Mini 1412: 0 Percent Flavor Mafia Finis

[Yates]

/confirm

[Yates]

Vote: Slandaar

Sour grapes.

[Yates]

Unvote

@havingfitz - Isn't scumchat usually limited to either all the time or night only? If day has started I don't know how they could be "extending their chat."

With a join date of November 7, 2008 - why are you pretending you don't know that scum get to chat prior to the start of the day?

Vote: MonkeyMan576

Out of RVS - scum found.

[Yates]

If a person's join date works against them as evidence, it is silly. Base your accusation on the number of games a person has played - not on their join date. Flimsy.

Flimsy, you say? A little quick to jump the gun there, chief.

I have actually played in games with Monkey. I have actually replaced Monkey in a game [I think it was his slot, anyway]. I am actually more than capable of pointing you here to demonstrate that Monkey has 3287 posts [as of this post] and is averaging over 2 posts per day since signing up. All of this evidence is being presented for your purportedly uninformed consumption to illustrate that Monkey is an active regular player on this site that should be abundantly familiar with this sites meta.

Monkey buddy found, perhaps?

[Yates]

@ Yates how unlikely is it that he'd be unaware of the scumchat timing rules?

Zero percent chance.

I present to you the only evidence you need:

Wherein Monkey is scum ->
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p4503839

Wherein Monkey is scum that spoke prior to game start -> http://www.quicktopic.com/48/H/9exnfGLfxab

Prosecution rests.

[Yates]

Am I wrong?

Yes. You are very wrong. Frame that post in the context of the game. What was the first post at the top of page 3? Let me help:

I didn't realize you hadn't played since 2008

Now do you see what I did there? I realize it is highly sophisticated game play but I think most people in this game knew what I was getting at. More importantly,

Monkey

knows I have played with him and knows how many games he has played. Why would I need to point that out to him? More importantly, why would you pretend to be hung up on semantics?

FOS: -L-

If Monkey flips scum, you just put yourself in a hole you will need to dig yourself out of.

@Monkey

- There is no "misrep."

When you said this:

@havingfitz - Isn't scumchat usually limited to either all the time or night only? If day has started I don't know how they could be "extending their chat."

You were CLEARLY referring to this post:

Extending their QT chit chat?

Which is CLEARLY an extension of this thread:

^ WTF people....confirm already.

Perhaps that's the scum team.

And that thread CLEARLY came before start of Day 1:

Day 1 Start

You were OBVIOUSLY pretending you didn't know scum have chat prior to game start and I want to know why. Pretending this isn't exactly what happened and how it happened and hand waving this as a "misrep" is an unacceptable response.

[Yates]

@ L - Fitz was basically accusing players that were lurking of talking during the day. I was pointing out that I did not know of any scum ability to continue chat into the day unless they have full daychat ability.

This is also clearly a lie. Please see posts and timeline as quoted above.

@Slandaar - also please reread instead of "derping up" the game.

[Yates]

Okay, I see the confusion. I had presumed that when fitz was talking, day had started.

No one is confused. You are lying. You know how this game works and you know the game hadn't started yet because the mod had posted this:

Confirmation will last about another 25 hours

About 2 hours before posting this:

Day 1 Start

So even if you were a noob player, you wouldn't be confused about if the game had started or not. You are not a noob player. You are a site veteran. You know precisely when the game started. You are now caught in your lie. Town doesn't lie.

[Yates]

please do not make me feed you Cheerios again just to get my questions answered

Irony?

That evidence of Monkey's activity was not presented. Only hi join date was presented as a reason to find fault with him...

[Yates]

There's nothing for either town or scum to gain by suggesting pre-day chat isn't available.

Well this is a lie too. If there was nothing to gain, why point it out? Just fluffing the thread? No. Obviously, as scum, you would have been trying to make Fitz look suspicious as someone with inside knowledge of how the scum chat was working in this game - thereby inferring that Fitz is scum for knowing this without actually coming out and calling him scum.

Granted, this is all confirmation bias and assumes you are scum and Fitz is Town but I can't envision a scenario in which you are Town and making these posts.

[Yates]

Honestly did you even bother to check the links?

Did

you?

either I am blind or something but Monkey never actually spoke in this qt.

Monkey is *POST 3* in the QT.

[Yates]

How is this not completely obvious to you?

Have you even read this game yet? Were

you

confused about if the game had started or not when Fitz had made the post Monkey referred to?

Post 110 should be all you need. Monkey is lying. How is this not completely obvious to

you?

[Yates]

That's because you're already convinced of something that isn't even there. If you step back and look at what I said you will see that it is a simple misunderstanding of the timeperiod of fitz's post.

So you are going to maintain that you somehow didn't know the game hadn't started yet despite the fact there was a post from the mod saying the game wouldn't start for 24 hours and despite the fact that the mod post claiming the game had started didn't come until AFTER Fritz's post and despite the fact that YOUR post didn't come until after the mod post that clearly indicated when the game had started? Is this what you are trying to convince me of?

And it was clearly a clarification question, not a question to implicate alignment.

What did you need clarified if you didn't think Fritz's statement was indicative of alignment?

[Yates]

If anyone is lying it's you.

Argumentum ad hominem. It's a thing. Look it up.

You obviously have some motivation for exaggerating this.

My motivation is to find scum. Town doesn't lie. You are clearly lying and continuing to flail now that you are caught in this lie.

If you can answer the question posed to you in post 119 in a truthful and convincing fashion I might be inclined to believe you. Right now I do not and have zero reason to.

[Yates]

making a mountain out of a molehill is not benefiting anyone.

Making mountains out of molehills is how mafiascum is played. This isn't Scooby Doo where we notice someone wearing a prosthetic nose due to evidence of stage glue found in the person's dresser. Why would you pretend otherwise?

If you can answer the question posed to you in post 119 in a truthful and convincing fashion I might be inclined to believe you. Right now I do not and have zero reason to.

[Yates]

Also, to save you time, my meta will illustrate that buddying me does not convince me to put you on my Town list.

[Yates]

I disagree. I don't see how it is possible you didn't know the game hadn't started yet as you are alleging. To me, this sounds like caught scum not thinking through their defense.

I mean if you really think this is a lynchable offence, by all means have at it.

Thanks. I will.

[Yates]

I'm also reading Day 1 of the game I linked to earlier where you were caught scum on Day 1. The pretending to be confused defense didn't work out for you in that one either did it?

[Yates]

Can you link me the most recent two examples?

[Yates]

Yup. When you get around to it. Maybe before hammer if you are Town?

[Yates]

Tired of all the Monkey business.

"Monkey business." LOL.

[Yates]

What did you learn about lying as Town from mini 922?

[Yates]

^^Above is at Monkey.

[Yates]

This is not a positive town attribute to have, and a ballsy one for scum to have.

And you appear to be playing to your scum meta. We each have our crosses to bear.

[Yates]

So if you would like others to believe I am playing to my "meta", how about you support your statement with examples?

Just realized you may be posting from a phone and didn't see that I did.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=19374

That was the hypertext link from "scum meta."

[Yates]

Right now, I'm trying to understand why Monkey is inconsistent in his approach to lurkers and policy lynches.

[Yates]

How so?

In mini 922, for example, you made the following statement in your very first post:
"I don't believe in policy lynches"

Isn't "lynch all lurkers" the same as a policy lynch? I admit that in other games you do mention ACTIVE lurking as being scummy. Which I agree with to a certain extent.

[Yates]

I think L is town

Based on what?

Yates stop ignoring HD and vote him.

Based on what?

[Yates]

Does this site behave differently on a mobile?

My understanding is that some smartphones don't pick up the linked text - I have no first hand experience with this issue.

You're right. That link takes you to the beginning of your scum game. This link: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... lect=12390 should show your posts from your scum game in isolation.

[Yates]

Who are you addressing?

I thought it was fairly obvious he was addressing Slandaar. Why so jumpy?

[Yates]

At any rate, Slandaar, it is better to keep your town thoughts to yourself because it allows the scum to strategize who they will not target with their slander.

This is perhaps the least Town post I have seen in some time.

[Yates]

Totally unrelated but that is how your 'jumpy' question struck me

No it's totally related. I wanted to know why you are so "jumpy" because the message - to an impartial observer - was clearly directed towards Slandaar. The fact that you thought the post needed clarification? It looked like you were concerned the post was directed at you. That's paranoia. For someone with no pressure on them [yet] paranoia is pretty scummy this early in the game.

So we have a Monkey/L scum team so far. I wonder who else is going to out themselves.

PE:
@CS - the only "nonsense" is your characterization of my Monkey case as "nonsense."
@L - Your post is one of the scummiest posts I've seen ON SITE - not just in the thread. While I don't necessarily make my Town reads known unless needed, my scum reads are always put out there with reason. Anyone that doesn't do one of the two is not playing towards a Town win condition.
@Monkey - It's not a stretch. "Lynch all Lurkers" is absolutely a policy. The fact it isn't in a wiki doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I would point you towards the scene in "A Few Good Men" where Kaffee asks Cpl Barnes to point out the mess hall in the "Marine Outline for Recruit Training," but I thought that might be overkill.

On second thought...

Spoiler:

Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Have you read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip to the page of the book that discusses code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, well, you see, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I don't know if it's actually...
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I correct?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: No? Corporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No manual or pamphlet, no set of orders or regulations that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.
[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand]
Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No more questions.

[Yates]

And Yates, you misread my quote if you think I am against sharing scum reads. Read slower, your comprehension is stuttering.

Is that the case? What part of "it is better to keep your town thoughts to yourself" did I misunderstand as being anti-Town?

Spoiler:

it is better to keep your town thoughts to yourself

For someone who claims to "strive for clarity," that certainly wasn't a very clear statement now was it?

[Yates]

Regardless I just don't see it any other way but Monkey confusing the day one start and the confirmation stage, and it doesn't make me feel any better of his wagon.

How many games have you been in on this site, Toch?

[Yates]

126
clashes with
119 he gives the benefit of the doubt to one person but not the other? For the same offense?

Uhhh... what? 119 and 126 both reference Monkey. What am I missing?

121 He ignores monkey's response and continues to attack for no reason. Also calling someone a liar is not ad hominem

How could I have possibly ignored Monkey's response when the links you provide show me QUOTING Monkey's response? Also, I think you need to look up ad hominem. He attacked the player, not the argument. That is the very definition.

You are either absolutely

terrible

Town with poor reading comprehension or - more optimistically - the 3rd member of Monkey's scum team has just been found.

[Yates]

Hmm probably four or so completed, not very proud to say I had to replace out of few more on top.

Have you ever been scum?

[Yates]

scum is always worried about coming off too hard or appearing frantic. Blood in the water. Scum doesn't ever want to look like they are worried.

This is based on what? I see that you have 61 posts so it's clearly not based on your experiences at MS.

