are.
VOTE: DAROX
He was scummy yesterday, coasting all the way through.

I don't understand this. How was he scummy yesterday? I believe Shotty is more scummy at this point than

Darox

.

@Shotty: I support you fullclaiming... But you should think before you claim, depending on what your role

is

.

And Hungry Herold... Perhaps it means he can one-shot vig by eating someone's cookie? He doesn't NEED to be a scum. He could be a

Townie

.

I hid this message there in case I was NK'ed and I didn't have a chance to reveal my findings.

Here's Post 788.

here is your evidence. Self vote since you are caught.

1. you want to lynch the person who is more productive and sensible to helping town catch scum
2. you are using WIFOM to explain your defense of Darox
3. outright believing andrew's claim is yet another one I will throw in there, his claim is completely unbelievable to me yet you seemed to accept it without any serious reservations

No, I'm not scum. I'm not going to self-vote, so you can forget that.

1) I'm not voting you because you're productive. I'm voting you because I want to vote for a GC member.
2) Is that scummy? Ignore my comment than. That WIFOM I made is basically irrelevent you know. I told you my stance, and I also told you that my reason is lame. Do you want to lynch Darox? Go ahead.

If he doesn't flip town, I'll eat my once-use, interent-access laptop.

3) I believe him because I don't see a reason why I shouldn't. If the only reason you think his claim is incredible is the imbalance issue with it, then that's not a very good reason either. I've had games in which the roles were horribly unbalanced. Trying to say "that's impossible because that would be imbalanced" is an easy mistake. Is there another reason why his claim is incredible to you?

That was another hint that I had a once-use ability. Last night, I investigated Darox because he was acting so strangely. It was an Alignment Investigation that is once-useable that involved using my 'laptop'.

[Elleran]

Oh hey it's dr realizing the wagon might swing back onto him, so he's wildly flailing about trying to lure it somewhere else before his bluff is called.

HOW ABOUT THAT, HUH?

Darox, I tried to protect you, but you haven't exactly been making yourself look town at all. I had to claim now to protect and it's ridiculous. Start being productive and more input please. Trying to make up stupid excuses like "Gut-feelings" to try to justify why I was trying to protect you made me look scummy and you won't even try to look town.

[Elleran]

Look, guys. IMO, these guys are town: Darox, Shotty, Lewarcher, Andrew, Zed, and myself. I think 3 of the following are scums: Llamarble, RobCopone, Don_Johnson, and Furcolow. We should get one of people on my scumlist to be lynched today.

[Elleran]

Happy Birthday, Darox!

How are lewarcher, Andrew, and zed clear?

Most of my list has mixed reasons, including what I think of their style, attitude, and evidence.

I believe Lewarcher to be town. One of the reason is that he admitted that he took the lead in mislynching Poison. Although this could have been a scum covering his tracks with bold statements, I believe his to be genuine. Also, during the times he makes cases, he uses evidences, asks questions to clarify the evidences, then knows when to leave the case when the clarified evidences point otherwise. He also likes to go for who he believes to be scum rather than going for 'quick lynches'.

I believe Andrew to be town. Like Llamarble has pointed out, I believe his claim. Although I agree that it is an imbalanced role in this setup, the situation in which he claimed makes the claim to be more credible. I believe Shotty's claim more than Andrew's though because of balance issues and Shotty's consistency.

I believe Zed to be town (believe it or not). I find his lack of postings unsatisfactory. His "I'll post later" have not always been followed up with breathtaking analysis. However, in his posts that he makes, he does make a statement and takes a stance. Although my belief in his towniness is just as strong as the number of posts he makes, I am leaning town for his alignment.

PREVIEW EDIT: @Lewarcher: I had a one-shot investigation ability for alignment. I didn't want to use it on a GC because they said that if investigated, they would come up as 'Girls Club' alignment. I didn't want to risk wasting my one-shot ability, so I did not investigate any of the GC. I realize that if I HAD investigated and it DID work, then it would be very helpful for town right now.

I investigated Darox at the time because he was being so chaotic. Because of his wild playing style, I could not tell whether he was a town playing badly or a scum intentionally being crazy. Also at the time, there were lots of interaction taking place with Darox being involved. Players like you and Llamarble were more focused on other business, so I didn't feel the need to investigate one of you at the time. Right now, I would really like to know the alignment of you and Llamarble very much (if that means anything to you two).

[Elleran]

Elleran responds:
"What is your reason for each person?

I personally disagree with andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim."

IF YOU JUST COPPED DAROX AND GOT AN INNOCENT THEN WHY IS ANDREW THE ONE WHO IS TOWN FOR SURE?
DIE SCUM.

@Llamarble: I intentionally said nothing about Darox. I responded to the point about Andrew because that was something I believed.

[Elleran]

Elleran responds:
"What is your reason for each person?

I personally disagree with andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim."

IF YOU JUST COPPED DAROX AND GOT AN INNOCENT THEN WHY IS ANDREW THE ONE WHO IS TOWN FOR SURE?
DIE SCUM.

@Llamarble: I intentionally said nothing about Darox. I responded to the point about Andrew because that was something I believed.

In what way is it pro-town to intentionally say nothing about Darox,
thereby indicating you have a stronger townread on Andrew?
Answer: It's not pro town.
You treated Andrew as more town than Darox because you forgot or hadn't yet decided
that you were going to feign an innocent on Darox.
An actual cop would not fail to take their results into account the next day.

No, it IS pro-town. The reason why I would intentionally not say anything is to protect my identity. This also explains my 'meh' post. I knew Darox was town. SO WHAT? He wasn't playing productively nor was he getting himself any town-cred. It was such a bother to try to protect him because it not only attracted unnecessary attention to myself and him, but it detracted the town's attention away from scumhunting. By not directly saying "Darox is town", I tried to protect Darox without revealing my role.

Llamarble, if you don't believe me (and to all those who don't believe my claim), I can prove it. Another one of my ability allows me to investigate the role name of a player. If you are unsatisfied with my claim, allow me to live today. If I don't get NK'ed, I will come back tomorrow with a name investigation. This isn't a bad deal if you think about it. Even if I'm faking, I will be lynched tomorrow anyway. (and trust me, I'll be NK'ed tonight. ) If I get NK'ed then there won't be any "hey he didn't die" WIFOM junk and I'll have evidence to prove that I'm a JOAT. Basically, if you get off my back for today, I can only be killed or come back with a confirmed claim.

