Mini 1634 - English Premier League Mafia (Game over)

[Whiskers]

Err, uh, "Crikey!"
<_<

Vote 'em anyway.

Scummy question.

Have a vote.

VOTE: Kaboose

Whoa, harsh. More like, it's a nooby question, as Kabs is a huge noob. Be civil.

And I'd vote for you here, but

Early town reads on Guyett and BBT.

VOTE: Kaboose

No no jo its xmas eve n I'm pissrf. Yhis isnt alignment indicative

Drunkposting is

always

an instant scumtell, only scum do it to seem like regular joes.

Vote: Guyett

(P.S.: if it weren't for massive, I'd be the oldest member playing this game. *shakefist.* Damn you, massive!)

[Whiskers]

I actually think you are overly trying to justify your vote with the drunk thing.....

VOTE: Whiskers

Oh

my,

trying to justify my vote? How awful!

Are you for real with the drunk post logic? I can understand the scum trying to chum angle, but you seem quite certain that that is definitely the case here...

Ahhh, I was going to ask what "scum trying to chum" meant, but then I realized it was a English thing. (um, probably. I might just be slow)

Are you for real with the drunk post logic? I can understand the scum trying to chum angle, but you seem quite certain that that is definitely the case here...

this

Is that a problem, though? I mean, it stood out, but does that bother you? :\

[Whiskers]

why are you quoting me there?

Err, 'cause you agreed with him? Sorry-- the "here" I quoted from you, in turn had quoted the quote I quoted right before it. If you don't understand what I mean, just forget that last sentence and look at it in context. ((i was asking 4burner AND you the question))

Scum trying to buddy up and be all "hey guys I'm just like you and drink beer and such" yeah. I get it. And I'm Australian, but whatever.

You seem pretty emphatic that admission of impairment is scumtell. Care to talk about that at all?

Also would you really have voted BBT for being 'uncivil' toward Kaboose? Your reaction as discussed above was a little bit...

something

. I don't wanna say defensive, but something around that word.

Hmm. And here, I had been worried that people would think I'm scum with BBToffee!

Honestly? I just get annoyed with people who come on and post when they're drunk-- because it's invariably, "oh wow, I'm drunk, don't consider this post to be game related, I'm drunk!" It's not really a scumtell, necessarily... but it's pretty much

always

anti-town. Most important thing though, is that it pisses me right off.

Australians are pretty neat. I think I'd like to immigrate there someday-- getting a permanent visa though, it's pretty expensive, and then you need to pay citizenship on top of that.

I actually think you are overly trying to justify your vote with the drunk thing.....

VOTE: Whiskers

Oh

my,

trying to justify my vote? How awful!

When 'drunk' is the only thing you can use to justify a vote and use 'drunk' as a scum tell, then yes it is pretty awful

It's page 2, bro. I mean, now it's page 3, but then it was page 2. Consider it RVS, and if you don't like that, see above for my real reasoning. But, it's super early. Cheap votes were still in-style, eh?

[Whiskers]

I actually think you are overly trying to justify your vote with the drunk thing.....

VOTE: Whiskers

Oh

my,

trying to justify my vote? How awful!

Are you for real with the drunk post logic? I can understand the scum trying to chum angle, but you seem quite certain that that is definitely the case here...

Ahhh, I was going to ask what "scum trying to chum" meant, but then I realized it was a English thing. (um, probably. I might just be slow)

Are you for real with the drunk post logic? I can understand the scum trying to chum angle, but you seem quite certain that that is definitely the case here...

this

Is that a problem, though? I mean, it stood out, but does that bother you? :\

I don't like how you misquoted Guyett here making him look like he was agreeing with the post you quoted directly above him. Don't like it at all.

---

Gonna put a vote on...
VOTE: Whiskers
...for now because of the misquoting. I want an explanation.

I was going to tell you to fuck off, because I hadn't misquoted, and that WAS what he was agreeing to-- but then I checked my post and you were right and I had messed up.

Sorry. I wasn't meaning to quote the same post twice. That portion should have read,

The reaction of Whiskers to the Kaboose vote by BBT also stood out to me .

this

[Whiskers]

Scripten is town. (For things on this page)
Guyett is scum. (For things on this page)

Also I take back my earlier position that Kaboose is a noob; I checked his topics and he's played like 8 or more games already.

[Whiskers]

35 - Reasons for vote BRO?

47 - What exactly would you be voting me for Whiskers?