[Yates]

@Yates nope always town

As I expected. Anyone that has been on this site for a while and that has been given a scum role would know how scum QT's work. Monkey is a site veteran and, as he has admitted, would absolutely know this. So, I am presented with a scenario in which a site veteran makes a post where he questions how QT's work and how not starting the day [by not confirming roles] helps to extend the scum QT. For someone like Monkey? This comes off as disingenuous. You can choose to believe that he was simply "confused" as to whether or not the day had started, as he alleges, or you can believe as I do that this is his way of back tracking on a gambit that blew up in his face.

I am just now realizing how few experienced players there are on this player list. Slandaar and Monkey are people I have played with in the past and that I am confident should know better. I simply can't see Monkey "forgetting" we were still in twilight when Fritz made his post that started this chain of events.

[Yates]

Which makes me inclined to think Yates as Scum or tunneling townie.

Why can't I be 3rd party like an SK or Survivor?

You are the type of player who is quite like a wasp - squishy, and quick to anger. Very emotional.

It's possible. I guess you would have to know my meta to be sure. Unfortunately for your theory, all of my posts have included objective analysis of facts, posts, and players that include links to irrefutable truths. I would, in fact, challenge you to quote a single post of mine that supports this theory of "emotional" play and that demonstrates a read based on emotion over evidence.

I look forward to you meeting this challenge, L. Also, in order to avoid confusion in the future, please allow the subject of a question to answer any questions addressed to them on their own. Thank you in advance.

[Yates]

@Ace - Please forgive me for confusing you with a noob. Your proposition is 100% noobish so I'm sure you can appreciate my confusion. What other names have you been playing under on this site? It would help for meta purposes. Thanks in advance.

plus yates your constant attacks on monkey man and L possibly the most town sounding people in the game is rather scummy

Ignoring for a moment that neither Monkey nor L have posted anything resembling a Town conversation - could you please point to a recent game where scum has attacked obvtown in some sort of a scum gambit? It sounds like you have extensive experience with this so I would love to see how this gambit has worked out for scum in the past. Again, thank you in advance.

[Yates]

Also HD you're just plain wrong. Monkey man is not scum

In response to this, could you kindly do us all a favor and let us in on the secret of how you have stumbled upon this knowledge? There hasn't been time for an investigation so I guess you can see why I would be confused as to how certain you are of Monkey's alignment if he is - in fact - Town as you claim to know with certainty.

[Yates]

Blood_y_Entrails

Odd.

"No members found for this search criterion."

Yet when you search for "Yates," my name comes up. And, interestingly enough, many of my precrash posts can be found by searching my posts. Baffling that the same is not true of you.

I guess you are right. I will have to judge you sans-meta and assume that your noobish thought process is either derp Town or poorly veiled scum. Vote wisely.

[Yates]

Emotional types always respond in this manner.

Ah yes. The old strawman defense when unable to provide actual supporting context. Got it. Noted.

[Yates]

@L - what do you make of theaceofspades' inability to provide a valid previous userid?

Also, thanks for the link. I didn't have that site bookmarked but it's worth being able to reference in the future for when you continue using logical fallacies.

I didn't ask you to "defend" anything. I simply asked you to provide objective evidence. The inability to do so would suggest that perhaps you are mistaken, wouldn't you agree?

[Yates]

@aceofspades - why doesn't your old id work when

yates

anyone

searches for it?

Fixed that for you.

[Yates]

While it prevents searching out his meta, I am not a player who wastes time searching meta

As someone who claims to be like "Spock," you wouldn't consider a deviation from meta to be valid information? For example, using meta I was able to illustrate that Monkey would know how scum QT's work. If that had caught him in a lie, would that not be sound evidence?

I am wary of ace's inability [unwillingness?] to provide his previous userid specifically because I believe he is concerned that his past meta may contradict his current play. I don't see why Town would be overly concerned with this though I do see why scum would be.

[Yates]

I do not discount any information gained for the town. In no way did I discount meta as a viable source of information.

I merely mentioned my own dislike for searching for meta.

Again, as someone who professes to crave clarity, please be more clear in the future.

With my previous post in mind, do you see why I would be interested in understanding why Ace is unable/unwilling to provide the requested information? Also, do you think his inability/unwillingness makes him more Town/less Town/makes no difference?

[Yates]

Try not perceiving, read what writte

Context. It's a real life thing. Consider it.

[Yates]

it has been my observance that Third party play is basically scum play

Interesting. In my experience the opposite is absolutely true. Since the SK doesn't know the scum team, they need to play as Town as possible in order to not be investigated.

This of course is all moot as I was simply making a jab at the fact you included me in 100% of the available alignment possibilities which is the same as not having a read at all.

[Yates]

When I catch a whiff of scum, I kill them. But I'm pro-town, always.

I agree with this and that's why I said SK needs to play as if they are Town. However, that still isn't the point and you claim to be against tangential arguments.

Scum wouldn't necessarily object to the idea they were tunnelling if confronted about it in such terms as I did.

And you think Town would act any different? Let's call a spade a spade. You made a fluff post about my alignment that pretended to be a contribution but that didn't actually state anything. At best, that post can be construed as fence sitting and that is not a position you want to be in.

[Yates]

It's not like I could make an old account invisible just so you couldn't find meta on me.

No one is accusing you of doing so. Actually, I was accusing you of not being honest about your former userid. That would account for not being able to find it.

And just for the record. I don't do meta anyway. It's distracting to me.

The way you play mafia has no bearing on the way people good at this game play mafia. You realize that meta can sometimes help you out of a jam when someone is accusing you of lying, right?

Finally. Why do you care so much? Having meta or not having meta isn't a viable read either way.

You claim you aren't a noob yet everything about your play suggests otherwise. Meta would help *ME* understand if you are scum, actually a noob, or if you are legitimately confused bad Town. Knowing how someone has responded to certain scenarios and situations in the past certainly isn't 100% effective but it *can* be a useful tool for evaluating your play and, by proxy, your alignment.

[Yates]

"I didn't understand your bolded statement.

Is this what you are looking for?

This of course is all moot as

I was simply making a jab at the fact you included me in 100% of the available alignment possibilities which is the same as not having a read at all.

[Yates]

and I'd like to repeat the question of. How many scum are there?

Protip - don't play outguess the mod on Day 1. You don't have enough information and it never ends well for you.

[Yates]

Also, as an aside, those scenarios are laughable and clearly not representative of how games are balanced on MS. Which reinforces my initial read that you are either a noob, terrible Town, or even more terrible scum.

[Yates]

I disagree that his gameplay is noobish.

Based on the post regarding setup spec? I'm okay with you disagreeing with me because you two likely come from a similar mafia type site that is vastly different from what is going on here. None of the theories the two of you have proposed would make it past the rubber stamp stage of a balanced game.

[Yates]

I am looking for an explanation of "against tangential arguments".

What precisely do you need explained?

Are you confused about when you claimed to be against tangential arguments or are you confused about what the tangential argument is?

[Yates]

He postings doesn't sound townie to me for very reason that they don't like any scum hunting.

How do you define "scum hunting?" Would you disagree that one of the primary tenets of scum hunting involves challenging reads and finding ways to get scum to slip up?

[Yates]

see this is how i look at, If you're town, you need patience, no patience means scummy...

That's the wrong way to "look at it." Honest responses to questions shouldn't take very long. Fabricating lies as responses to questions and ensuring that you never contradict yourself, however, is very time consuming. Who do you think is more likely to fabricate lies; scum or town?

[Yates]

I have played mafia much longer than you have, and probably longer than you have been alive.

Unlikely.

@yates, once again, I am wondering about your tangential arguments comment. Did I say I was against tangential arguments? If I remember correctly, you are referring to my avoidance of your derail into your personality. That is not tangential. But because you are interpreting it as tangential, you believe I am against tangential arguments. Your comment is incorrect.

I am not going to get into a semantic argument with you. Call it a derailure, call it tangential, call it excursive, call it a cuisinart. I don't care what you want to call it. You were unable to provide supporting evidence so you called my argument a derail. Fine. I have it noted and we are continuing on. When I actually DO make a comment that could be considered a derail/tangential argument, you are all over it. That is inconsistent with your stated play preference so you should expect to be called out on your inconsistency in play.

Why are you being inconsistent? Is it because you didn't have an answer in the first case but are willing to obfuscate when the point doesn't center on your play in the second?

[Yates]

you don't need a quick response to say if the person has been honest with you or not

That may be true. However there is a reason that "active lurking" is a scum trait. Are you familiar with this concept?

There is a reason that someone avoiding answering a difficult question is also considered a scum trait. It looks very bad because it means that the person could be talking to their buddies in the scum QT [some games have scum DAY chat] or they could be trying to fabricate a defense.

Then, of course, there is the concept of the "Bettlejuice Tell" where someone is lurking until their name is mentioned then all of a sudden that person makes a post.

In none of these scenarios would patience benefit Town. If we were on the verge of hammering someone in 24 hours without a confirmed guilty? That would be a different story.

[Yates]

back to the game...

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I thought we

were

playing the game by level setting expectations.

so who are your major suspects?

Monkey, L, and to a lesser extent Ace at the moment. I could also buy a Fritz scum argument but it would need to be a hard sell. I will go on record as stating that I will be relying on everyone else for a Slandaar read because he always reads as scum to me even when Town. Also, you aren't looking so hot yourself so I eagerly anticipate you dazzling me with your amazing scum hunting abilities now that you are officially active.

[Yates]

That is the worst tip I've ever heard. DOn't try and think about how many mafia there might be?

Not on Day 1. I'll let your buddy restate it so you might be more inclined to listen:

I can agree with your comment about not out-guessing the mod - but merely speculating is not outguessing.

What do you know as of this second that is mod confirmed outside of your role? Absolutely nothing - unless you are scum, in which case you know your scum team.

How many killing roles do we have, ace? Do we have a vig, ace? Do we have an SK, ace? Are we in multi-ball, ace? How many Town PR's do we have, ace? How do our PR's affect balance, ace?

So unless you have information to share about who your scum buddies are, setup spec on

Day 1

is a waste of internet 0's and 1's. How about you table this discussion until there are some mod confirmed actions Day 2, ace?

[Yates]

Expectations are bad!!!

I guess we play this game very differently.

As of now, Havingfitz, HD, Monkeyman and bit of L looks okay townie to me.

Why? Can you name anything any of these people have done that would earn them Town credit so early on without so much as a flip? I ask this in earnest because I don't understand "Town reads" without any mod confirmation.

[Yates]

SO my new theroy (based on yates advice) is that there are 12 scum and one town. And you guys are all scum but just trying to lull me to sleep before i die.

lol - it took me 20 minutes to catch up on the posts, but it was worth it for the ending

Feel free to comment on post 260.

[Yates]

Which reminds me...

@aceofspades

- why haven't you answered post 191 yet?

[Yates]

I’m definitely in the same school of thought as Ace or =L= in that I think at least trying to guess the make up of the game is useful

ON DAY 1?