What say you?

[Elleran]

EBWOP: and unlike an alignment investigation, I can't just say "this person is scum." The player can confirm that my name-cop is true. I suppose if I was scum, I could fake name-cop one of my scum buddies and have them confirm that I am real. However, if I investigated a person who doesn't believe me right now (for example... say you, Llamarble), and I told you the first letters of your adjective and your name, you would have to believe me.

[Elleran]

read

unvote

name all ur 1 shot abilites elleran

No. I believe revealing all my abilities may be bad for town. Unless the rest of the town sees that it is beneficial, I refuse to reveal my last ability

[Elleran]

unvote, vote elleran

Can't post much from phone but u r so full of shit it ain't funny. I'll tear u up once I fix my home computer.

Wow. Okay. Try it.

When I was addressing Llamarble about my proposal that involved waiting to see my results tomorrow, it was also addressed to you too, Don. Did you read that?

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: If you don't believe my breadcrumbings, then I can't convince you otherwise. If you do not think I will be NK'ed tonight, then I still can't do anything to convince you otherwise. Just because of the nature of my abilities, they can always be 'duplicated' by scums acting together.

And whatever, I will reveal my third ability (which really isn't much). I have the power to watch a cabin for a night. I can only tell if someone MOVES OUT of the cabin. If a role is done WITHIN the cabin or someone ENTERS the cabin, I cannot tell. I can only tell if the inhabitant of the cabin moves out to do whatever he had to move out for.

I don't think this ability can be confirmed and it will be likely anti-town for it to be confirmed. Unless I happen to hit the scum who sent out the NK PM, I won't get anything unless I hit a town PR, which will be detrimental to town to reveal.

If you won't believe my claim, then so be it. But by pursuing me, I'm seeing you more and more as a determined scum who's adamant about lynching a town PR for the day. If you really are a scum, why not NK me?

[Elleran]

Oh... I just realized something.

Perhaps some of the people who are accepting my claim so easily are scum. Because they know that I can be easily NK'ed and dealt with during the night, they can say 'I believe him' and pursue an easier target for the day. >__>

Any thoughts on this theory?

[Elleran]

For those who are confused:

Yes, I alignment copped Darox and got a TOWN result. I used this ability first because I believe it to be my most powerful. In case I was killed off quickly, I wanted to utilize this ability so that I had something to contribute before I am eliminated.

I have a one-shot name cop ability left. This allows me to find out the name of a player, exactly like the GC power.

I have a one-shot variant of a watcher ability.

[Elleran]

Oh... I just realized something.

Perhaps some of the people who are accepting my claim so easily are scum. Because they know that I can be easily NK'ed and dealt with during the night, they can say 'I believe him' and pursue an easier target for the day. >__>

Any thoughts on this theory?

I think debating this for either side is a massive waste of time.

Yeah I agree. It's little too late to discuss this.

[Elleran]

@Elleran: Soooo, you are a merely investigative JOAT? Very weird role. I confess I was hoping you had at least a one-shot at vig... too bad.

It is hard for me to imagine the flavour used to describe your third power. How is that possible? You are sitting in front of a cabin's door but you will only see if the player who owns the cabin EXITS, while you cannot see if someone else enters? Also, I wonder where is a mafia meeting or a GC meeting supposed to take place... are scum-scouts and GCs telepaths? Or does a participant to a meeting leave his cabin?

Whatev, this is pointless right now. I just wanted to point out the weirdness of your third power.

lol I understand. xD Allow me to clarify the flavor portion:

I do my alignment investigation using Fingerprint Scanning Kit.

I do my name investigation using a laptop that runs out of battery after one use.

I do my watcher ability using a traveling cloak to watch someone, but the cloak gets ruined after one use.

Ignore the flavor if you don't like them. The power is what that matters. (Also, I know that I said 'I'll eat my laptop' before. I ddn't say 'fingerprint scanning device' on purpose because that'd be more than breadcrumbing. By saying 'laptop' it'd make sense because I'm using a computer to play MafiaScum which I would eat.)

To your second sort-of question, the cookies are in a separate cabin called the 'Basket tree'. Mafia members go and steal one each night. My ability allows me to watch a cabin in case the inhabitant leaves for any reason (such as utilizing a role that involves leaving the cabin. Like leaving to steal a cookie.). My role has limits, for example, my name-cop ability takes place within my cabin so if someone else was watching my cabin with the same limitations, the person would observe that I did not leave my cabin that night despite me having utilized an ability.

[Elleran]

You had me up until the cloak, is this cookies or Harry potter. Lol

Anyways that's either the most detailed lie I have ever heard OR your telling the truth. I'm leaning toward the truth still but that cloak is tripping me up, seems out of place. I'd beleive hood or vest more

I'm just telling you the flavor in the role PM, lol.

I still believe Shotty's claim. He had threatened to eat his own cookie since Day 1, which suggests that he was hinting at his role even then. It doesn't make sense that he'd just make up such a lie back then. Suiciding isn't a scum role because that'd be a stupid role. Him suiciding and going for NL is the same thing as just lynching him. Him suiciding and then trying to make up a case against another player seems difficult. I suggest that we try to formulate a case against a player now so that we can have a more solid case by the time deadline is almost up.

[Elleran]

lew, I most likely won't be on in the next two days

so that means you should do it now so we can know if you are bluffing or not

I agree with this. It doesn't look like the pressure on you is going to go down, Shotty. Suiciding now and saving time is probably the best course of action.

[Elleran]

You didn't die yet.?

And how can both Rob AND Furc be scum? They're both in the GC.

[Elleran]

Lewarcher, how is the conflict of Elleran's statements with a confirmed townread on Darox unclear?
DJ expressed suspicion of Andrew, Darox, and Shotty.
Elleran's response:

"I personally disagree with Andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim."

