Mini 1346: Flavorless Mafia - GAME OVER

[DLG]

Howdy!

VOTE: Psyche

That's truly scummy of you. Why?

[DLG]

@ Junpei
Not before just something happens, something

scummy

. Which means he doesn't want to slip up, and he doesn't want to be involved in making that something scummy happen. Self preserving and not wanting to scumhunt.

What's your rationale for not voting scum?

@ Ellibereth
Agreed. Vote, please?

@ Deltabacon
Why RVS? Scum's been found. Help lynch him.

[DLG]

You totally need some third-order theory of mind. This is terrible.
Iwonder if you honestly think I was behaving authentically and with the intentions you ascribed on me.
By the way, do you?

My play up to now has been to end the RVS with the first post of the game. Plan successful.

DLG's response kinda reads as over-acting, like he took a hardball stance on my post JUST to take a hardball stance on my post and look good doing it. It's not a convincing performance because it's overdone.

Let's start there. DLG seems like a pretty reactive person, right? vote DLG. OMGUS, mayne.

And Junpei's post reminds me of a splashing magikarp...

So, you want to do some scumhunting? Good deal.

You're obviously not a derpwad; I've never thought so. So, I have no interest in you pretending to be one and being flippant while doing so. The intentions I ascribed to your post were logical.

I'll accept you did it intentionally to shove out of RVS. It's a silly ploy, in my books, but to each his own. And, if it worked, as it did, good on you.

I'm not sure what you mean about Junpei's post, but it did strike me as overly even-handed. Like a display of just how serious he is to [mocking voice] get to the bottom of all this goshdarn business. [/mocking voice]

UNVOTE: Psyche
VOTE: Junpei

[DLG]

That's oversimplifying the exchange, I think.

I did push overboard on just the first post of the game.

Psyche's reaction was pretty decent. He dropped the facade and actually made something out of it. Looks to me like he was checking my reaction
(scumhunting). Plus, he didn't just focus on me. He looked at your answer and Junpei's post. Again, more scumhunting.

That all looks like decent townieness, to me.

Are you disappointed you can't sheep behind my push anymore? Your buddying of me (by attacking Psyche's "case" on me) is noted, as well.

What'd you think of Junpei's post?

Preview edit:
Junpei's first post. I like the second one much better.

[DLG]

I thought Junpei's first post was absolutely fine, I have no idea what on earth you find so suspicious about it, your overreaction to such a simple post is bizarre.

I was not being a sheep, or trying to "buddy" you, I simply found Psyche's initial post very suspect, and I don't particularly believe the reaction gauging line he's claiming. If he is a townie, trying to reaction gauge with a very suspicious first post, then coming out and saying the person who accused him of being suspicious is a possible mafia, is a line that makes literally zero sense.

DLG, I find your overreaction to Junpei's first post, and how easily Psyche won you over with poor logic, all to be quite bizarre.

I thought I made it clear what was off about Junpei's first post. It looked like an attempt to show off his "ultra-townieness" rather than a more natural reaction of voting Psyche or dinging at me for the sudden jump on Psyche.

Pretty much what farside22 just said.

I know I clearly said it wasn't the logic in Psyche's post that won me over. You don't get to try to spin it back to that.

So I'm clear, is bizzare scummy?

Early reads:
farside22 - Town, scum hunting for real
Psyche - Town, explained earlier
Ellibereth - null but on the Town side for not jumping the easy Psyche wagon
Junpei - null but on the scummy side for that first post, second post was an improvement as it looked like a real question
FatCat - Scum, looks like he tried to sheep the Psyche vote and got twisted around the axle in the crossfire
Deltabacon - Scum for avoiding game content, but being willing to answer an out of game question directed at him

UNVOTE: Junpei
VOTE: FatCat

I can dig this wagon. Make it happen, people.

[DLG]

DLG: How is this slot I quoted null-town when Deltabacon is scum for avoiding game content by posting but not posting anything which could be read as any alignment? That's exactly what Ellibereth did here.

The answer seems self-evident, if you don't change what I said.