And I decided to interpret your question "...” as rhetorical

A breath of logic. Bravo. That line of questioning was simply an illustration of how unproductive an exercise it is to try to figure this stuff out with zero information.

PE: PE means preview edit - it's an edit to add information when a post appears as you are about to post. PR is power role. Multi-ball is two [or more] killing factions. [This is an example of a multi-ball game I was just in.] SK is serial killer.

[Yates]

Well anyone with fewer posts than the mod should probably push up their sleeves, sharpen their pencils, read the thread, and get to work.

[Yates]

I will go on record as stating that I will be relying on everyone else for a Slandaar read because he always reads as scum to me even when Town.

We have never been town/town in a game so this statement is wrong.

See it's posts like this that make me think you are a steaming pile of scum because it is *almost* true but falls apart under any actual scrutiny.

For one thing, you read people for alignment even if you know the other person's alignment. If I'm playing you as scum, I'm trying to find ways of "proving you are scum."

You are also trying to pretend like in Hiplop's game I didn't have to read everyone because I was an SK - which we all know is nonsense. You know how I killed scum MoI? Reads. You know how I killed scum Pine? Reads. You were probably next on my hit list - since I *DID* have a scum read on you - but the actual scum took you out for me.

You are also trying to make it sound like I don't read games I'm not in for meta reasons. Off the top of my head? I read Mini 1347 for Thor and Maestro meta and Mafia 158 which I *just read* for Qwints and Majiffy meta.

You have read as scum in ALL of these games despite actually being scum in 1. So my statement that you "always read as scum" is valid and you basically helped me prove that with your own links. So... thanks? I guess...?

Also as an aside - your 1 vs 1 gambit is garbage. 1 vs 1's seldom pay off and you know it.

[Yates]

You think I don't have a case; OK.

Well, you DON'T have a case until you post it so I would agree that you don't have a case. If you have something resembling a case rattling around in skull it would be nice to see it laid out for the class to share.

[Yates]

My eventual conclusion was that Slandaar was correct that they've never both been on a town team together

Right. This is the only part of his statement that holds as true. We have never both been Town together that I recall. It's possible we were both Town in a game eaten by Tigers but that stuff is out in the cyberspace trash heap never to be seen again. The conclusion he comes to as a result, however, is fallacious.

[Yates]

...words...

How about responding to the rest of the post.

[Yates]

This is minor anyway.

Agreed. This is actually null. The order of vote->post or post->vote doesn't mean anything.

Why didn't you vote? is stronger worded,

Maybe, but again this is not indicative of alignment so much as playing style. If anything, he's at least trying to provoke conversation. So this point does not add scum points and might even add a partial Town point.

Immediately we get a 'hey I never said that! no need to be so defensive!'

Which is a true statement, actually. If the previous post is, as I suspect, a conversation prod then this is a legit response. Also, he is voting [albeit RVS] early in the game so the last part of this point is not valid.

you do not ask someone why they did something and give them the answer to it at the same time, it makes the question meaningless as shown

Are you saying Town doesn't post rhetorical questions? I'm fairly confident I;'d be able to find an example of you doing this as Town if push came to shove.

I mean does that read town? he didn't even press me on it, he accepted the answer I gave him

I read the eye roll emoticon as your response. That doesn't read as "acceptance." That reads as "you are being foolish/making foolish statements." I may be interjecting that because that is what *I* was thinking but again, you are misrepping at best which looks worse for you than the "evidence" you are presenting does for HD.

He is thinking too much about how he is perceived.

Why is he so worried about how he will be perceived when he has simply taken new information on board and changed his mind?

This is a legitimate point. I actually marked that for future reference as well. It's a little early to tell if that is Town paranoia or scum paranoia though. Speaking of paranoia...

Why is he associating me with Monkey?

Because you defended Monkey. Why are you so upset by this? Do you know Monkey will flip scum?

if I were scum why would I lie?

If you are Town, why didn't you just post this when you said you had a case on him?

Overall, this is not a good case, Slandaar.

[Yates]

Proof fwiw; Yates as an SK wasn't trying to read me.

Nonsense. The fact that I shot effectively while keeping pressure off myself is all that matters. Also, ftr, the fact that you *looked* scummy was enough for me to want to shoot you next. So try to take that statement out of context all you want, the proof is in the pudding.

[Yates]

Which reminds me...

@aceofspades

- why haven't you answered post 191 yet?

[Yates]

So, how does me only voting one person mean anything?

IMO you appear to have fabricated a case to fit the vote. The vote should follow the evidence and it looks like you did it backwards. That's a pretty major scum point, actually.

[Yates]

other people besides me have brought up very valid points against him.

Can you list some of these "valid points" for Town consumption? Thanks in advance.

[Yates]

Fitz - @Yates...why are you focusing on what you perceive the experience levels (right or wrong) of the other players is

First - why? Do you think this is a scum tell? Do you think meta is not useful? Do you think holding a veteran to a higher standard than a noob is inappropriate?

I have actually answered this question for at least one of the people involved in thread. I will tie it up in a neat bow once you explain how this will assist in finding scum.

He's posted more than anyone but I'm not sure how productive he's been

Well of course you don't know how productive I've been. We haven't had any flips yet for analasys, have we? Do you think my posts have prompted discussion? Do you think my posts have prompted reactions? Do we have more context as a result of my posts? Who has been MORE productive in this game than me? Does that make them Town?

lynch HD and Yates the two of them don't interact which is strange

I haven't interacted with more than half the players in this game. Does that make me scum with half the players in the game? Why focus on HD? If anything, this shows a complete lack of understanding of how associative tells work. You would need a scum flip by one of us in order to make that accusation otherwise, you are simply trying to force a mislynch [in my case] for information purposes which is suboptimal.

So, do you have any points that would - you know - indicate that I'm scum as opposed to someone provoking conversation?

[Yates]

I would like to hear Yates and HD's respective opinions of one another, and I don't think I'm the only one.

It's about the same as my perspective on you. An equal measure of effort has been put into reading your posts.

[Yates]

Yates (as stated previously) is my only main suspect at present.

Let's look at the "as stated previously" part.

On Monkey Man. I can't really see him as scum.

Which makes me inclined to think Yates as Scum or tunneling townie.

Scum wouldn't necessarily object to the idea they were tunnelling if confronted about it in such terms as I did.

So you are stating, for the record, that your case on me is confirmation bias [in the first case] and the opinion that scum and only scum wouldn't object to the accusation of tunneling? Is this what you are saying?

[Yates]

Yates has no intention of stopping his tunneling

Hey Monkey? Did you have fun as scum in this game here? http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=10946

I only ask because you accused alexhans [VT] of tunneling so many times it prompted this HILARIOUS response from another VT!

Is this a secret mafia drinking game where we all have to take a shot every time MonkeyMan posts "tunnel vision?"

[Yates]

So you're here and you are reading. Why didn't you answer 333 first?

Also, do you concede that tunneling is not exclusive to scum?
Do you also concede that accusing someone of tunneling is not exclusive to Town?

[Yates]

Yates just explain to me how you could have read me scum in the game with Thor when I lynched scum day 1 basically singlehanded and the onyl reason I didn't get nked n1 is due to a bad copclaim (read really really bad)

That was a good catch - credit where credit is due - but it never would have happened without AP. You are also glossing over the fact you got Kondi, Phil, and Pidgey mislynched. So my thought as I was reading was that you bussed mcstab. I was actually surprised when you flipped Town at endgame when scum won.

In this game? I look at this as an example:

MONKEY: Day started on page 2 where mod posts the VC: READ THE MODS POSTS ALSO.

Now, reread and post after.

Noteworthy that this is your next post following the above coaching session?

Monkey clearly thought the day had started hence the pregame talk was over.

How is this not completely obvious to you?

It obviously doesn't mean anything to me without a flip but if Monkey flips scum this will be brought back up.

[Yates]

Id honestly rather not get into any wall arguments with you yates

Why not? Are you afraid to have your "arguments" public for after I am mislynched or NKed? That is an EXTREMELY anti-Town position to take. If you are going to pretend someone is scummy enough to vote for them you need to at LEAST post why.

In totality, you have listed precisely ZERO actual reasons for voting for me. And that's bad. Like. REAL bad.

[Yates]

Oh man. That reminds me!

Monkey, in regards to your assertion that I am not scum hunting and that I have said a lot but haven't actually contributed much [per your Frittz quote]? Why would you even include that in your make believe case against me after saying this?

Scum would not want to polorize things so much, they would want to sit back and let the town mislynch. We are getting a lot of information from this which is great for the town, so you should be thanking me.

I mean... *I* am the one that created this polarity you speak of! NOW I understand why you refuse to build an ACTUAL case against me to support your vote.

[Yates]

Ive listed five. You may not agree with them, but I wouldnt expect scum too.

No you haven't. You have listed three quotes from other people - none of which are valid or pertinent but that's beside the point - but none of your own. I find that odd.

[Yates]

Oh wait. You accused me of tunneling. So that's 1 for you. One that objectively applies equally to Town and Scum but I'm giving you 1.

[Yates]

So, am I correct in believing that HD's suspicion of Slandaar (and vote) is based on Slandaar's "defense' associative relation to Monkey?

You forgot the part where Slandaar stretched the case to fit the player

That's kind of important too

She's right, though. Outside of confirmation bias, do you have anything that would give you cause to vote for Slandaar?

[Yates]

Why are you suggesting there is something wrong with showing someone why they have no clue what the case on them is and trying to show someone else why the case is bad? Because I can see what is going on and so decide to sort the mess out I am associated with them?

I should have left Monkey having no clue and you making a case which is clearly wrong? Why would I do this as town exactly?

Is this addressed to me? If so, I don't recall even inferring any of this...

[Yates]

You call it coaching, explain why if I were town would I not do exactly the same?

That's why I'm saying it doesn't mean anything until Monkey flips scum.

[Yates]

Tunneling is scummy.

Only if you are wrong. Otherwise it's called "catching scum" or "driving the wagon that caught scum." Take, for example, the game I linked you to earlier where Town-alex "tunneled" you and you were scum. Here's a reminder link: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=10946

It means you aren't interested in looking at different options and opens up a strong possibility of confermation bias.

Which is a hilarious accusation in light of the conversation I'm currently having with Slandaar. Also, in light of the conversation I *just had* with HD about his own confirmation bias.

I also accused you of being omgusy.

Oh that's true. You did. Do I need to go show examples of Town being OMGUSy? Or perhaps I should go link to an example of where YOU were OMGUSy as Town?

Two reasons isn't enough to vote someone? Plus I agreed with the other people who have scummy opinions of you.

Two non-reasons isn't enough. Also, agreeing with people calling someone scum doesn't make it so. This is especially true because the links you pointed to do not in any way indicate that I'm scum. So, I guess you see why I would be confused.

[Yates]

OK same question again; assume monkey is scum; why would I not do exactly the same as town?