This statement clearly suggests Andrew is a stronger townread for him than Darox.
This is therefore a lie if Elleran indeed copped Darox and got an innocent.
Later, he says:

"However, I would like to say that I am indeed very dissatisfied about his recent actions. His fake-daykill has put me in a meh mood."

Again, expressing doubts about Darox's innocence is lying if Elleran had an innocent copread on him.
Elleran's excuse for these statements is that he was trying to avoid excessive attention on him and Darox.
How is expressing doubts about a players' innocence supposed to keep attention off of them??
If an innocent copread of mine sounded scummy,
I might deflect attention without lying (perhaps by scumhunting or legitimate defense) or simply let attention come.
If one of us got to L-1 (or that seemed to be coming), then just claiming would be fine.
Especially since the cop ability looks like the strongest, in which case you being outed today wouldn't be such a big deal.
Lying about your reads to avoid attention is scummy.
I believe in lynching all liars because it prevents players from backtracking when caught in a contradiction, as here.

You misinterpreted me. My excuse to those statements was not "to avoid excessive attention". That excuse was why I didn't want to speak out when Andrew and Darox were addressed. My reason for the 'meh mood' was because despite my cop-findings on his town alignment, he was still acting unproductively and scummily. I felt like a lawyer trying to defend a client who was telling everyone that he is guilty. My read is a read and his actions are HIS actions. Llamarble, do not associate how he acts with the alignment I claimed that he is. He is town, but he is not acting as such. That's not my problem.

You say you'd claim to protect a mislynch against someone who you knew was town? I wouldn't. I still have yet to use my other 2 abilities. Claiming and just getting killed earlier would be detrimental to town. Allowing a (I think) VT to live by sacrificing the cop (or JOAT in this case) is a bad idea. Not claiming but trying to protect the person is a strategy. If you consider such strategy scummy, then that's too bad. I think it's a legit pro-town move.

[Elleran]

We're waiting to see what's going to happen as soon as the mod comes back.

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: Wow, congratulations. I did not say the verbatim reason as before. So what? My purpose is the same.

You're still a determined scum trying to frame a town PR so that you can save your NK for someone else. (like Darox who is a confirmed town, for example) Saying that my claim isn't 'detailed enough' makes absolutely no sense (this goes to Andrew too). I want you or Andrew to clarify how my role descriptions aren't 'detailed enough'. I stated what my powers are as they are. If they sound odd to you, then oh well; that's how they are described in my role PM.

In fact, Andrew has been just following Llamarble and Rob blindly since this day had started. I'm beginning to think that perhaps his claim was fake after all.

@Llamarble again: Yes, I DO think that my existence is more valuable than outing myself for Darox. Darox has not been particularly helpful for town nor had he claimed any important role. Claiming to protect a probably VT is most definitely NOT the best choice for me, especially when I still have powers that are unused. I don't know what you are considering the best move for town is, but you seem be saying that I SHOULD HAVE outed myself when Darox was under suspicion because it would have been pro-town. I disagree completely.

Listen to this: Had I outed myself much much earlier in order to protect Darox, it would have simply attracted attention away from scumhunting. We would still be arguing about the legitimacy of my claim and you'd still be incredulous as you are now. Not only that, but I would be NK'ed for sure during the next night without a hope of using my other powers. You say that it was a mistake to hold my claim back. Tell me why.

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: You are scum because you've been tunneling on me since I started to defend Darox. You have refused to believe my evidences because they were opened to interpretation. You've taken everything I have said and only viewed them with the perspective that I was already scum. You say that my claim is a fake-claim. You say that my protecting Darox and my investigation on him are actions taken by a scum to protect his scumbuddy. You say that my breadcrumbings are weak and unrealistic. You say that my willingness to protect Andrew before Darox makes me anti-town and 'selfish' in the sense that I put my identity and life above that of another town player. You have been taking EVERYTHING I've said and have been only considering them as scum-actions without a blink of an eye. You have never stopped to consider any other possibilities and you refuse to reconcile. I see this as 100% tunneling done by a scum who is determined to rid the game of a town PR without using your NK ability.

[Elleran]

Sorry. Still posting from phone. Ell claim is full of holes and he reads as though he is making shit up as he goes along. Once I hav computer back I can shred him. But my votes not moving. I am shocked that anyone believes his bullshit.

What do you not believe and why do you believe my claim is full of holes? Once you actually present evidences as to why my claim is incredible can anyone agree or disagree.

@Andrew: Stop following others blindly and present your own ideas for once.

Who do you think are scums and why? You say that you think I'm scum because you think my claim is a fake one. Why do you think this? Who else do you think are scums?

[Elleran]

I'm up for a Llamaeble lynch/vote. Speaking of which, I forgot to vote him last time I posted.

VOTE: Llamarble

[Elleran]

Lewarcher, why are you "almost convinced" Elleran is town?
Zed, where is my logic against him not solid? Please participate more.
Darox, just because he says you're innocent doesn't mean he is innocent even if you are.
Please give and explain your opinion on my case.
Rob, I think Furcolow is crazy but he's not as scummy as Elleran.
What about my case against Elleran is unconvincing? If it is convincing, please vote him.
Furc, I think Rob is town. It's perfectly reasonable for both of you to be town.
The obvious reason for scum to leave both of you alive is that you will try to lynch each other, as has happened.
You don't appear to have posted much of a case against Rob other than that you are both GCs.
What about my case against Elleran is unconvincing? If it is convincing, please vote him.
You seemed to believe he was scum before his claim and his claim is scummy for reasons I have pointed out.

I want to answer some of these questions. Reading these are frustrating.

@Llamarble: You are scum because you've been tunneling on me since I started to defend Darox. You have refused to believe my evidences because they were opened to interpretation. You've taken everything I have said and only viewed them with the perspective that I was already scum. You say that my claim is a fake-claim. You say that my protecting Darox and my investigation on him are actions taken by a scum to protect his scumbuddy. You say that my breadcrumbings are weak and unrealistic. You say that my willingness to protect Andrew before Darox makes me anti-town and 'selfish' in the sense that I put my identity and life above that of another town player. You have been taking EVERYTHING I've said and have been only considering them as scum-actions without a blink of an eye. You have never stopped to consider any other possibilities and you refuse to reconcile. I see this as 100% tunneling done by a scum who is determined to rid the game of a town PR without using your NK ability.