Ellibereth - null but on the Town side for not jumping the easy Psyche wagon
.....
Deltabacon - Scum for avoiding game content, but being willing to answer an out of game question directed at him

Ellibereth's post was in response to game content. He didn't jump on the Psyche wagon which would be pretty easy for scum to do in those circumstances (see FatCat). Note that Ellibereth's post and FatCat's vote both came before my Post #12. This is important in regards to the sheeping accusation against FatCat.

Deltabacon, however, answered a non-game related question, but specifically did not say anything game related.

Neither post was strongly indicative of alignment, but the subtle difference was good enough to separate null-Town and null-scum.

I must have missed the sheeping case on FatCat, could you explain it?

It's the sequence of events.

That's truly scummy of you. Why?

Psyche, not posting until something suspicious happens isn't good for the town or the game. Why would you do this?

Same accusation, more words from FatCat.

Couple that with

Well sir, you were won over quite easily.

This in response to me jumping off Psyche after Psyche came back swinging. It reads to me like FatCat was disappointed he no longer had me driving and rallying the Psyche wagon (Post #12) to shield his own involvement.

[DLG]

DLG, saying I was sheeping and bandwagoning because I voted for Psyche second makes absolutely zero sense. Also saying I was "buddying" with you because I shared your sound logic (at the time) that Psyche was acting suspicious is absolute BS.

Did I say you were "bandwagoning"? Or, even indicate that in some negative context? Please share. If it will help, I think the "bandwagoning is baaaaaad" school of thought is laughable. Only votes and wagons can really put pressure on a player. I love bandwagons.

I didn't say you were buddying me for sharing my logic. I said you were buddying me for attacking Psyche becasue of Psyche's attack on me.

You went from vote, to an interim position of "Are we sure?", to "nailed-on Mafia". The first we were coming from the same place, the second you were playing cautious, the third was precipitated by Psyche voting me. Since your "nailed-on Mafia" post came before, and was entirely the opposite of my reaction to Psyche, how do you get that you were sharing my logic?

This is bunk.

DGM- Nailed on mafia. Being illogical and telling lies. Saying I was sheeping and trying to buddy him, when I simply was the second person to vote for Psyche, after Psyche posted a VERY suspect post.

Gonna need a little help with seeing where it was that I lied.

Sure, it's fun to do some mudslinging, but put up or shut up (after you admit your misrepresentation).

Yeah, not a bit interested in changing my vote. This guy is scum.

I never said that Psyche's stupidity in his first post was null. I voted for him in my first post, then DLG said as a reply to Deltabacon "why vote for anyone else, scum's been found." ie. Psyche

I replied saying, "can we be sure Psyche's mafia, it would be a stupid post from mafia and a town". I never said it's "null", I think it's more heavily weighted towards mafia, I think anything that seems suspicious or illogical, is always more weighted towards mafia. I just asked can we be sure of Psyche's guilt, because at the time DLG seemed to be very strongly of the opinion we could. If you read the above quotes, you can see, it's all there in black and white.

Why would you ask if we can be sure, if you thought it was more likely a scum thing? Why not ask

me

if/how I could be so sure? That would make sense. The other is fluff with intention of showing off your cautiousness. Exact same problem I had with Junpei's first post.

[DLG]

DLG backs off quick. (Like any player voting town should! Fudge yeah!)

But my issue is that DGB here explains his problems with my posts differently than he did earlier.

Before, it was "Self preserving and not wanting to scumhunt". Now it's "pretending to be [a derpwad!] and being flippant while doing so".

He was conscious of all my silliness, but still took me seriously! Or he's backtracking like a boss! I'm voting DGB!

I thought he would be like, "Man, I did that to throw everyone in a loop, too, man!" and I'd be like "Wow, guy, that's so inception!" and no one would lol because it wouldn't be funny. But this man's guy's serious? No way!

What backtrack? You changed your input, I changed my approach to you.

As long as you were being intentionally silly, you were potentially hiding and not scumhunting. I glossed over you using salient in the precise way you did. In retrospect it should have clued me in to your intentions. Still, I don't think I'd change anything because the pressure resulted in a decent read, just slightly later than it could have been.