Timing more than anything. But, in context with a confirmed scum flip on Monkey that would certainly count against you as it DOES look like coaching.

[Yates]

I also accused you of being omgusy.

Well THAT didn't take long...

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p4634039
According to *YOU*:

I'm not sure you understand what OMGUS is.

OMGUS is voting for someone attacking you with a valid case.

So how am I "omgusy" per your definition? I voted you first and haven't changed my vote so.... AND even if you want to try to broaden your definition, there has not been a valid case brought against me [or even a valid POINT brought against me] so... yeah.

[Yates]

I'd suggest we try avoid personal insults

Is this directed at L?

[Yates]

I'd suggest we try avoid personal insults

Is this directed at L?

Says the one who constantly berates players. Beachy one this is.

Chill. I scrolled up to see who he was talking about and saw this:

You are a peanut

which I didn't think seemed to be enough to elicit a post regarding decorum. Nor does the post he was

actually referring to

but that's a separate issue.

[Yates]

Yates - are you serious?

Yup. It was the first example of name calling I came to. What's your point?

[Yates]

Which explains why I saw you reading at the bottom of these forums earlier today - JUST as I mentioned reading your meta...

[Yates]

Were you really reading meta for potential replacements?

As much as I wish I were that insanely good at this game, the simple truth is that I just replaced in to a game with you. It's still night so you probably haven't noticed yet.

@Stanislavsk...

I like you. You make me laugh. I hope you are Town.

[Yates]

L's minuscule content to noise ratio deserves the most scrutiny.

Couldn't the same be said of Matt?

[Yates]

Monkeyman is scum. Not because of anything Yates has said

Where's the :smug emoticon: when I need it? You are the first person to pick up what I've been laying down. The "not because of anything Yates has said" part isn't as accurate as "not because of anything Yates has summarized yet" though because he is expressely scummy for reasons brought to light as a result of my posts. Two different animals, to be sure.

@Ald, I've made a pretty substantial case, so I'm not sure where you get that from.

That's the point, Monkey. You

haven't

made a case, nevermind a
"substantial" case. Your inability to support your read on a rapidly forming wagon is SUPER scummy as it creates a logical distance from my flip. By not commiting to your read you are attempting to fabricate a scenario in which your defense for the mislynch is simply "well it isn't scummy to be wrong," rather than to have your evidence scrutinized later.

This, incidentally, is something ace is guilty of as well but he has his own section in this post.

He literally admits he didn't try to read me when he was an SK

Already addressed. You are faking a conclusion that is not accurate. You are also faking a read on the game where you "caught scum" day 1. If you were so hyper obvious Town, how did you make it to lylo? Everyone here knows scum only bring the people they want to lylo and you were the one. Maybe it had to do with your bad reads or the three other Townies you helped them lynch?

Since it is useless to make it your word against mine, here are some snippets from the scum QT to show you how worried THEY were about you:
"26 - Slandaar can still be lynched, particularly for protecting me."
"27 - I'll get Pidgey, Implo, or Slandaar lynched tomorrow"
"31 - Slandaar and pidgey are lynchable."

Bottom line, you are clearly not capable of objectively reading yourself so you can not possibly pretend to know how others would read you. The scum in the game you claim you were obvTown in thought you posted scummy enough to be a mislynch. So that eaily supports my assertion that I read you as scum in that game. I'm sure I could go through game by game and show other examples but it doesn't matter. You are wrong. Move on.

I dont feel Yates is scum, He is quite visible and if he was scum he wouldn't draw so much attention to himself

While I appreciate the Town read, this is a very bad reason to make me Town. You would be surprised at how often scum try to "lead the Town" on this site. I am telling you this now because scum are very likely to take [or be takng] a very visible role in this game and you can't allow that to be the reason not to vote for someone.

Do you really think he wasn't actually asking me the question?

Right... This really looked more like a half question. One of those scenarios where he answered his own question in the form of a question more for validation. So I guess "rhetorical question" isn't exactly right but serves in lieu of a better word I can't think of. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

Which reminds me...

@aceofspades

- why haven't you answered post 191 yet?

I'm not letting you off the hook, ace.

[Yates]

And I know you are around Yatesy so come play.

I had a lot to respond to. I have a special section in that post for you. Let's play.

[Yates]

@Slandaar

Actually, this is from my own post that should clear up what I was saying before about "rhetorical" or not:

If you were so hyper obvious Town, how did you make it to lylo?

^ Rhetorical because...

Everyone here knows scum only bring the people they want to lylo and you were the one.

Maybe it had to do with your bad reads or the three other Townies you helped them lynch?

The "other kind" where I'm just looking for affirmation/confirmation - not REALLY asking you a question.

[Yates]

I am actually starting to get a town read on Yates, based on his feedback to arcangel and that town do have a tendancy to tunnel. May change my vote soon.

Is that really the reason?
Or is the real reason because you can't fabricate a case on me?
Or is the real reason because the Yates wagon is falling apart and you don't want to be the last one on it?

Even if you get off the wagon now, Monkey, you still need to give your own VALID reason

for being on it in the first place.

[Yates]

Monkey - I am more than capable of objectively assessing a case on me. I am telling you that if your "case" was on anyone else in this game I would be saying the same thing. You do not have a case. You have not presented a case. Even the quotes you linked to from other people as reasons for possibly finding me scummy are not alignment indicative.

I also disagree with your assessment that "most people" don't seem to have a problem with "your case." How could you possibly know this? Have people been quoting "your case" on me as evidence as to why I'm scummy? If anything, I think people are ignoring "your case" because it is nonexistent.

Even if you decide to jump off my wagon, *I* want to know - in your own words - why you were there in the first place. If it is because of alleged OMGUS and tunneling? We are going to have some words.

[Yates]

So you see where you have no objective evidence. Which leads me to some questions about the WIFOM reasons you jumped on:

What's the difference between Tunneling and not listening to others?

Where do I appear to be concerned with appearing Town? And if you honestly believe this, is this a trait you think Town wouldn't be concerned with?

Who have I buddied?

[Yates]

How am I supposed to have objective evidence when 99% of your content has been related to me?

Well that's clearly a characterization. As of this post I will have 105 posts in this game. You are saying all but 1 post has been about you. I'll assume you were being figurative and simply state that your post unfairly marginalizes the conversations I've been having with Slandaar, L, ace, and others.

You buddied qwints

Fair enough. I can understand how that post could look like buddying from the outset. See? I can be objective.

You're concerned with appearing town I'm guessing either because you are scum wanting to endgame or because if you are town you'd rather scumhunt and not have to worry about wagons against you.

Right. So you are saying in your own words that being concerned with appearing Town is not indicative of alignment. Neither is tunneling. Neither is OMGUS. Neither is buddying. This is why I am telling you that you didn't have a case.

I believe that parroting, on the other hand, *IS* a scum-leaning trait because it allows you to interject an opinion on someone without actually committing to your own read. Would you agree or disagree with this statement?

[Yates]

Hey Ace! Now that you've dropped that post that illustrates no effort on your behalf, how about you take a look at this?

Which reminds me...

@aceofspades

- why haven't you answered post 191 yet?

[Yates]

To the first part of 191. Yeah that was a mistake. I forgot that I was talking about you. I mixed you and HD up. Simple as that.

Okay...? So one of the main tenets of your argument against me was a mix up and "woopsie?" Has this caused you to reread that portion of the thread?

TO the second part. YOu don't respond to his comments. YOu just quote them. They are left un-refuted.

Did you actually read the post? Serious question because it would be impossible for you to come to this conclusion based on this:

If anyone is lying it's you.

Argumentum ad hominem. It's a thing. Look it up.

Short of saying "No you," Monkey could not have been less effective at defending himself. I presented evidence that he was lying and explained why I was having difficulty reconciling this as a simple mistake as he was claiming. Rather than presenting evidence to the contrary, he simply said "I'm not a liar YOU are!" Short of calling him out on his nonsense, what more was there to respond to?

Also, look at this:

You obviously have some motivation for...

My motivation is...

How is that NOT responding to his comment when I not only quote it but respond directly to it? Is this another "woopsie" moment for you where you confused me with someone else?

[Yates]

Incidentally, there is an add-on that can be used to count votes automatically. I don't know if Mehdi uses it, but it picks up votes with regular bold tags as well.

These are your thoughts on the game thus far? Or can we expect an enormous catch up post shortly? I am

really

hoping it's the later.

[Yates]

Short of saying "No you," Monkey could not have been less effective at defending himself.

That's selective quoting. I expanded on my opinions in that very post.

It is selective quoting. It was selected for a conversation that doesn't actually include you despite being centered on posts involving you. Let me ask you this, regardless of if you agree or disagree with my final assessment, do you feel like I have been ignoring you?

Are you seriously not going to make an attempt to hunt anyone else...

What makes you think the polarizing nature of the Monkey discussion and ensuing fallout isn't helping me hunt other people? I don't want to put words in your mouth but aren't you the one that said this:

the situation right now is good for the town because

it is causing people to take sides on an issue early in the game

. Scum would not want to polorize things so much, they would want to sit back and let the town mislynch.

We are getting a lot of information from this which is great for the town

, so you should be thanking me.

???

[Yates]

You do realize he's the backup mod

Right

Well. I guess I just look silly now, don't I?

[Yates]

You know what? Screw that! I'd love for Richard to give us his reads anyway!

[Yates]

Lol. Vote RichardGHP to pressure him? Or would that be rude

These are your thoughts on the game thus far? Or can we expect an enormous catch up post shortly? I am

really

hoping it's the later.

[Yates]

The post you have all been waiting for - Why Yates is not "tunneling" on Monkey:

Yates, do you still think that was a mafia slip up, or are you maintaining your vote vs Monkey for another different reason?

I would just like to be clear that I never thought that was a slip up. I thought [and continue to think] it was a

fake

slip/gambit. However, while that is what turned me on to Monkey in the first place, that is only part of the reason I'm maintaining my vote on Monkey. The fact of the matter is that he has not satisfactorily addressed my concern that *I* believe he intended for that to be a fake Town slip, got caught, then weakly tried to defend it by pretending he didn't know day had started. I will admit that at this point that would be a lot to ask of him. Call it a "tunnel" if you want but I find it hugely suspicious that it took him TWELVE posts to come up with the "Okay, I see the confusion" post. Not enough to make him scum on it's own, granted, but a major indicator - much like a slow claim or botched claim.

What I find more fascinating about Monkey, and something I have been waiting for someone else to point out, is that he claims one of the biggest reasons he voted me had to do with my "omgusy" play. The irony here is that he claims to have multiple reasons for voting me yet is unable to articulate a single alignment indicative tell - which basically translates his vote as nothing more than omgus for not letting up on him, not unvoting him, and forcing him to answer for his actions and claims. Again, OMGUS isn't an actual scum tell. However, if you are going to accuse someone of being scum for omgus reasons, you better not be doing it yourself. Monkey, in my opinion, is and that is hypocritical. Hypocrites are scummy.