I have pointed out actions of Elleran's that I believe are more likely from scum than from town.
That is not "refusing to believe things that are open to interpretation." It is scumhunting.
I believe I have found scum and now I am trying to get that scum lynched.
There is no actual case against me here, so I shall add "voting me without any sensible reason" to my list of Elleran's scumtells.

Lewarcher's point that HH was a good scumtarget is reasonable,
and it adds to the case against Elleran / Darox,
particularly since Darox drove the Shotty wagon after other players largely abandoned it.

Updated Elleran case to follow. I will try to explain very clearly.

There ARE factual reasons against you. You just disregard them as 'insensible'. You didn't even touch my issue against you tunneling me. You're still refusing to consider what I'm throwing against you. Like I said, one-sided thinking is naive and totally not pro-town. Broaden your thoughts, Llamarble. There are such things as non-semantic arguments that make sense.

And I still disagree with your opinion on what the optimal action that I should have taken should have been. Neutrally saying 'I don't think Andrew and Darox are scums' would still lead to the main point that I'm trying to avoid, which is to not reveal myself.

These events took place in my course of action:
I defended Andrew
I said I believed his claim
I gave a vague answer and defended Darox
I continued with my vague answers because I could not find anything noteworthy about Darox's posts
I was accused for 'defending my scummate'
I became the new wagon
I claimed.

And these actions would take place in your proposed action:
I defend both Andrew and Darox
I will be asked to clarify my reasons with both
I will say that I have reasons to believe Andrew's claim, but fail to give a satisfactory reason on Darox's side
I will be asked more about Darox because of my vague response regarding him
I will not be able to find anything noteworthy in Darox's posts
I will be accused for 'defending my scummte'
I will become the new wagon
I will claim.

Basically, the result would be the same. i.e. I DID take a form of the optimal action that you proposed.

@RobCapone: What holes do you see? I don't understand all this talk about holes existing. Don, Llamarble, Andrew, or you please explain what holes you see? I simply described my role PM and told you exactly what it says. I cannot give you anymore than that. Why can't a GC check me out during the night?

PREVIEW EDIT: @Don: No, I planted those breadcrumbs on purpose. No 'connecting dots in hindsight' here. The worst case scenario is actually I get lynched and the scums NK someone who is playing better than Darox because he hasn't really been doing much recently. Sniping off a more sensible player would be more effective since Darox has failed to build a case or express any strong stance in anything. Lynching me is a huge mistake for town. Make the scums waste a NK on me for goodness sake.

ALSO I AM AT L-1. PLEASE NO QUICK LYNCH.

[Elleran]

one of these three is scum:

shotty
darox
andrew.

Shotty isn't scum.
Darox isn't scum.
Andrew is probably not scum as far as I can tell, but his recent blind loyalty to public opinions give me sick feelings about what I think his alignment is.

[Elleran]

and when I say sick, I mean deathly disgusting.

[Elleran]

Tunneling is useful.
It applies a lot of pressure and the focus can help the tunneler notice things that players not paying such close attention would not notice.
It also helps a player who believes they have found scum to get that scum lynched.
I believe I have found scum and I am now trying to get that scum lynched.
Clear?

Not so. Yes, tunneling poses pressure on the target, but that's all it is. It also has drawbacks. Some of these drawbacks include overthinking and beginning to use strictly semantic arguments. Some more include not listening to others and not listening to the target in certain extreme cases.
And no, you did not find the scum and you are tunneling the wrong person.

In my experience (and only time I did) of tunneling, I was completely positive that someone was a scum. Turns out that I was wrong and NK'ed right afterwards. Despite your opinions (which are so adamant that nothing I say seems to be able to change them), I am NOT SCUM and you are driving away at a claimed TOWN JOAT. Even if I am lynched, you do realize the consequences once I flip town?

And I have not presented my cases from a "Clearly Elleran is scum so he did this" perspective.
I am going through his actions and pointing out instances where actions either are less likely or outright don't make sense if Elleran is town.
That is also not the "cookiecutterscumtells" approach Darox seems to believe I am using.

Yes you did post in such perspective. I will write more on this soon.

The difference between the courses of action listed are that in the first one,
you make a statement that does not reflect your supposed knowledge (i.e. a lie).

My statement of knowledge is the part where I claim and outright say that I have investigated Darox. Before that, I am using the knowledge but not outright saying it.

[Elleran]

Key points of Elleran case:
1) Willing to pursue GC lynch based on "evidence" Furcolow never actually provided.
2) Wants to eliminate reasonable players.
3) Drove Ivy lynch
4) Waffled on Furcolow
5) Claimed a strong PR. (scum tend to claim PRs, so this makes it significantly more likely he is scum)
6) Was in favor of a massclaim despite claiming an important very likely to die PR.
7) Claims an innocent on Darox, who seems scummy.
8) Claims he expected us to clear Darox in the event of him being NKed by reading the last words of 3 lines of a post.
9) Said he thought Andrew was "town for sure" with minimal reasoning in response to a post asking about both Andrew and Darox.
10) Made a statement that he was getting close to neutral on Darox.

I will demonstrate how each of your point can be interpreted as town actions.