I didn't attack you to throw everyone into a loop. I attacked you to see where you were coming from. I found your response decently Townie, and went on to better hunting grounds.

Junpei's questioning of both Psyche and Fatcat looks like he's asking superficial questions at best, when everyone else is making reasonable probes and assertions to differing extents. I dont like it.

Do you find it scummy?

With regards to the Psyche / DLG fiasco, I think that it was essentially a page one clusterfudge, where DLG made the mistake of being very, very quick to change his mind, over the course of a single post, and trying to cover it up. You were extremely adament that we outright lynch Psyche higher up on the page,

demanding

votes from Junpei, Elliberetth and myself.

Well, I certainly asked for more votes, in a way that pressured Psyche to respond. Not sure this is "

demanding

". Did you just miss how I was also sounding you three out at the same time?

Do you find it a mistake to change your mind when the evidence indicates something differrent than your initial read? Can you expand on this "cover-up" idea?

How do you manage do go from looking at him as outright scum (and searching for a speedlynch, no less) to looking at him as Pro-Town?

Question asked and answered. Read through, and don't fluff. Don't misrep, either. Where was I seeking a "speedlynch"?

With a third of the players yet to post anything of substance, a bandwagon like the one he tried to get rolling on FC would be ideal if it went through, since it would leave 3 Unknowns for scum to hide in tommorow. You claim Ellibereth to be nearly town for not jumping on the easy wagon, when thats basically what you tried to kick-start on Page One.

Null-leaning Town is not the same as nearly Town.

Which is scummier? Trying to get a bandwagon going, or actually joining in the cool and going wagon? Have circumstances changed with respect to how many players have contributed?

[DLG]

I don't see how one post that is one word is null while a person who does RVS and answers a question is scummy. All that happened was Psyce's comment before this. You didn't ask anything from Delta and he didn't say anything about Psyc's comment, which maybe he thought was a joke. What else was there to really say as the #6 post in the game?

Not the difference between null and scummy. Different shades of grey. Null to Town versus Null to scummy.

The post Deltabacon replied to contained FatCat's vote on Psyche. This was the second vote, and was clearly not RVS.

My conclusion is that Deltabacon would have seen this and chose to only reply to the out of game thing.

My conclusion regarding Ellibereth is that he replied to an in game thing.

It's not a huge disparity, but enough for me to differentiate between them.

That's a stretch of imagination you have there.

Oh, I fully admit it's reaching and stretching on my part. The intended consequence was to pressure FatCat some more. The unintended consequence of you picking up on it is good, too, though.

Dude are you barking mad? You seem to think "jumping on the Psyche wagon" is a damning black mark against someones name, when the truth is Psyche's post was extremely suspicious and he deserved to be voted against.

As for the part where you say I was disappointed I no longer had you driving and rallying the Psyche Wagon,

I think you really need to have a sit down with your ego.

Your reasoning seems to be that I'm a mafia because I was looking to sycophantically sheep with you in order to get Psyche wagoned,

as you are a great and powerful leader of men.

Let's see can you drive and rally enough support to prevent your own lynching, buddy.

Dude, could you stop throwing insults to try to make your points look better?

I never said "jumping on the Psyche wagon is a damning black mark". Look at Post #12. Who specifically is not called out in that post? I'll hazard a guess that it's you, the one who

had

voted Psyche.

Your shift of tone from cautiousness to outright scum regarding Psyche looked suspicious, to me. So did Junpei's first post, which is where I voted, next. It wasn't until after all that when I voted you. Your history is wrong and misleading.

The bolded and struck out portion is just more insults and attempts to strengthen your position. Read without those portions, you are correct.

And, if I'm lynched, I'll have a chance to post last reads before I'm hammered. I will find scum on my wagon and help Town to fulfill my wincon.

Now, you seem bothered that I'd dare to suspect you. Why is that?

[DLG]

Cool, we disagree.

I'm good with letting this back and forth go and letting everyone else make their own reads off of it.