Also of note is that Monkey's meager attempts at putting something together that resembled a case on me was to parrot, quote others, and in general distance himself as much as possible from the repercussions of a Yates Town flip.
Take a look at these posts from Monkey's ISO: 325, 331, 342, 369, 377, 415, 438
Every time he calls me scummy, he hedges by either directly quoting someone else or by pointing out that other people think this way too. By not offering his own content or case, he can divorce himself of culpability by simply pointing out that others thought the same thing so "oops I guess we were wrong, guys" and let's move on to the next mislynch. That's actually a very strong scum indicator as scum

typically

want to be able to hold someone

else

accountable for a mislynch. That's a tough trick to pull off if you are the conductor on the train. When you are riding in the caboose [or more appropriately - coal car], like Monkey, you find yourself perfectly positioned.

Obviously, a lot of my case on Monkey has to do with confirmation bias so it would be difficult for me to convince others to join the Monkey wagon based on some of these tells. However, I have always intended to make this post. I just needed to give Monkey opportunity to prove me wrong because I clearly don't have a smoking gun - just MAJOR suspicion.

Suffice it to say that from my perspective my Monkey vote is clearly about MUCH more than a fake slip.

[Yates]

THat was the least compelling of the evidence. and I see you have handily ignored the rest.

Okay, then what was the MOST compelling piece of evidence? I am fairly confident I have already addressed it at some point but I would be happy to address any remaining concerns.

Also, what did I "handily ignore?" I can only answer the questions you ask, not the questions you MEAN to ask.

[Yates]

So basically you aren't gonig to bother with anyone else, you are just going to keep on trying to get me lynched, and then work off of who is reacting to me tomorrow. Decent plan I suppose, but you could do that for anyone and it would be better if you were actually tunneling scum.

I believe you have your answer in post 484.

[Yates]

Anyway, your point is HD wasn't really asking me why I was voting him?

Yes. Just looking for confirmation. That's my interpretation. You should be asking HD, though.

What do you think of my Monkey case? Am I tunneling or is this case legit?

[Yates]

Are you saying that Monkey was Mafia pretending not to know the chat rules the Mafia would have to play by in order to make himself look less Mafia?

Yes. The "Town slip" gambit is actually something *I* used successfully as scum in Heroes of Comedy. Here's where Tammy almost caught me and summarizes nicely:

inte - this is the second time Yates has made a slip like that. I don't know what to make of it though. In the opening post of the day he said he still had Pap's as town, even though he was dead. So, saying we don't have a flip yet. erm...IDK...one of the things that always sets off alarm bells for me is when scum act like they don't know something. Scum feign ignorance about stuff all the time and people let them go for it.

She had no way of knowing just how right she was because:

scum goon yates Kill: Pappums Rat

That's right. I pretended I didn't realize Pappums Rat was dead and *I* was the one who killed him! If Tammy had stuck to her instincts and gotten a Yates lynch, she might have survived and Town likely would have won. There's a lesson to be learned there.

MM would be correct that Mafia would either talk all the time or not be able to talk in daytime, making havingfitz's suggestion they were extending chat by extending the day an obvious error.

I would agree with you if Fitz had made that qualifier in his post and write this off as a simple mistake. However, this is what Fitz

actually

said:

Extending their QT chit chat?

That's it. That's the whole post. I caught flak for pointing out that Monkey is not a noob earlier in this day period - the whole point of pointing out his experience is that anyone that has been on this site as long as he has [longer than me, to be sure] *should have* read that as scum extending pre-dawn. There would be no reason for him to assume Fitz was referring to day chat. In fact, that assertion doesn't even make sense in context as day chat would be an ongoing thing regardless of when people confirmed in. In fact, the ONLY way retarding confirmation could possibly help scum would be by extending night chat during the pre-dawn period.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Monkey's defense, the one you are currently using to clear him, doesn't even make SENSE.

[Yates]

I didn't say to assume it, but it would make a lot more sense for me to be town and him to be scum than for me to be scum and him to be scum. Sure bussing is not uncommon, but townMonkey would make an awfully easy target and explain why he doesn't want to give up his argument.

OMG this is terrible. If I were on a scum team with you I would bus the crap out of you D1 just for the Town points [making myself nearly unlynchable] and to prevent you from screwing the rest of our buddies.

[Yates]

This is before he knows whats going on, so he clearly was talking about after game starts and so the story makes sense and the defence wins.

This is only true if you choose to believe Monkey is telling the truth about his "simple mistake."

I will admit that as a result of a crap ton of Monkey meta I did last night, I am starting to find it difficult to distinguish between terribad Town Monkey and scum Monkey.

I was going to drop this on Monkey if he persisted in his current mode of parroting and pointing out things others had already said:

Thinking like everyone else doesn't make you town. In fact, mob thinking is pretty scummy. If the town expects to win, they need intellectual contributions from everyone.

^^ That is from a game where you were Town BG.

I had initially noticed that Monkey used the terms "OMGUS" and "tunnel" a LOT as scum. So, I wanted to look into this and see if this was a Monkey-scum meta trait. The fact of the matter is that scum or Town, Monkey abuses the terms "OMGUS" and "tunnel" the way Alanis Morissette abuses the word "ironic."

Looking at this objectively, it's

possible

I'm finding tells to fit the read rather than the other way around. I mean, that's what drove me to look at the "OMGUS" tell. I can acknowledge that. I remain comfortable with my vote, however, because I don't have a better target at this point in time and feel like the Monkey lynch would give us the most information. Bonus: I would jump in a volcano if I dropped this case and Monkey turned out to be scum later because I hate it when someone wins through sheer incompetence.

[Yates]

You've admitted you don't care if I'm town or not. But if you're scum you'd know I was town.

Are you saying I wouldn't make the same statement as scum? Because if that's the case, you should have never been voting me, right? There is no logic to your game, Monkey. None.

[Yates]

Side note:

you're tunneling me because

you don't want to admit you made a mistake.

This is how much trouble I have admitting I made a mistake:

You do realize he's the backup mod

Right

Well. I guess I just look silly now, don't I?

[Yates]

There's a big difference between not knowing the backup mod and admitting the basis of your whole day 1 play is faulty.

There's NO difference between admitting when you made a mistake and admitting when you made a mistake. You claimed I was afraid to admit when I make mistakes. I showed that I'm not afraid to admit when I make mistakes. Qualifiers be damned, you are wrong.

Also, for the record, the LAST thing scum Yates would want to do is paint himself into a corner where he NEVER makes mistakes. How would I be able to explain away a mislynch? <- that is rhetorical.

[Yates]

Back to the game...

Monkey, do you stand behind this statement?

Thinking like everyone else doesn't make you town. In fact, mob thinking is pretty scummy. If the town expects to win, they need intellectual contributions from everyone.

[Yates]

the biggest point is your hyper tunnleing on an obv town.

Why is Monkey obv Town? Convince me.

You accuse monkey of lying (ad hominem according to you. it's seems to be your favorite phrase)

Your reading comprehension is failing you. Go look up the meaning of the term ad hominem [thanks again, -L-]. Now go look at post 463 again. Pay special attention to the portion where I show that Monkey attacks *me* as a liar rather than the *argument* which should have been the point of his post.

This, on the other hand, is simple discrediting:

you're head is so far in the sand that you don't even know who the back up mod is

So there is a difference.

I would also like to point out that you are clearly wrong about this:

But everybody else that makes a mistake is lying and using fake mistakes to hide their agenda.

Because:

To the first part of 191. Yeah that was a mistake. I forgot that I was talking about you. I mixed you and HD up. Simple as that.

Okay...? So one of the main tenets of your argument against me was a mix up and "woopsie?" Has this caused you to reread that portion of the thread?

Which is something you have never answered, by the way.

In fact, you are voting me without a case other than accusing me of hyper tunneling - which we have already demonstrated is not alignment indicative - while I have quite clearly stated my case on the individual I am voting for. How about you post a clear and concise case on your lynch candidate?

[Yates]

So you honestly believe Monkey made some elaborate plan to fake thinking the day started? for what reason? (to appear town) how does it make him appear town? it really doesn't, but you are saying you think Monkey thinks it would so..

This has been clearly addressed. Here's a hint: why did I quote Tammy?

[Yates]

If I say day starts early I will look town because...

I honestly can't think of an ending to that sentence which Monkeyscum would need to think to pull off such a move.

But I assume you can Yates?

Negative. That's a straw man. This is what ACTUALLY happened:

^ WTF people....confirm already.

Perhaps that's the scum team.

Extending their QT chit chat?

NEXT PAGE

Day 1 Start

13 hours and 26 minutes [plus a monkey vote] later:

@havingfitz - Isn't scumchat usually limited to either all the time or night only? If day has started I don't know how they could be "extending their chat."

This looks like a fake Town slip. This looks like Monkey asking a question he answers for himself in an effort to pretend he doesn't know how the mod set up the QT for this game. AND...

Good scumhunting though giving me the answer to your question.

The result of my fake slip post netted us these responses:

That doesn't mean Yates is right, but it does mean it's something worth investigating.

@ Yates how unlikely is it that he'd be unaware of the scumchat timing rules?

Yates...you beat me to it. I was going to point the same thing out with regards to MonkeyMan's comments to me in Post 37. Only I also have the added insight of having played in a game with MonkeyMan that just ended last month in which he was scum and he had pregame chat. So.....

Vote: MonkeyMan

Zero percent chance.

So at this point, scum or Town, Monkey needs to be able to say this IMMEDIATELY:

Okay, I see the confusion. I had presumed that when fitz was talking, day had started. By the time I made my post, day actually had started. I thought you were only supposed to /confirm pre-day, so my bad for not realizing that fitz's post was pre-day.

For cripes sake, you pointed out exactly where his "error" was and he rambled on about something else that was completely incoherent [Hence the coaching allegation if Monkey flips scum].

I would also like to point out that while this is what initially lead me to Monkey, the rest of my case is detailed here: post 484. The slip is small potatoes compared to his overall play as illustrated in that case.

[Yates]

If we all ignore Yates and don't respond to him will he go away?:P

I will go away once you present a case on somebody - ANYBODY - that is of your own creation AND that does not include text that points out anything said by others. In other words, commit to a case with arguments that YOU believe and are accountable to.

[Yates]

If we all ignore Yates and don't respond to him will he go away?

I've tried, nope.

Seriously guys... I am a human person. With like... feelings and stuff. You are making me sad.

At his point I would settle for seeing ANY case on ANYBODY that isn't being driven by me.

[Yates]

every read you've given is based squarely on your misguided assumption of something that happened on the first page of the day.

Nope. Read 484. It's a real post.

[Yates]

To your last point. What do you want me to address? I don't see your point.

FTR, this is my last point:

How about you post a clear and concise case on your lynch candidate?

[Yates]

yates you misrepedd my point in post 507. Monkey's mistake or non mistake is WIFOM.