1) I was willing to pursue a GC lynch based on Furc's "evidence" because that was the best lead I had. And he DID provide it to the best of his ability without actually quoting his PM.
2) By reasonable players, if you mean my willingness to lynch Rob at the time, look at my first point again. He is a GC. Scums can be reasonable if they are playing well. This is a null tell, especially after I had said that Rob had been acting well and that my purpose of voting him was NOT because he was sensible, but because he was part of the GC.
3) So did lewarcher. But also, I provided a case that I had legitimately believed to be my strongest thought that I had against a player at the time. Building a case is not scummy. Even when it is a mislynch, it is not always scummy. Does that make everyone who agreed with wagon-drivers scummy? Often, it is a TOWN player who leads cases against another town player simply because there are more of them.
4) I don't get your point about "waffled on Furcolow". If you mean my willingness to vote Rob rather than Furc, then understand that I am fine with either lynch. Please clarify.
5) I claimed a strong PR because that is what I am. It doesn't make sense to me for me to lie right now. That'd be anti-town and just stupid. And yes, if a Town PR is under pressure, that town player also tends to claim his role. (You don't even consider this possibility and claim that any "strong PR claim under pressure" = scum. You don't even consider or mention any exceptions. Horrible generalization.)
6) I was in favor because I can check names with my second ability. i.e. see who is lying. I was hoping to come up with a different E-adjective to disguise myself during the claim so that I had a chance to check someone out. (Yes, I am admitting that I was going to lie on purpose. Before you go and say 'lynch all liars' again, consider my town perspective and what I had to benefit from using my second ability.)
7) That was what my investigation said. Did you consider that maybe I really AM a JOAT and I am NOT lying? Did you consider that I can be saying that to prevent a mislynch? Like you said, it can just like otherwise. However, you fail yet again to consider or mention this possibility.
8) I was actually surprised that no one caught (or admitted that he/she caught) that breadcrumbing. It seemed pretty noticeable to me. I suppose it should be since I was the one that wrote it.
9) My reason was that I believed his claim. Previous to his recent blind following, the only noteworthy characteristic of his was his claim. I analyzed the conditions in which he claimed, and a true claim made sense to me. You say that this is minimal reasoning. Like Darox, Andrew have not been particularly full of content. Saying that I did not have enough reasoning for expressing an opinion about a player who does not post with content was just as lame as the 'minimal' reasoning that was provided.
10) This has already been covered. I intentionally did not express my knowledge on Darox to keep my identity hidden. Seeing that Darox had been acting very unproductive, I knew that trying to defend him would be excruciatingly difficult for me and knew that it would probably have to resort to me claiming. Apparently, the only alternative to this for you is that I'm a scum using 'minimal' reasoning to protect a scumbuddy.

Apparently, you seem to believe any argument not based on semantic is 'minimal' and not 'optimal'. Like I said, broaden your thoughts for once.

[Elleran]

1) Here's the 'evidence' that I'm referring to:

i can guarantee a 50% chance of a lynch today
---
of it being on scum
well, near guarantee
---

vote: robcapone

my role pm gives me the impression that either rob or poisonivy is mafia
---
i disagree that it is stupid play. i feel like the mod has given me a 50/50 lynch from my perspective based upon my role pm.

@PoisonIvy, state your win condition

He refers to this throughout the rest of the day as his reason for voting Rob/Poison.

2) The quote I showed is the evidence that I have been referring to. Although I know that it cannot be confirmed in any shape or form, it IS something that was provided. Because this was better than nothing, I allowed the evidence to guide me to someone. It was NOT an attempt to 'lynch someone for being sensible'. Besides, if someone was being sensible, then in the perspective of a scum, it would be harder to lead a lynch against the player. It would be better for scum to shoot the player at night.

3) I agree that scums are 100% likely to lead a mislynch (unless a it's a bus) and that town is

less than

100% likely to lead one. However, understand that town-to-town mislynch is actually fairly common. Trying to blame me for the Poison mislynch seems like a stretch at best. I was doing what I thought was the right thing to do.

4) Like I said, I don't have a preference for either GC lynch. I voted for Rob because Furc was the one with the evidence. Unless Furc is a scum who outright risked his life to out that there is a scum in GC, Furc is probably town and thus Rob a scum. Furc's behavior seemed odd, yes. I even asked Furc why he wasn't pursuing Rob despite his own evidence at a certain point. However, I stuck to my vote against Rob anyway. It doesn't matter which of the GC dies today if either of them dies at all. As long as someone on my scumlist dies, I'll be fine.

5) Even more reason why I should have stayed hidden. According to your logic, if any strong town PR was under pressure and was forced to claim, the player would be lynched because it is less likely to hit a strong PR than scum. That's ridiculous.

6) Yes, I considered that as well. But if I came with evidence, the town would be more likely to believe me, and scums would be the main ones to disbelieve and frame me as a liar.

7) I am not responsible for Darox's actions. If he acted scummy and I didn't, but I protected Darox, that can mean that I am a cop with a result protecting a townie just as much as it can mean that I am a scum protecting a scumbuddy. I believe this point to be a null tell.

8) lol fine. My breadcrumb was obscure apparently. I could not have judged that. I have had times when someone else's breadcrumbs were hidden as the first letter (so capitalized) of each sentence in a paragraph that spelled out "JOKE". Using the last word of each sentence that were intentionally divided by line shouldn't have been impossible to find either. If you don't believe the breadcrumb because you don't think it was obvious enough, then I have nothing to say to that.

9) I didn't say anything because I did not have any other reason than my investigation to confirm that Darox was town. This led to my frustration when I was pressured for a reason why I was defending Darox as well. There are so many various reasons why I did not defend Darox immediately and only vaguely. Stop saying 'oh look, he did not say the same reason again so he must be scum trying to come up with excuses on the spot.' It is very frustrating to say the same things over and over again that I DID NOT have evidence to protect Darox other than my investigation, that I DID NOT want to attract attention to myself, and that I DID NOT want to claim to protect. You are trying to push me until I say something stupid so that you can 'nail' me on it. Your strategy is barbaric and semantic based, like I have said.

10) I never undermined his alignment. Darox is town. Period. I agree that I said that his behavior did not correlate to his alignment. I agree that I said he have not been very productive. I agree that I still don't think he's being helpful. However, he is town and that's that. Like I have said, I am NOT responsible for his actions. I know his alignment and that is all I have.

---

I'm using "semantic" argument as in you are using syntactical and word differences to attack me in many of your points, rather than my behavior or attitude. Yes, you have mixed points that are and aren't all semantic, but you are putting too much emphasis on semantic ones and I believe this to be wrong.

[Elleran]

i think the following assumptions are safe from a general perspective:
Rob and Furcolow are not both scum.
Elleran and I are not both scum.
If Elleran is town then Darox is town.

I agree with this.

By the way one of the reasons tunneling can be pro-town is that it tends to produce this sort of relationship when it's genuine.

Also as point that I agree with.