FatCat says, "Lynch DLG!"

DLG says, "Lynch FatCat!"

Does that about sum it up?

[DLG]

I didn't see Deltawave jumping on the Psyche wagon, which is the whole reason Elli is town.

You are correct, on one level. Both did not jump on the Psyche wagon.

Deltabacon did not while purposefully avoiding game content.

Ellibereth did not while repsonding to game content.

There is a difference, to me.

Pah, the unmitigated truth, thinking back on it, is that I got a little chuckle out of Ellibereth's post.

Before you get all up in arms about how that has nothing to do with alignment, is an illogical reason to have a read, etc. I know all that. I posted some impressions based on stuff that happened within 7 hours of the thread being open. I gave some reasons that came to me as I was writing that post.

I'll concede your point, but, in response. So what? I had no ulterior motive for posting those reads. Just wanted to give my first blush impressions.

[DLG]

@farside- I didn't bother answering DGBs laboured questions because they either covering old crowd or waffle.

How about this?

You maybe provide some quotes, or something to support your accusations. Mudslinging is easy.

Nailed on mafia. Being illogical and telling lies.

Still haven't seen the lies accusation supported, despite asking for it. Nor have I seen a retraction.

You seem to think "jumping on the Psyche wagon" is a damning black mark against someones name

Wrong, but how'd you come to this conclusion?

DLG: moments I think town and moments I go whaaaaatttt. I don't like the few moments where I felt he followed me (FC vote) or the congrates post (seeing his comment as a scretch).

Sure, I followed you onto FatCat. My problems with him started before you ever posted, though. I felt my vote was better used on a wagon of two than isolated out by itself on Junpei.

I wasn't congratulating you on seeing that, I was saying that the unintended consequence of reinforcing my read on you was a good outcome of me stretching the FatCat case.

I'm still happy with my vote. The basic gist is that FatCat is far too touchy over my push on him. He throws mud, but can't back things up. Where that fails, he resorts to personal insults to try to enhance his "case". There is a sense that he's really frustrated that I won't just give him a free pass.

I also feel that he isn't truly interested in getting me lynched as much as making me shut up. There is no rallying cry feeling from him. He's just satisfied that "you look 10 times more guilty."

I guess he's just above having to respond to my "yapping and labored questions." Logic isn't the end-all-be-all to this game. The fundamental emotional response of being angry at being pressured is a more likely scum reaction.

More votes would enhance this.

[DLG]

I'm busting my ass trying to get people to see what a phony and how illogical your reasoning is.

Phony, not at all.

Illogical, perhaps. Certainly guided much more by feel/gut. Thing is, I've often found myself after a game thinking that my gut feelings were far more accurate than my logically inspired reads.

Yeah I'm happy to let it go, I'm sick of your yapping and you look 10 times more guilty.

This does not indicate a desire to lynch. It indicates a desire to make sure you "look" better and make sure I shut up.

That's scum mind-set.

For now, I'll return to voting DLG

Careful, I might actually get lynched.

Will your defense on Day 2 be that it was a splash-making vote?

[DLG]

Point 1. DLG makes a desperate plee to explain his irrationality.
Point 2. Again, you're talking complete and utter horse-manure, how does me saying "You look 10 times more guilty than me" when we're both tied on two votes each not look like an effort to lynch? And how, how, how does it look like an effort to shut you up when it's clearly a very goading statement. What you are saying makes NO sense.
Point 3. You will get lynched, and rightfully so.

1. Desperate? What gives you that impression?

2. It wasn't 2 votes to 2 votes, to be accurate. It was 3 on me, 1 on you. Was that a "lie" on your part?

Saying you're glad to let it go. Is that an effort to lynch?

Are you claiming you made a statement with the intention of making me respond more? I don't believe you.

3. I might. It might even be considered deserved, by some measure, though I'd dispute it. It will be a mislynch. I don't think that is contrary to your wincon, so mazel tov!

Eh, I think it really is time to disengage on this. On the chance I'm wrong about you, a Town v Town scuffle is pretty good cover for scum to hide under.