Was this your point?

So if the consistent response for a scum monkey and a town monkey is identical it becomes WIFOM.

If so, I have addressed this here:

So at this point, scum or Town, Monkey needs to be able to say this IMMEDIATELY:

Okay, I see the confusion. I had presumed that when fitz was talking, day had started. By the time I made my post, day actually had started. I thought you were only supposed to /confirm pre-day, so my bad for not realizing that fitz's post was pre-day.

And here:

Call it a "tunnel" if you want but I find it hugely suspicious that it took him TWELVE posts to come up with the "Okay, I see the confusion" post. Not enough to make him scum on it's own, granted, but a major indicator - much like a slow claim or botched claim.

[Yates]

And now answer my comment on your second to last point. Oh yeah. Selective responses and nit picking. I think it was pretty clear what I was referring to.

Yeah. Not really. Let me know if I'm missing anything. In the mean time, I guess I'll respond to your case?

[Yates]

Yates tunnels, double standardizes. is defensive. Doesn't listen. Has incredibly bad reads and suspects.

Tunnels - not alignment indicated. Discussed ad nauseum.
Double standards - disagree. Please give me examples.
Doesn't listen - how is this different from tunneling?
Defensive - not only is this not alignment indicative, how would you suggest I address very bad allegations [your post is a perfect example] that are provably fallacious?
Bad reads - not alignment indicative. You can disagree with my reads but there is no way you can say they are "bad" unless you already know the alignments of the players.

Do you have any objective evidence to suggest my alignment?

[Yates]

Nothing slow about it.

Are you saying that it normally takes you 9-12 posts to clarify a mistake?

[Yates]

TWELVE POSTS OH MY GOD STOP THE PRESSES. He's not as fast as you. And he waits to make sure that he actually made a misttake?

Please look at those posts in Monkey's ISO. This has nothing to do with speed. This has to do with clarity. Again, it's like the "slow claim." The claim isn't scummy because it takes so long. The claim is scummy because the lack of clarity indicates the need to revisit and reexplain what should be obvious.

[Yates]

Lynching scum is always a good thing, yes?

It is. But you would need to know I'm scum rather than take a CHANCE I'm scum is what he's getting at. I would assume that the rest of this goes something along the lines of:

If Yates is scum, he would know that he is going to be investigated tonight and that it will come out tomorrow.
If Yates is Town, he would need to know he is a threat to scum, since he generates conversation which - in turn - generates information, and information is bad for scum so he will be NKed soon.

Conversely, is Monkey is Town he is at BEST herpa derp Town. I will be damned if I'm going to find myself in a situation near end game where I have to rely on MONKEY to make an intelligent play. Herpa derp Town is how we lost Rocky Horror. I tunneled on EP. I tried in earnest to get him to post anything in a pro Town manner. He refused to do any of it - just like Monkey - he ended up being Town but his anti Town antics cost us the game. There was, in fact, discussion about blacklisting him in the dead QT but that's a different topic. So it would be fair to state that I can not differentiate between anti-Town Town behavior and anti-Town scum behavior. Monkey falls into one of these two categories and is - in fact - an anti Town entity and liability no mater how you shake it out.

All you have to do is look at Monkey's current vote to see that this is an accurate characterization of his play. He is voting -L- based on TCS's plan that is based on meta. I don't know if Monkey is even aware that the meta TCS is referring to was introduced by me. He is just happy to be able to jump on a wagon that wouldn't require any work on his part. THAT is not pro Town behavior.

[Yates]

why should monkey care where the meta came from? He's not attacking you.

No. But he was voting me prior to the switch to L. I haven't seen a post where he had a sudden epiphany that I'm Town. Well. Maybe 436.

Do you think Monkey read that [L's] game? Serious question.

Monkey - did you read the game in question? Also, did you read a Town game from L to compare metas?

[Yates]

I am looking forward to Qwints and Slandaar posts.

I am anticipating ArcAngel and Alduskkel posts.

I am not looking forward to the dirty diaper that will be a Monkey post.

The rest of you need to step it up.

[Yates]

Wheaton's Law, Yates.

If *I* can't joke about a Monkey post, who can?

[Yates]

Hi yates, nice to have you on my team!

I'm not on your team yet. As much as I'm accused of tunneling, you guys seem to be overlooking the fact that I have been critical of any evidence that seems nonsensical.

Also, I know why I pointed to that particular game. I find it highly unlikely many people actually looked at the meta. Also, pointing out your scum meta is meaningless without a town baseline.

That said, I have some problems with your TCS case:

1. In your first point regarding TCS's "apology," it seems pretty clearly to have been a response to the Fitz post that started my Monkey wagon.

Spoiler:

Matt-Shadowlord
The Central Scrutinizer
theaceofspades

^ WTF people....confirm already.

2. I believe he explained his RVS theory in post 413.

3.

So I view TCS' disagreement with Slandaar's sense as a defense of Monkey.

You know disagreeing with someone doesn't make them scum, right?

4.

Says this of Yates.

Actually, his 330 was in reference to Slandaar's case on HD - not me.

5.

After all - he was following someone else's idea.

Yeah. This is one of the main problems I have been having with Monkey. I don't like when people say "what he said." It allows for distancing. It doesn't make him scum but that ype of posting is scummy. This is really your only legit point in that post, ftr.

Serious question: did you decide TCS was scum THEN write this?

[Yates]

He lasted to the end... so I dunno what you mean by flip.

He wanted to know Fitz's alignment. He was Vanilla Town in the game you linked to.

[Yates]

Do you have a secondary target

Not yet. I have other ideas but they are just ideas at this point. I need flips to verify some stuff and Monkey is the only lynch I'm on board with currently for reasons already stated.

[Yates]

Yes I read L's meta. I already said that.

Cool. Can you quote some stuff from this game and that game to show us how she is playing to her scum meta then quote from a Town game to show how she isn't like that?

Thanks, bro. You are the best.

[Yates]

@Yates....it's havingfitz

I did that 3 posts in a row before catching myself and they were all before your 318 "I'm not German" post. Your assertion that this is somehow scum driven is clearly false and laughable [and potentially scummy but we shall see].

Yates...what is your read on HD. Are you defending him?

I haven't really made an assessment of HD [or yourself for that matter]. Shooting from the hip? I'm not fond of buddying and try not responding to it - which is probably why I'm being accused of "ignoring" HD. He hasn't done or said anything outright scummy, though. He also hasn't said or done anything rah rah pro Town either or dazzled me with a case yet. I am firmly null on him.

As far as the case goes, that was less about HD the player and more about Slandaar's case. As with the case on L, I am responding to the points in the case rather than defending the person that is the object of the case. These are two very different things.

I do think focusing on experience levels can be scummy

I agree. Focusing on experience levels *CAN* be scummy. Would you characterize the way *I* used experience as scummy? Let's explore:

In the first case [where I used his actual join date], it was a tongue-in-cheek poke at Monkey given that the first post on the page mentioned someone else's join date. Monkey and I have played in games together. He knows what's up. I wasn't discrediting him. In fact, I was using his experience to illustrate that he should have first hand knowledge of a particular situation. I later linked to a game that illustrated he *DID* have first hand knowledge. In other words, his EXPERIENCE informed my read.

In L's case, she claimed to have all sorts of experience but said pointing to Monkey's join date was "flimsy." If someone is going to make a claim like that, asking them about their experience is fair game. Case in point:

Spoiler:

I have played mafia too long to have a meta, my dear.

Same goes for ace. When you make an [obviously wrong] declarative statement like "scum is always worried about coming off too hard or appearing frantic," experience is the sub-textual rationale, right? If this had been You or Monkey or Slandaar making this statement, I would have simply said "prove it" and expected you to link to games where your statement matched your claim. If you are accepting statements like these at face value, you are playing the game wrong.

In Toch's case [who isn't even in the game anymore], I wanted to know if he/she had ever been scum and would, thus, have already known the answer to the question they had asked. Toch had been in 4 games and had never been scum so *I* knew it wasn't safe to assume Toch would know anything about how scum chat works. This is actually addressed directly in post 203. If anything, that's the penultimate Town play when it comes to experience.

Bottom line regarding experience, we have a lot of new faces in this game. Mafiascum is a TEAM game. I want my team set up for success so *I* can win. In order to do that, I need to know what strengths and weaknesses people are bringing to the table. If I haven't played with you and I have no meta to look at, I need to ask. If you aren't doing this in other games with new faces, you should be.

And holding someone more experienced to a higher standard is more acceptable IMO than what I see as discrediting someone who has a more recent join date or fewer posts.

Agree to disagree. If you are going to make a nonsensical statement like the one Ace did, I'm going to discredit you or flat out prove you wrong. In his case, discrediting took less effort.

I see you posting massive amounts of content but I do not recall any benefit coming from them.

I just put the seeds in the dirt and you are wondering where the fruit is? Really? I guess all I can tell you is that I have [imho] done more to set this game up for success than any other individual player. I created a polarizing discussion. I have provided meta for consumption. I have set expectations on levels of play. I literally could not have done any more to help this Town short of being a Town Day Cop with a guilty result on a person. I could flip this and ask you for your contribution to the game and all the wonderful benefits you have bestowed upon the Town.

Tunneling on Monkey for IMO a poor reason.

Yeah. That's opinion. Your opinion is wrong but that doesn't make you scum.

Since regardless of your alignment you seem to be insinuating that everyone suspects you.

Rather than engage in a WIFOM argument, who would you investigate first me or someone like ArcAngel or TAM? More often than not, the loud driver of Day 1 is investigated/target N1. I guess I could go link some meta but I have a feeling you have been in enough games to know this is a general rule.

I will also go back to your experience question. If our scum is comprised of entirely newer players, I feel like I can guess with a fairly high probability how nights will go. You and Slandaar are pretty much the only people in this player list I would be concerned with making more complex gambits as scum. Maybe qwints.

Speaking of which...

I maintain my suspicions towards Yates

This is one of those statements I would expect to see from scum. You are saying you are voting me. You are saying you are sticking with me. You made a long post to remind us you were still in the game. You know what you haven't done, though? You have never made a case. Unless this is the entirety of your case:

On that note...I kind of want to vote Yates. He's posted more than anyone but I'm not sure how productive he's been. It's like he's holding a not so pleasant mafia gameplay seminar while maintaining IMO a narrow focus on Monkey for a lone incident that on further consideration I don't agree with.

You were scum in this game where you made no cases but were happy to jump on wagons and make posts similar to this one.

Contrast that with World of Warcraft where you were Town and presented cases [Bumi and Sean - for example] and were WAY more active.

I'm not saying you are scum for suspecting me of being scum - I want to make that clear. What I *AM* saying is that a post like this can be one of those scum posts to plant seeds of doubt in the rest of the Town. I have the advantage of knowing my alignment so I'm sure this reads differently for me. Whether or not you have that advantage as well remains to be seen. I would like to ask you for a case, though, for the record.