An Elleran flip will pretty much confirm either me or Darox as town and make the other look bad, which looks like the most informative flip.
Of course the scum can shoot the confirmed townie, but they might fail to, want to make wifom, or have another agenda.
The GCs can either use their power on me/Darox depending who looks scummy after the flip, or they can check someone else.
Probably leaving it up to them is best since it preserves the chance of a successful RB.
I want to lynch Elleran because I am confident he is scum, but it makes sense from a strategic perspective as well.

Once I flip, Darox will be a confirmed townie. There's not question to that at least to me. Whether I am lynched or shot at night, I will flip and then you will know. If there is a doctor role somewhere and I happen to survive, I can come back with a name-investigation, which I believe will be helpful if we are going to mass-claim tomorrow. Lynching me now means that the scum will have a free shot during the night, rather than having to waste it on me. I am

strongly

pushing for not lynching me today for strategic reasons as well.

[Elleran]

elleran.

you trusted me more than your confirmed innocent darox.
do you think you are sane? do you think you got redirected/ darox is a godfather etc.
do you trust your results?
do your results match up with your original view of darox (if u havent checked him)


why did you say : i dont trust andrew anymore because he seems to be following everyone

1) No--correction; I spoke out that I trusted you, but nothing on Darox. I know Darox is town, but I didn't want to attract attention, etc. (read my responses to Llamarble on this. This has been covered more than 3 times already.)
2) I believe myself to be sane. If I am insane, then that will be extremely surprising to me, especially looking at my role PM and seeing that I am a character who is perfectly able to use a laptop and scanner kits.
3) Yes, I believe my results to be correct.
4) His behavior and his alignment seems to have no relationship. I wouldn't say that Darox has been the towniest character and he has had strange comments, but I would stand to defend him forever because he is town. My previous view of Darox was mixed; the reason why I investigated him.

I said I didn't trust you anymore because you have been recently following Rob and Llamarble's opinions without second though. Your votes were shallow and usually included no more than "I believe X. vote: Y".

[Elleran]

Oops, I didn't finish my thought on the last part.

EBWOP:
I said I didn't trust you anymore because you have been recently following Rob and Llamarble's opinions without second though. Your votes were shallow and usually included no more than "I believe X. vote: Y". This made me feel like you were following the lead of your scummates or perhaps voting without consideration. Players like you (if you are town) make scums smile because they do not require much effort to sway players like you.

[Elleran]

i dont think i followed rob???

Oops, my bad. I thought you had.

You still followed Llamarble, though.

[Elleran]

so??? = =

are you saying everyone joining a wagon must present a whole new piece of evidence. thats gonna be hard to find

No, you don't need to build a whole case each time by yourself. I agree that that is ridiculous.

I mean that at least contribute to the wagon as you ride it. Point out things that the main person might have missed or ask questions that you curious of your own. Don't try to ask the same questions that have been asked or just agree or disagree with nothing other than "I agree. He's scum".

[Elleran]

@Llamarble/lewarcher: I was being lazy. I just put laptop in quote marks because I didn't want to type out the entire Fingerprint Scanning Kit.

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: You misunderstand my argument. I am not confusing "likely" with "always". I am asserting that the perspective in which you are analyzing my actions is biased against me. i.e. no matter what I do, you find an excuse that goes something like "I would do it because I am scum."

I do not have a preference between Rob or Furc lynch because the evidence only points to one of them being scum. Although Furc was the one that hinted at it first, it could have been a bold WIFOM move if Furcolow is a scum. Thus, I find it logical that either could be a scum, if any.

I'm going to stop commenting on all your 'Look, he said X here, but when I asked about it three more times, he said Y here! He's probably scum getting his story mixed up.' No, I'm just getting tired of typing the same thing over and over. Like I said, you seem to be pushing for the same explanation over and over and seeing whether I am saying the exact same thing again and again. It is a frustrating way of arguing.

And here's a more updated scumlist that considers the possibility of there being no scum in the GC:
Town: Me, lewarcher, Furcolow, Rob, Zed, Darox
Scum: Llamarble, Andrew, Don_Johnson

Which means that I believe that those three are the scums, given that there is no scum in GC.

Yes, you see that those I believe are scums are also those who do not believe my claim and want a quicklynch via attacking the strong Town PR claim.

@Llamarble: Once I flip town (via a lynch that YOU are obviously leading via tunneling/repetition) are YOU willing to accept the full consequence? Because I truly believe you to be a scum aiming for a quick lynch.

PREVIEW EDIT:
@lewarcher: I am perfectly aware of how insensible it sounds. Seriously, I got tired of saying the same thing to Llamarble and Andrew over and over again. You are aware that Llamarble has been repeating basically the same thing ever since he first built his case on me. I've already mentioned this already.

[Elleran]

@Elleran(1): How is Zed town? What did Zed do to be read as town? What did Zed do at all, actually?

@Elleran(2): Saying andrew is scum means that he lied on his power? When did you decide you don't believe him? In your ISO 33 it looks like you do believe him.

1) She didn't do much. But she hasn't acted scummy. Basically, she haven't contributed much, but she has expressed more opinion than have Darox or Shotty. Her actions don't imply any scummy behavior to me.

2) I don't know about Andrew. I want to believe his claim, but at the same time, I'm beginning to feel a bad vibe from him. I don't know. I'm quite confused about his play right now.

Has anyone played with Elleran in the past?

I have been in one game with Shotty before. He played just as randomly as now. He was even lynched even though he claimed (and was) a doctor. Otherwise, I haven't played with the rest of your guys.

[Elleran]

If he is telling the truth, we have nothing to lose. We won't lose a player, and he will still have two lives, I guess you can call them, left.

I like this logic. Llamarble can be dealt with once my alignment is confirmed. People's argument over my alignment is preventing people from seeing clearly who is scum because everyone is like "If Llamarble is town, then Elleran must be scum and vice versa. And if Elleran is scum, then what happens with Darox?!? And what if...blah blah"

UNVOTE

VOTE: Andrew

[Elleran]

@Rob: I'm a guy. Can you guys please look at my gender before assuming, please? lol.. This actually happened in every game I have played.