Outside of me, who do you think is scummy?

[DLG]

Psyche- Your lines so far have been weird, but there's a good chance you're a townie playing around with a weird gambit
Farcry- To be honest, you're using logic, although logic has misguided you to suspect me, I still think you're a townie and I definitely haven't helped my case by being short with you and posting the mocking dialogue.
Junpei- You had a chance to make it L-1 against me, and didn't, in fact you did the opposite, made it clear to me I had to explain myself better instead of squabbling with Farcry, now that I have you're saying I look innocent. This in my eyes makes it 100% certain that you're a townie.

Has something changed since these reads?

I mean, wouldn't that mean it's 1 out of 4?

I'll go first.

I'm still suspicious of Deltabacon. The biggest problem I'm having with this read is that I don't think it very likely he would've immediately jumped on my wagon behind FatCat if they are partners.

Not sure about Slaxx. Robbnva replacing out means nothing. Nothing Earth shaking in his first post. There is a lack of comment regarding me v FatCat, which could indicate him waiting to see which way to play his stance.

If it's Deltabacon instead of FatCat, Slaxx could be a partner due to one simple thing in his post. Everyone talked about is mentioned by name, except Deltabacon. Also, there is no reasoning for why #57 is goodposting, contrary to all the other posts mentioned.

I find both the Ellibereth and Iknal slots less than Townie for the lack of input.

I'm comfortable with farside22 and Psyche as Town reads, still.

I don't particularly think Junpei's reliance on logic is a town tell. But, the follow-up question to Psyche regarding purpose of the reaction tests and what results would have been indicative redeemed him from his first post. I have a slight Town feel on him, now. His vote for me makes sense from his persepctive of logic dictating actions.

@ FatCat
If you're interested, read some of my other games. It might change your opinion regarding my capacity for logic.

Would you like me to respond to that earlier interchange between us?

[DLG]

More on the content generated later.

This meta argument thing, though, is off track.

I didn't ask FatCat to look at my previous games as a self-meta defense. I said to look at them in response to him saying I was right-brained and emotional over logical. He made a judgement about my mind/personality based on posts from me in this game. I said, look at some of my other games to see a different aspect of my mind/personality.

Mind/personality is not alignment indicative.

@ Junpei
The exchange went as follows:

I think maybe you're more of a right brained person, you seem to go on emotions and your logic is deeply, deeply flawed.

If you're interested, read some of my other games. It might change your opinion regarding my capacity for logic.

How do you get that I was making a self-meta defense?
You are working hard to buttress FatCat. Why? It would make sense if you had an avowed strong Town read on him and he was under undue pressure. You don't, and he's not. Now, why?

[DLG]

In addition to this, he completely ignores my argument towards him

Well, that's not true. Post 62

Very dissatisfied with Ellibereth's entrance. It seems specifically targetted to draw attention to himself. The question, is why? Need to read through more thoroughly and get a sense if there was growing momentum against any particular player.

Deltabacon is doing a lot of regurgitating, but I can't tell if that is a function of simply posting less frequently - therefore, many of the points have already been made. It's a fine line between parroting to fit in, and having similar thoughts that someone else has already posted.

@ Deltabacon
Same question as I posed to FatCat. Outside of me, who looks scummy?

@ Ellibereth
I'll join the chorus. More detailed thought are required.

It'd make your random request that everyone mass claim less unnerving.

This read as genuine, to me.

But, did you really think Ellibereth's request was real?

[DLG]

DLG: Inconsistent reads are indicative of a faulty line of thought. Somewhere, you consciously wrote something which was contradictory and did not correct it. Mafia would do this because their reasons aren't through investigation of the situation (which would cause context making the error clear) but rather trying to find someone to suspect (thus attacking people for inconsistent reasons).

Explain why you wanted the back and forth to end yet attacked FatCat for agreeing with you.

Absolute insistence on making sure you are never inconsistent is indicative of reading yourself and grooming your posts to make sure no one can find fault with them. Mafia would do this because they want to avoid suspicion.

We can debate theory post-game, if you want.