[Yates]

I will respond to the rest when I get home.

[Yates]

I can only omgus if I am making a case. Am I not allowed to share my thoughts with the town?

What's the difference between "making a case" and "sharing your thoughts?" This sounds like a semantic argument.

[Yates]

I was with you until this:

I would not hesitate to lynch confirmed town if for some wild-ass reason it would provide the town with a ton of good information.

No bueno. You would likely get blacklisted for playing against your win condition - unless you are scum. Information lynches I get, lynching conf Town for information is a couple of steps too far.

[Yates]

I would like to casually interject that casual interjections of "random thoughts" could be perceived as "making a case," scum. I'm not making a case - I'm just saying I think you are probably scum for thinking this way.

^^See what I mean?^^

[Yates]

I was defining the outer bounds of the model.

I would cheat on my wife if I discovered she was secretly an alien and grew a penis where her vagina was and immediately after making this discovery Jessica Biel rang my doorbell standing in the rain wearing nothing but a sopping wet white t-shirt professing her undying love for me. But I wouldn't tell her that. See what I mean?

[Yates]

Also Yates v. -L- is a semantics argument that should stop, it doesn't really matter whether it's thoughts or providing a case tbh

Exactly. It doesn't matter. Call it making a case. Call it random thoughts. Either way, when you put your reads out for consumption you are making a statement about the object of your attention.

Now - I will grant Monkey an early Christmas Present by stating the following:

@Mod and game - I will likely be V/LA this weekend depending on how this

thing with Jessica Biel

snowshoe race goes. Don't break the game while I'm gone.

[Yates]

I'm going to reply to these two posts out of order because while I have Fitz's response finished I read L's post and literally laughed at the screen.

As havingfitz says - this strongly appears to be a defense of HD.

What's the difference between defending a player and analyzing a case? Neither of you have bothered to answer this simple question.

HD parroted later on

So... it's scummy to be parroted or to be the parrot? I only ask because:

As havingfitz says...

L want a cracker?

Seems to me that he is purposefully expecting to be scanned N1.

Is this written in English? Was this written by someone who claims to want clarity in games?? [Both rhetorical]

I don't know what "purposefully expecting" means but I *am* expecting to be investigated. There are plenty of reasons for expecting this so choose your favorite.

It would explain his loudness, but lack of content.

You need to define "content" then because we clearly have two vastly different definitions.

I would suspect it is a loud confrontation between two scum [Yates/MM]

Setting up lynches? You are playing at a dangerously scummy game.

And this? This is a piece of work right here:

The majority of Yates' posting has been nit picking over semantics, wording, game theory, meta, experience - and one target - MM.

But little to no game content, or original thoughts

Wuuuuuut? The first sentence contradicts the second. In addition, why would I be parroted if I wasn't introducing new information? This thing falls apart in every direction at once and is my new favorite "worst post ever made on this site."

[Yates]

1 -I never asserted that you getting my name wrong was “scum driven.”

Withdrawn. I associated this statement with your scum read on me. Have you noticed that I haven't made that mistake since your "I'm not German" post? If so, why did you bring up something that had already been fixed and phrase it to make it sound like I was doing something to intentionally annoy you?

2 -How can this not be seen as defending HD? And why focus on Skandaar’s case on HD and not any other case that any other player might have made on someone?

Simple. I'm not defending HD. Instead, I'm evaluating a

case on

HD. Do you disagree with any of my concerns with Slandaar's case?

In regards to only addressing SLANDAAR's case, that's clearly not true at all.

Examples:
post 359
post 371 [on myself, granted, but it's clearly a disection of the case and not the player]
post 428
post 571
post 593
There haven't actually been many cases presented, tbh, but I'm fairly confident I've responded to ALL of them, which is the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of.

BTW - his name is SLANDAAR, he isn't a scantron sheet from the 80's.

3 -I agree with your “*CAN* be.”

I'm glad. But why didn't you answer the only question posed to you in this section? Based on the information I provided:

Would you characterize the way *I* used experience as scummy?

7 -You can’t know that if you are town.

I can't know as Town that I am "tunneling" on Monkey with good reason? Yes, I actually can and I actually am.

8 -I would investigate whomever I suspected the most…i.e. atm….you.

I rest my case and thank you for validating my point.

9 -You shouldn’t know *WHO* our scum team consists of so this comment says nothing.

Not yet but I know who our PLAYER BASE consists of and our scum team is comprised of members of this player base. I will know with a good level of certainty how sophisticated our scum team's play is by morning. Book it.

This, of course, is moot since you agreed with me in 8 thus validating at least the first half of my allegation that if I were scum I would need to know I would be investigated early. Please do not downplay the importance of the "EARLY" portion of that statement as that means I'm putting myself out there before scum could know who the investigators are in the case that there is a scum RB.

10 -The “Unless this” would be the case for now.
11 -What you *ARE* making clear is that this comment is null. And my case was provided with my vote.

If that's your "case," you have no case.
You don't know how productive I've been? How productive have YOU been? This is hand wave worthy nonsense that could not possibly be indicative of alignment.
You disagree with me? Guess what? You are probably wrong. Seriously. I would like to know when this game turned into "I don't agree with you so you must be scum" because the last I checked disagreements happen across ALL alignments and alignment combinations. Again, this has no weight and is not remotely indicative of alignment.

In total, you have presented TWO reasons for voting me and NEITHER reason is valid ergo you have NO case. Period. You don't even make it to the preliminary hearing phase.

[Yates]

I am now going to bed. I'm glad you guys decided to try this crap on me while I'm supposed to be V/LA. I will revist that at a later date.

[Yates]

Is it just me, or should Yates' middle name be Adhom?

It's just you.

I just would like to see my case refuted by Yates

Then I guess you should reply to post 671 where your "case" is refuted point by point. *shrug* Unless you are too "confuzzled" to answer my counters?

In my experience - people who act confuzzled (and couple that as an excuse to not post) are typically scum players.

[Yates]

You posted a bunch of "this is so stupid's".

If that's how it read to you then I guess those were my points. How about addressing the questions asked of you in the post?

[Yates]

Sans editorialization...

What's the difference between defending a player and analyzing a case?

it's scummy to be parroted or to be the parrot?

You need to define "content" then

In addition, why would I be parroted if I wasn't introducing new information?

I don't know how to rephrase my last point as a question, tbh. I guess I'd need to know how you define content in order to start. Since you post a list of examples of content types I have posted only to follow that up with a statement about how I don't post original thoughts or content, can appreciate why your statement seems to contradict itself? [About the best I can do to rephrase as a question.]

Additionally I would like to know what you think of the following since you claim to be of the same mind:

Examples:
post 359
post 371 [on myself, granted, but it's clearly a disection of the case and not the player]
post 428
post 571
post 593
There haven't actually been many cases presented, tbh, but I'm fairly confident I've responded to ALL of them, which is the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of.

[Yates]

Forgive the typo. The "rephrase" question should read "can

YOU

appreciate why your statement seems to contradict itself?"

[Yates]

What's the difference between defending a player and analyzing a case?

This remains to be answered and should be the easiest question to answer.

2) Player A genuinely found fault with Player B's case, and Player C is using Player A's words to defend himself.

So you admit that this allegation against me is false unless you assume I am scum. Since I am not scum, this is clearly not a valid argument. SInce you couldn't possibly know I'm not scum unless YOU are scum, you see why there's such a thing as confirmation bias, yes?

1) Player A is scum defending Player C, and silently telling Player C to improve his gameplay.

This is called "coaching." Are you accusing me of coaching?

Content is "food for thought". Content is that which gives fuel to other townies trains of thoughts

You mean content like:
Creating cases?
=4640595]Introducing new information?
=4641638]Introducing meta?
Determining if someone is honestly unaware of a mechanic or faking it? post 186,post 192, and post 203
Fact checking?

Can you please post each of those post #'s as a link?

I already did that in the original post. The original post is linked to in each of the questions I posed to you. Stop being lazy.

[Yates]

[Links fixed]

You mean content like:
Creating cases?
Introducing new information?
Introducing meta?
Determining if someone is honestly unaware of a mechanic or faking it? post 186,post 192, and post 203
Fact checking?

[Yates]

I am lazy - what of it?

Now that I answered your request, get back to answering the post as promised. TYIA.

[Yates]

Yates, can you provide me links of people you have tunneled hard and determined they were town?

Why on earth would I do that?

[Yates]

So you are maintaining everyone you decide to tunnel is scum?

Do you have telepathic powers?

I do have telepathic powers. They are currently telling me that you and L are both lazy and nonreaders. If you were actually reading the thread, you would see a link from me to a game I tunneled in. It's been there for a while now. I did not hop into a Delorean last night to plant it there. So if you are asking me to post something I have already posted - in regards to a case on YOU no less - I can only assume you aren't reading. So why would I post it AGAIN knowing you wont read it AGAIN?

[Yates]

Just explain to me this; why does my explanation of the initial monkey case not make complete sense and destroy your case?

I'm saying your initial explanation of the "time mistake" is

plausible

. I just don't think it is

likely

. That's part of a good defense. You throw out something plausible to cover up a mistake.

The reason it doesn't destroy my case is because my case isn't built on Monkey's mistake. While that got me to focus on Monkey, there are other reasons for STAYING on Monkey right now. If you want to believe it was a simple mistake fine, read post 484 and simply skip the first paragraph. The rest of that case is why I haven't moved off of Monkey along with the fact I have yet to see a better case imposed on anyone else.

I do believe you are incorrect about reading.

Then I guess you just glossed over this?

Herpa derp Town is how we lost Rocky Horror. I tunneled on EP. I tried in earnest to get him to post anything in a pro Town manner. He refused to do any of it - just like Monkey - he ended up being Town but his anti Town antics cost us the game.

Vote: Yates

And you have YET to explain why you think I'm scum. You also have YET to explain why you are voting me NOW [unless it is omgus].

Oh wait. No. That's not it. It's not just OMGUS. My telepathic powers are kicking in again...

Yates I am thinking of voting you

Okay, Monkey. I get it now.

Also, I can't help but notice that you never replied to this:

Yes I read L's meta. I already said that.

Cool. Can you quote some stuff from this game and that game to show us how she is playing to her scum meta then quote from a Town game to show how she isn't like that?

Thanks, bro. You are the best.

[Yates]

Uh, I just said my case, Yates. Quit being dense.

I guess I missed it. I still don't see it. It must be in invisible text.

[Yates]

Uh, I just said my case, Yates. Quit being dense.

I guess I missed it. I still don't see it. It must be in invisible text.

If you don't want to link to a game you've tunnelled in AND reached a town conclusion on the player, I will assume you go into your tunneling assuming the alignment of a player, which is obviously scummy, since only scum know a players alignment.

I can't be held accountable for your inability to read.

Herpa derp Town is how we lost Rocky Horror. I tunneled on EP.