[Elleran]

I like that response zed, You stand by your convictions

Yeah, like I said. Zed says her opinions and stand by it. That is much more useful than Shotty or Darox's seemingly random posts. That is the reason why I feel that Zed is not scum.

Also, where's Furcolow? Did I miss his V/LA somewhere?

[Elleran]

@Rob: I know that the question is addressed to Darox, but I wish to speak my opinions on the question about Zed/Andrew lynch. I don't know whether you are asking Darox exclusively, so I'll remain silent until you allow me.

[Elleran]

@Rob: I know that the question is addressed to Darox, but I wish to speak my opinions on the question about Zed/Andrew lynch. I don't know whether you are asking Darox exclusively, so I'll remain silent until you allow me.

if you want to chime in i won't hold it against you

Alrighty then.

My thoughts on a Zed vs Andrew lynch are pretty simple.

I believe Andrew to be the better lynch for today. First, simply, there have been more interactions with Andrew. This means that his lynch and his resulting flip (if he were to die) would be more informative than Zed's flip.

Second, because Andrew claimed a role and his name already, lynching him can not only confirm (or disprove) his role but it can also either confirm Andrew as a town who will be no matter what be alive for tomorrow or kill a scum which is always good.

[Elleran]

Invite don err invite Rob umvote! Unvote vote furcolow

reasoning being townie suicide because of my role being a good lynch in case of a player who may be town dying. Lynch me for the town, trust me. Lynch me so Rob won't win as scum in case or lynch Rob. I am blue wot&a voting handicap.

Uhh... Can you clarify this? I cannot read this post.

[Elleran]

I disagree with the 3rd party speculation. If there are 3 scums AND a 3rd party, that would be imba. If there are 2 scums AND a 3rd party, the 3rd party probably doesn't have a kill ability (because otherwise he/she would have used it last night to speed up the game). I think we should assume that a 3rd party member does not exist in this game.

Meh, and then I bet we are going to lose because of a 3rd party person.. -_-

[Elleran]

@Rob&everyone: so if we lynch Elleran and Elleran is a town JOAT, Darox will be clear and he will prolly die tonight. This doesn't bother you? Tomorrow we would prolly be on lylo with no clears.

I am very bothered. If I am lynched, the town will go for Llamarble's head. Once that happens and if Llamarble really is town (which I highly doubt), the game will end in scums' victory. Obviously, my view doesn't hold much meaning in this since I am the one being attacked, but I believe I have more information about my own role and I am presenting my views as facts.

@lewarcher: If a Zed lynch is preferred by you, I will consent. My survival is critical to town. (even if I will most likely be NK'ed anyway)

[Elleran]

town = reckless
scum = refusing/hesitant

This is LIKELY, but not always and does not work conversely.

town = reckless but reckless != town.
scum = refusing/hesitant but refusing hesitant != scum.

This is the "A ----> B but not B --//--> A" logic.

[Elleran]

EBWOP: I just realized that the way it's posted it is confusing. The point was the "This is the "A ----> B but not B --//--> A" logic."

[Elleran]

because she is a claimed PR and her claim is believable but I have my doubts.

why not lynch someone who has no power and who isn't helping town catch scum

I am a GUY, Rob. A GUY

.

i think rob is the scum in the Gc.

this is why
1) the gc is for checking names of ppl. furclow said that if someone with a name dies, he becomes voteless. does rob have such a thing( did i miss it?) so it makes sense that furclow needs the names of people = town
2) quotes everything i say and puts it as scum light. it is as if your determined to turn everything i say into scum viewpoint
3) u think zed elleran and darox is scum but ur voting for me

Your number 2 is basically my argument vs. Llamarble.

Your 1) makes sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that I am willing to unvote and vote Rob.
UNVOTE: Andrew
VOTE: RobCaponeVOTE:

@Rob: How come Furc has a weakness but you seem to lack it? Can you explain this?

[Elleran]

EBWOP: Ooops, my vote didn't work.
VOTE: RobCapone

[Elleran]

WOW.

Hold on, let me vent,

[vent]

STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID MAFIA. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID ME. STUPID

STUPID

STUPID

WIFOM TO THE MAX.

[/vent]

[Elleran]

So I name investigated lewarcher, which doesn't matter anymore since he is dead. Now there's a stupid WIFOM all over town. The reason why I investigated lewarcher was to confirm his townieness. He and Llamarble (imo) are the players in this game who I had a very cautious view of. By the way they were arguing, it seemed to me that it was impossible for both of them to be scum. I was caught between investigating between the two but decided on lewarcher for 2 reasons.

First reason was that I thought Llarmarble to be a scum. Although counter-intuitive, I decided NOT to investigated him because of this very reason. Even if had I investigated him, it would have only led to him denying his 'outrageous' name that I revealed and would have (again) pushed for my lynch, claiming that my result had been faked.

Second reason was that by investigating lewarcher (who I believed to be town), I could claim his name and gain his trust. Since we were planning on claiming today anyway, me claiming his name for him and him confirming it would not have been harmful to town in any form. Since I did not believe lewarcher to be scum and thus I did not believe that he would deny his own name that I would tell him, I believed investigating lewarcher to be a better and more reliable way to catch scum tonight.

Had lewarcher survived tonight, this would have been the case:
Elleran - town
Darox - town
lewarcher - town

and would have left the following
Llarmarble - ?
Andrew - ?
Furc/Rob - town/? or ?/town
Don - ?

Since neither of the GC would have died, it would have left one of the others dead, leading to the conclusion that 2 who are not in GC to be confirmed scum with 1 of the GCs a scum.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. Now, to me, there is only one optimal action.

Scenario 1: Llamarble's claim is true. In this scenario, Llamarble's proposed strategy is reasonable. However, to me, this is IMPOSSIBLE. His claim and my claim are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. If he is indeed a cop, that means I am automatically scum. Of the four that are on his "I don't know his alignment" list, both Darox and I are on the list. That means unless both of the GC are scums (which we are in an unanimous agreement that this is not the case), this only leaves 2 possible scums. This is IMPOSSIBLE. So in this case, if Llamarble is truly a cop, then I am scum who have fake claimed. Period. No denial.