You and FatCat, both with the same line of bollocks regarding the disengage thing.

You both ignore the fact that it was him who said this, first.

There is much more evidence to suggest you are infact a mafia, and I think that is plain for all the town to see.

Next, I say

I'm good with letting this back and forth go and letting everyone else make their own reads off of it.

Point is, I was content at that point. The purpose of the debate was to help others to make reads.

From here, FatCat gives his smart-ass reply.

Yeah I'm happy to let it go, I'm sick of your yapping and you look 10 times more guilty.

Later, he tried to defend the latter part as intentionally goading me. If he wanted to disengage, why goad?

I think that's bollocks, though. I think he just wanted the last word and couldn't resist the impulse to be insulting.

Now, you both then want to portray the next event as me re-engaging, after offering to disengage. You both conveniently ignore this, though.

@farside- I didn't bother answering DGBs laboured questions because they either covering old crowd or waffle.

This indicates he is aware he has left questions unanswered, and he wants to paint them as demeaningly as possible. The point is, why bother to respond if you can just make everyone else ignore them through minimizing them?

So, I read both of those, then re-engaged him on the grounds that he's just wanting to insult, not lynch. Clear purpose is to engender dislike for me, but not be totally responsible for the mislynch.

That is scum mind-set.

I find it difficult to believe you missed this, given your "look at everyone as equally suspicious" stance. You are working in tandem with FatCat.

[DLG]

Ahhh, I'm so tempted to hammer that claim.

I may or may not be willing to claim, as I'm not even sure my role exists.

Will respond to Junpei's case once this claim stuff is settled.

FatCat should go next.

[DLG]

Well I really want DLG to claim next

Ah, nobody really got my claim, did they?

I may or may not be willing to claim, as I'm not even sure my role exists.

This was a paraphrasing of

Here is an example of a town role that may or may not appear in the game:

I was only on for a minute, and didn't make it clear, I guess.

CLAIM: VT

if there's still any confusion.

I haven't read everything over completely, but FatCat looks outrageously scummy.

[DLG]

That's an incredibly silly claim.. was that a serious claim attempt?

It was silly, and is really the only thing I regret posting all game.

It was serious in that I meant it to be understood as my claim. Hindsight is 20/20, but I shouldn't have been so unclear.

[DLG]

• This post by DLG
  
• Seems to have a fake tone - It looks likes he's trying too hard to come off of the Psyche wagon and switch onto me
  
  This post by me
  
• DLG's Ellibereth and Deltawave reads contradict each other
  
  Psyche's post pointed out:
  
• Using a reason which wasn't valid anymore to justify an otherwise easy vote
  
  In response to an insult which he should have recognized as an insult
  
• Points to his meta, as if he is consciously conforming to his town meta and wants us to notice
  
• Dodges FatCat's good point
  
  The latest post in a back and forth discussing
  
• DLG showing desire to disengage with FatCat, attacking FatCat for disengaging, and reengaging with FatCat.
  sidenote: Also read the bottom of this post

Iknal:

Iknal, I would love to hear how you think that DLG is not scum given the evidence presented. Don't bother using "gut" response; and being voted because of being active seems like an unfair coincidence to use to write off the case on DLG.

I don't want this to be forgotten: Respond to this asap, and while you're at it give us all your scumreads and an updated read of Deltawave - your current one is honestly incomprehensible and I'd like more explanation.

1. Nothing I can do about your misunderstanding my tone. I came off Psyche for the exact reasons stated. He showed a willingness to be involved and explained the purpose of his first post. Since I was mistaken about his intent, I unvoted. I voted your for the reason stated. Your first post looked suspicious.

2. This has been answered. You can elect to ignore the explanation. Their behaviors were not the same thing, in my view.

The post Deltabacon replied to contained FatCat's vote on Psyche. This was the second vote, and was clearly not RVS.

My conclusion is that Deltabacon would have seen this and chose to only reply to the out of game thing.

My conclusion regarding Ellibereth is that he replied to an in game thing.

It's not a huge disparity, but enough for me to differentiate between them.