[Yates]

I'm talking about a case where your tunneling resulted in a favorable town opinion of a player, causing you to decide not to lynch him. Not one where you thought the player was stupid town.

You would have to search my meta for something like that, then. That situation wouldn't stick out in my mind since I wouldn't consider it "tunneling" if I eventually came to a favorable result. I guess I could point to Toschia in this game as an example. I was FOCUSED on Toschia for a bit but my concerns were satisfactorily addressed.

[Yates]

The questions you ask people are basically pointless and their only purpose is to further your own interests.

Maybe. Except:

I guess I could point to Toschia in this game as an example. I was FOCUSED on Toschia for a bit but my concerns were satisfactorily addressed.

[Yates]

I want Yates to respond to my last case on him.

I don't see anything that hasn't already been addressed. Can you bullet point for me?

[Yates]

That's hardly adequete, Yates.

1. Of course it would be. Because it completely refutes your allegations.

2. You are also conveniently ignoring the meta that shows that I tunnel as Town which ALSO refutes your argument that I must be scum because I am tunneling.

3. AND you are being omgusy, which is what you said made ME scummy earlier. What's good for the goose isn't good for the Monkey?

[Yates]

I give up...*throws hand in air*

That's how I feel about YOU right now. There's a reason NO ONE can find your "case," Monkey.

Also why has TAM disappeared of the face of the earth

He is being replaced.

TAM is being replaced.

My case is far superior to your psuedo-case on me.

YOU DON'T HAVE A FREAKING CASE! Post 484? That's what a case looks like.

He doesn't have a case except he thinks I scumslipped

And THIS STATEMENT proves you STILL aren't reading the thread. I believe you could possibly be confused about day and twilight. I DON'T believe you can be confused by the very first paragraph in my case made against you. This means you are, therefore, scum or useless. Either way, I'm happy to be done with you.

[Yates]

becasue if you don't it simply proves your arrogance

I already did. In this thread. Less than 5 posts ago. And pointed to a case in THIS game.

[Yates]

You calling me useless points exactly to the case I make against you.

OR - and hear me out on this - you are being useless.

[Yates]

Monkey doesn't have ANY scum posts.

All you have to do is look at the huge volume of questions and requests that he is ignoring. Those missing posts ARE his scum posts.

Here's a quick summary of 5 things off the top of my head that have cropped up SINCE my case on him:

1. He can't give you a hyperlink to his "case" on me.
2. He can't give you a hyperlink on his "case" on me despite being asked to provide one.
3. He claims he read meta, but refused to link to any.
4. He claims he read Scum and Town L and finds L to be playing to her scum meta - votes her - and still refuses to link to her Scum and Town meta as proof.
5. He claims to have read MY meta and refuses to acknowledge the link I provided [literally spoon fed to him] showing where I tunneled as Town but was wrong.

It is so obvious that Monkey isn't playing this game I can't possibly make it any more apparent than that.

[Yates]

You know yates just because we all don't have 24 hours a day to research meta doesn't mean we're scum.

Maybe not. But saying that you read meta when you didn't makes you a liar, which IS scummy.

[Yates]

Makes it look like I knocked him speachless.

Actually, this is what I was waiting on from you:

Spoiler:

Yates tunnels, double standardizes. is defensive. Doesn't listen. Has incredibly bad reads and suspects.

Tunnels - not alignment indicated. Discussed ad nauseum.
Double standards - disagree. Please give me examples.
Doesn't listen - how is this different from tunneling?
Defensive - not only is this not alignment indicative, how would you suggest I address very bad allegations [your post is a perfect example] that are provably fallacious?
Bad reads - not alignment indicative. You can disagree with my reads but there is no way you can say they are "bad" unless you already know the alignments of the players.

Do you have any objective evidence to suggest my alignment?

[Yates]

Just because I didn't post something doesn't mean I haven't read it.

Yes. It actually does. You *claim* to have read meta. You *claim* that meta led you to a read. When I ask you for examples? Silence. What am I to make of that? If you can't prove that you read the meta and that the meta points to L being scum then I can only assume that you DIDN'T read the meta and that you are making stuff up.

[Yates]

Yates Adhom. There. I gave you a middle name.

You don't know what that word means.

[Yates]

where. I can't find it.

I can't be held accountable for your inability to read.

Herpa derp Town is how we lost Rocky Horror. I tunneled on EP.

[Yates]

It's only a tunnel if I'm wrong.

[Yates]

Yates, you single handedly swatted monkey's argument down by calling HIM useless.

What was his argument, L? What was his argument that I "swatted down?"

Did you read post 754 where I actually called him useless?

I expanded on that further with post 764 where I showed how he isn't doing ANYTHING or providing ANY information even when asked.

[Yates]

Actually, if you can quote the case I swatted down, L, I will self-vote.

[Yates]

Appeal to emotion...wifiom...how much more scummy does he need to be before he's lynched?

LOL. You don't know what appeal to emotion means. That is an honest to goodness promise.

She will not be collecting on my promise. Why? Because it didn't happen.

[Yates]

Also, I would love for you to explain how it's "wifom" to ask for someone to post evidence. Or is that ANOTHER term you don't understand?

[Yates]

It's wifom because you threatening to self vote brings wifom arguments about what scum would do. It's appeal to emotion because you want people to feel sorry for you.

OR - it's neither of these things and I'm daring L to provide evidence that doesn't exist. *Ding Ding Ding* <-- there's the answer.

[Yates]

You're right...self voting is totally townish.

You would have a point if I were in any danger of self voting.

[Yates]

You might want to start thinking about your fakeclaim though.

See, ^THAT^ is appeal to emotion.

Like I said, I'm not in any danger of self voting. I suspect the exercise of forcing someone to try to make me self vote will result in them realizing that I am right. That will cause them to unvote and to reconsider a vote on you. After the first unvote, one or two more will quickly follow. That's how this game works.

[Yates]

I just read over the argument again - and my point still stands.

Awesome.

Actually, if you can quote the case I swatted down, L, I will self-vote.

[Yates]

What's so hard about simply quoting the case I allegedly slapped down? It should be the easiest thing to do this game. Heck, it should be no further back than page 31 post 751.

[Yates]

How is advising you to get your fake claim star aight an AtE?

You're right. More accurately it is an appeal to fear.

[Yates]

Actually, if you can quote the case I swatted down, L, I will self-vote.

What's so hard about simply quoting the case I allegedly slapped down? It should be the easiest thing to do this game. Heck, it should be no further back than

page 31 post 751

.

Standing by.

[Yates]

Look at #733.

Okay. Now look at the next post. That post number is #734 just to be clear.

[Yates]

Monkey's play looks to me like his freaked-out town play I've seen him mislynched for before.

Can you tell me why Monkey is Town? I know you saw him mislynched D2 of your last game together, but he wasn't playing like this. Is there another game I can look at?

[Yates]

bad arguments and personal attacks

In post 439 I finally coaxed Monkey into making post 440 with a bullet point case.
In 441 I ask him to clarify some concerns.
He clarifies in 442.
I dismantle his argument in 443.
The only "argument" that stood was that I potentially "buddied" qwints who, in my opinion, was an oasis of reason in a desert of derp at the time.

Monkey - I have summarily dismantled every crumby argument you have tossed my direction.

You, on the other hand, are REPEATEDLY unable to substantiate claims. You can't quote meta. You can't quote your case. You can't even help L win my self-vote challenge. I'm not making "bad arguments." I have made personal attacks at your terrible play, granted, in a last ditch attempt to force you to do ANYTHING worthwhile. You just refuse to do it. So this statement is pot calling the kettle black and you are a deeper shade of black, dude.

[Yates]

And this...

Actually, if you can quote the case I swatted down, L, I will self-vote.

What's so hard about simply quoting the case I allegedly slapped down? It should be the easiest thing to do this game. Heck, it should be no further back than

page 31 post 751

.

Standing by.

*SHOULD* be the easiest bet in the world to win. L has been in here. She has seen the challenge. The fact that she hasn't taken the opportunity to prove me wrong, something she is just itching to do, has got to speak volumes.

[Yates]

:/

[Yates]

post 331
post 440

So you are alleging that I never responded to those cases in earnest [despite posting the post numbers of my responses to 440 in 809]?

And you are further claiming that my post post 754 is somehow an "Adhom" attack on posts that came between 423 and 314 posts prior?

Is this what you are claiming?

[Yates]

Yates, are you suggesting you read me town after saying you never do?

I never

admitted

to reading you as Town this game. Don't get ahead of yourself.

what exactly had Monkey to gain by pretending he didn't know when day started?

I address this directly in post 491:

Are you saying that Monkey was Mafia pretending not to know the chat rules the Mafia would have to play by in order to make himself look less Mafia?

Yes. The "Town slip" gambit is actually something *I* used successfully as scum in Heroes of Comedy. Here's where Tammy almost caught me and summarizes nicely:

inte - this is the second time Yates has made a slip like that. I don't know what to make of it though. In the opening post of the day he said he still had Pap's as town, even though he was dead. So, saying we don't have a flip yet. erm...IDK...one of the things that always sets off alarm bells for me is when scum act like they don't know something. Scum feign ignorance about stuff all the time and people let them go for it.

She had no way of knowing just how right she was because:

scum goon yates Kill: Pappums Rat

That's right. I pretended I didn't realize Pappums Rat was dead and *I* was the one who killed him! If Tammy had stuck to her instincts and gotten a Yates lynch, she might have survived and Town likely would have won. There's a lesson to be learned there.

I included the link to Heroes of Comedy for your reading pleasure.

[Yates]

Explain to me why it would be viewed as a townslip.

Monkey - "Isn't scumchat usually limited to either all the time or night only? I'm sooo Town I don't even know how this scumchat stuff you guys are talking about works..."
Monkey Buddy - "Guise. Monkey HAS to be Town. He doesn't even know how scumchat works. He accidentally let that slip in like his THIRD post of the game."

[Yates]

My claim was that you were attacking Monkey's person, rather than his argument.

My claim is you are full of shit. I responded to all of his "arguments." I spent an inordinate amount of time, in fact, dismantling all of his "arguments" to show him how silly/hypocritical/non-logical/or flat out wrong he was in each and every point. His response was to say "nuh uh!" Add to that the fact that he can't present evidence when requested, he can't support claims, he can't READ... When someone claims they did something that they didn't do and then refuses to show their work despite being asked by more than one person in the game then guess what? Worthless is an accurate assessment. I stand by my statement that he is either scum or worthless Town that is going to create problems and mislynches by not playing towards a Town win condition.

You called "Adhom" after a post where I demonstrated Monkey being worthless. So you can step in line and hang right after your buddy. Or maybe before.

If you were really presenting evidence, you would show the actual scumslip,

If you were actual Town you would see that Tammy mentions it in the post I quoted. I'm not going to quote the game for you. That's what links are for.

[Yates]

Youre being really insulting.

What was "really insulting" about 828?