Llamarble, confirm that this logic is correct.

Scenario 2: My claim and alignment detection on Darox is true. In this scenario, the four above in my own list are probably scum. Of the four, Llarmarble has just claimed a role that is strictly mutually exclusive to mine. This leaves him scum with a fake claim for the same reason as why I am scum in scenario 1.

Thus, I have come to the conclusion that either me or Llarmarble should be lynched today NO MATTER WHAT. To the rest of you who understand my logic above, it is not possible for one of us not to be scum, thus the chance of catching scum by lynching one of us is 50%. Please do not build a case against anyone else other than against one of us. That will not only waste time, but it will also detract away from the maximum discussion time.

Today is the day that either the game ends or the game continues.

I now know that Llarmarble is scum. I know this as much as Llamarble knows that I am scum. (or I guess he wants to make me look scum as possible.)

VOTE: Llarmarble

Bravo, Llarmarble. Your scum abilities are impressive. Alas, I have caught you at last.

[Elleran]

So how are we going to do this mass claim? I know Darox is town, so I support him going last if he insists.

Someone start the popcorn (if we are using that method). Or rather, I will start it.

I am

Extraordinary Eli

. I am a

JOAT

with 3 abilities: alignment detection, name detection, and a variant on watcher.

Rob Capone, you claim next.

P.S. to the GC, did you guys name-cop anyone last night? Don't reveal who or what the person's name is yet, but I want to know whether you actually spied anyone or not.

[Elleran]

@Rob: oops, you're right. I missed that part and I didn't read that. Still, we can't get distracted by Furc today.

@MOD: Look at your vote count. Where's Rob?

Fixed. -mod

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: Your counterclaim logic is just as legitimate/bogus as my justification for my reason why I investigated lewarcher last night. Since you are scum, had I had investigated you, you would even add "making up names to prevent lynch" to your list by simply denying that the name is real. Plus, just because some of our abilities overlap doesn't mean your claim is a direct counterclaim against mine.

Literally, your logic is just as solid as mine.

[Elleran]

Wow. By the end, every one of my reads were right. I was seriously posting everything genuinely. The breadcrumb was real, and all my cases were things that I believed. Please, any critiques or things I can improve on? I was pretty unhappy when many of you (lol mostly scums) didn't believe me claim. The towns (Zed, Darox, Lew) seemed to believe me while the scums (Llamarble, Don) didn't. Rob was the odd one that didn't really follow Llamarble right away, which sort of threw me off initially.

Good job Llamarble, you really carried the scums home. GG.

I realized that Don was probably a scum when he said that he would return with a case against me but never really posted anything substantial. i.e. it seemed to me like a scumbuddy following Llamarble's lead.

I liked the setup. Good job, Mod!

I wasn't quite happy with the way some of the people here played, though. :\

Also, I partially blame the town loss to Furc's irresponsible voting and leaving in LyLo. I reread the thread after lewarcher had died and realized that the only one who WOULD have died was either me or lew. xD I should have known..

@Everyone: Do you have a critique on my styles and reasonings to why you didn't believe my case/breadcrumb/claim/reasonings?

[Elleran]

Elleran, I think you played pretty well.
Your defense was mostly good, but I think you would have had a better chance of lynching me if you had gone through my ISO quoting scummy stuff to build a case off of. I never really saw you explain what your reads were based on beyond gut reads and tried to take advantage of that when I was attacking you.
A town with more clearthinkinglistener/analyzer types would have helped you, but that's why we were killing them.
Darox saying I was a waste of a lynch D2 hurt the chances I'd get lynched a lot, and after a townie lynch we only needed one vote in lylo.

Thanks.

Yes, you scums were really good at picking out the right town players. In the end, I was left with... Andrew, Darox, and Furcolow. Basically, my life probably had a better of surviving had I flipped a coin instead. I should have seen the lewarcher kill coming; I thought only slightly about the possible WIFOM scums could have posed and thought more in the line of "how can I confirm my role so that I can get Llamarble (you) lynched" and did not calculate the scum actions into my plan.

Yes, tryng to protect Darox was a pain. I tried my best, seriously. I don't know how someone else could have done better...

Furcolow was the ruining blow in the end. He literally handed the scums the victory by voting me then becoming unresponsive for the rest of the game. No such thing should exist in LyLo...

@Darox: Your role was quite useful, especially the longer you lived. You could have confirmed my role actually, since I was one of the 2 that visited the basket tree on Night 1. I just wish you had played better because your lack of substance made it difficult for me to give good reasoning as to why you were town.

[Elleran]

@Llamarble: Also, your attack on me was impressive. Although I saw through the tunneling and realized that you were most likely scum, I couldn't nail anything other than "you are tunneling" because that's literally all you were doing. Imo, you were sooo focused on getting me lynched that your offense didn't leave any room for me to find a flaw in your character. i.e. to attack you, the only thing you left available to me was to critique and dissect your overly-zealous case against me. But meh... In the end, I had to convince the players who didn't seem to care enough to listen to me.

[Elleran]

@Rob: Yes, you were pretty good as well. You usually did not follow Llamarble immediately, which made it harder to try to nail you along with him.

Unfortunately, I was very suspicious of you from the beginning because of Furcolow's claim that one of the GC was probably a scum. From there, it was hard to stop seeing you as a scum. Your attempt to reduce the possibility of there being a scum actually made it seem like you were the scum trying to take away attention/significance from the speculation. xD Sorry, but perhaps your plan backfired a little?

Otherwise, your play was good.

[Elleran]

Furcolow directly quoted out the QT?

[Elleran]

This is also an answer to KK: I could not play the scummy vengeful townie. If I did, Llamarble would have had no opposer at all. It could have been different if you survived a little longer.

Yes, I totally agree with this.

@lewarcher: I tried to lynch Llamarble as well... I guess I didn't really know how to attack him. He was being too offensive imo, but no one would regard tunneling as a scumread.

[Elleran]

@lewarcher: Also, you acting very town is not a bad thing. I used the belief that you were town in order to calculate my actions. Knowing at least someone who was basically 100% townie who I can trust is good. You played very nicely.

[Elleran]

Oh I know epicmafia sucks