3. I really don't get what you're saying. My comment to you from Post #12 was valid, at the time it was made. Psyche wasn't scumhunting in a form I recognized. I was correcting a portion of the question you posed to Psyche, to illustrate my problems with his first posts.

4. I don't think saying someone is right-brained is an insult. Why do you?

Worse (from your logical point-of-view), your conclusion from the exchange is utterly illogical.

The premise was that I was not being logical in this game, therefore, I was scummy. I agreed that I was not being logical. I said to take a look at my past games to see that I can be logical. Most of my past games are me as Town, like everyone else. So, I was pointing out how my play is different in this game versus my past games. To illustrate to FatCat how erroneous he was in basing a judgement of my mind on the posts from this game.

And, you conclude that I was trying to point to my past games to show how closely I was matching my Town meta in this game? How did you arrive at your conclusion?

What good point did I dodge? The one about disengage/re-engage? Again, this has been explained. After I said disengage, FatCat went scummy in a new and exciting fashion. I re-engaged on those grounds. His point was faulty, and supported by evidence that deliberately was missing a crucial piece. You've since tried to make this seem like a great point. It was bunk, then and now.

5. At 77, I wanted to illustrate a facet of FatCat's scumminess that he had only shown after 65. Does that make it clear?

[DLG]

@ Junpei

1. Fair enough. I felt it was the right thing to do, at that time. Both the unvote and the subsequent vote movement(s).

3. You're correct. There was a flaw in the logic contained in my question to you. I was mostly concentrated on his first post. His next two posts, though, read in-line with my mistaken impression that he was just going to fluff around and flaunt being goofy. It wasn't until he was willing to take a stand based on his reading of my reaction to his generalized "reaction test" that I was willing to move on. I didn't realize his intentions until he explained it.

4. Again, I didn't see that as an insult. As for illogic=scummy, from FatCat's point of view, see below.

I think it's more heavily weighted towards mafia, I think anything that seems suspicious or illogical, is always more weighted towards mafia.

Nailed on mafia. Being illogical and telling lies

I think there's probably more, but his overall tone has been to try to equate logic to Townieness and illogic to scumminess.

4/2. I thought disengaging when I brought it up was the right play because I felt the one on one between me and FatCat was threatening to be the only topic of conversation. I felt justified re-attacking based on his follow-up of trying insult away any credence other players might give to my points. It's not scummy to disengage. It's scummy to say, "Yeah, I'll let it go, you're just a nuisance, and I don't have to bother responding to you. I look better than you, anyway."

[DLG]

I'm nonplussed by FatCat's latest posts.

@ Psyche
Is it that farside22 looks scummy which makes FatCat look townie? Or, the other way around? Or, a combination that melded together?

I think had anyone suggested FatCat was a VI while attacking him instead of defending him, he would've screamed about it, not reveled in it.

I can accept your (Psyche) desire to prevent a lynch of a player you're reading as Town. But, do you think FatCat's response with respect to your castigation of him makes sense? I mean, how does he cheerlead his own idiocy as a Town indicator?

I'm still not swayed with respect to farside22 being scum. I'm not convinced that FatCat is just a mislynch begging to happen.

[DLG]

I lost a day of paying attention due to life's demands.

Will read and post my thoughts by this evening.

[DLG]

Alright.

So, the Iknal disappearance is bothersome. If the set of {me, FatCat, Junpei, farside22} is all Town, this is just about a perfect Day for scum!Iknal and partner. Between knowing I'm Town, and my reads on Junpei and farside22, this idea is not far-fetched.

I'm still very much in favor of the FatCat lynch. I don't believe anything he's posted is inconsistent with him getting a scum role PM. This is taking into account what I believe was unvarnished truth, here.

Don't be perplexed. I haven't been been putting in great effort since day 1 or 2. This is my first game and I had no idea these games were taken so seriously or went on for so long, I will happily say I am the village idiot.

That being said, I made a commitment to Amrun when I started this game that I wouldn't flake, so I am happy to see the game through to the end. I'm not going to put in the same levels of research or be as meticulous in what I say as Junpei, Psyche or Slaxx are. If the town went to lynch me, that's fine, I'm not the most useful poster in this thread (although it would be a misslynch). This will be my first and last game on this site, this site isn't really for me.

If FatCat flips Town, I'd investigate Iknal. If FatCat flips scum, I'd investigate Psyche. Will explain this below.

I don't see any difference in tone or intent in Junpei's push on farside22 as compared to his push on me. Both seem designed to pressure what he believes are scum. I don't think he's wrong to think that farside22 was contradicting her stated stance with respect to the viability of OMGUS as a tell. The basic problem I see with how farside22 went about things is that she didn't differentiate that FatCat's OMGUS was done in a scummy fashion as compared to how Town would OMGUS. In her push against FatCat, it was just "look at the OMGUS, lynch him". That indicates a belief that OMGUS is a scum-tell. I acknowldege that there was much more to the case, but this is specifically commenting on how she presented just this portion of the case. That makes Junpei's push justified.

From farside22's point-of-view, though, I don't think she was contradicting herself. I can see how FatCat's posts can be read as scum OMGUS. Since it seems that this was the primary way she digested and processed FatCat's posts/votes, it's not contrary to her belief that OMGUS (as a stand alone behavior) is null. From the perspective of wanting to push for a lynch on a scum read, using the commonly accepted vernacular to get her point across is acceptable. The burden of showing how FatCat's particular OMGUS behavior was scummy (to separate from her stance from another thread) wouldn't occur to her, unless she was overly conscious of making sure to not violate her "meta".

TL;DR re: Junpei v farside22
Town v Town

The push against farside22 was precipitated by Psyche's case. At face value, it looks Town motivated. It shows investment in discovering and lynching scum. I'm uncertain as to how he came away from the validity of it.

This brings me to why I'd look at Psyche if FatCat flips scum. The timing of Psyche's case coincided with growing FatCat dislike. Also, the disparaging defense of FatCat bugs me. I can see a scum motivation behind saying, "pay no attention to that guy, he's really just a VI." It serves to place his hypothetical partner in a fairly safe position. The push which generated the counter-wagon of farside22 is self-explanatory as a scum move.

This theory is not fool-proof. But, if FatCat does flip scum, I would definitely want it ruled out via investigation.

I'm willing to believe both Deltabacon and Ellibereth unless and until game events prove otherwise. Of the two, I think Ellibereth's is more believable. It fully explains his push for a mass-claim and confirms him as Town except in la-la land. I always have some disbelief of a Cop claim generated by being put to L-1, but meh. For some out-guess the Mod thoughts, why put a Cop in a game advertised as being for players who want to concentrate on scum-hunting? Probably paranoia talking, but it still itches at the back of my head.

Slaxx, I'm absolutely null on. His impact on the game appears inoffensive, for lack of a better word. This bugs me at a paranoia level, but I certainly don't consider him a scum read.

[DLG]

Know this farside. When I die, they will sing ballads of my name in the taverns of the town, they will erect a statue of me in the town square. Parents will name their male first borns after me.

"Fatcat, the handsome martyr!!" they shall sing, "died revealing the guilt of she-devil Farside!"

Holy hell! It must be incredibly fun to play knowing you don't care what-so-ever what anyone thinks about your play. I'm not kidding. This has got to be unadulterated fun for you.

How about this verse?

"I named my son FatCat, the self-proclaimed martyr,
God, how I wish I'd had a daughter!"

[DLG]

HEY DLG

bodyguard + 6 townie + 2 scum is imbalanced
bodyguard + cop + 5 townie + 2 scum is balanced

therefore etc.

why didn't you see this?

My bad, on not answering. I saw your question, intended to answer, forgot.

As for your question itself, I don't know game balance. I accept what you're saying as truthful from playing multiple games and exposure through MD threads in general. But, it didn't occur to me to negate being dubious about Deltabacon's claim when coupled with yours.

then the game is already practically solvable.

Agreed. There should be enough consensus at basically every stage to land this as a Town win. Knock on wood to avoid the derps.