For jumping on a big ol' noob for asking a question, one that you called "scummy" but I read as just being "newbie."
But like I said, Kaboose doesn't seem to actually BE any sort of noob. In his few months here, he's played a ton of games, so I take it back.
It would have been my Random Voting Stage vote, but then I found a vote I liked better than random, an Pissed Vote.

69 - Whiskers, your comment regarding being worried about people thinking you were scum with me comes across like you're self-aware which is kind of scummy. Also, are you voting Guyett because drunk-posting is a scumtell or because people who drunk post annoy you?[/quote]
Let me say, it's both, but more the latter. I can't say for certain it's a scumtell, but

ugh

, let's be cognisant of the spirit of exaggeration. As I explained already, it's definitely anti-town. Townies Should-Not do it. But that doesn't mean that they can't or won't, so it isn't a scumtell. Happy? It's just a "fuck you, I'm a drunk asshole who doest't have the courtesy to post sober" tell at best, and at worst, a "I'm scum but am changing my behaviour to make it look like I'm just a drunk asshole who doesn't have the courtesy to post sober, thereby making it harder to analyze my posts" tell.

Does this answer your questions?

You're half assing things

Yes, that is accurate.
Though, what about my reads is "redundant," as you call them?

Sorry. I wasn't meaning to quote the same post twice. That portion should have read,

The reaction of Whiskers to the Kaboose vote by BBT also stood out to me .

this

its funny coz I called you out on this earlier ...

Not really-- you said, and I QUOTE,

why are you quoting me there?

The difference is when you "Called me out", you didn't give me any reason to look again-- I had

meant

to quote you. When Kaboose asked me about it, he showed the quote, and I saw that I had quoted one part a second time, instead of what I had meant to put there.

[Whiskers]

Also there are a lot of people drunkposting around the holidays.

Ew.
Really? I hadn't noticed this before-- though I don't know if I've ever actually played during the holiday season, and if I have, if it was common back then.

I just don't get it. It's too frequent to be a proddodge, and if you're drunk, why even bother posting? Go have a laugh with friends, or cry to yourself quietly. If you're not out with friends... why get drunk?

In game, there's reasons NOT to do it, and out of game, there's no reason (that I can think of, at least) TO do it.

[Whiskers]

For jumping on a big ol' noob for asking a question, one that you called "scummy" but I read as just being "newbie."
It would have been my Random Voting Stage vote, but then I found a vote I liked better than random, an Pissed Vote.

This part of your post is contradictory. Would you have been voting me for RVS or would you have been voting me because I attacked and voted Kaboose?

Also, what would be my scum-motivation for what I did?

RVS still usually has a reason attached. It would not have been a terribly serious vote, in my first post of the game, on page two, HAD I even voted you.
Though, there is scum motivation in preying on newbies, and that should be apparent?

Let me say, it's both, but more the latter. I can't say for certain it's a scumtell, but

ugh

, let's be cognisant of the spirit of exaggeration. As I explained already, it's definitely anti-town. Townies Should-Not do it. But that doesn't mean that they can't or won't, so it isn't a scumtell. Happy?

Not really, no.

You seemed sure it was a scum-tell when you voted him; you even italicised the 'always' part of your post. Now, in the first part of your post (the one I have quoted above) you're saying you're not certain it's a scum-tell and by the time you finish the paragraph you're saying it's no longer a scum-tell at all.

Can you take a more decisive stance on the issue please? Is drunk-posting a scum-tell or not?

Learn

"exagguration,"

and come back to see me, darlin'?

[Whiskers]

For jumping on a big ol' noob for asking a question, one that you called "scummy" but I read as just being "newbie."
It would have been my Random Voting Stage vote, but then I found a vote I liked better than random, an Pissed Vote.

This part of your post is contradictory. Would you have been voting me for RVS or would you have been voting me because I attacked and voted Kaboose?

Also, what would be my scum-motivation for what I did?

Let me say, it's both, but more the latter. I can't say for certain it's a scumtell, but

ugh

, let's be cognisant of the spirit of exaggeration. As I explained already, it's definitely anti-town. Townies Should-Not do it. But that doesn't mean that they can't or won't, so it isn't a scumtell. Happy?

Not really, no.

You seemed sure it was a scum-tell when you voted him; you even italicised the 'always' part of your post. Now, in the first part of your post (the one I have quoted above) you're saying you're not certain it's a scum-tell and by the time you finish the paragraph you're saying it's no longer a scum-tell at all.

Can you take a more decisive stance on the issue please? Is drunk-posting a scum-tell or not?

Kaboose should be gaining votes really quickly.

Thanks.

...why though?

[Whiskers]

Yeah, I think mafiascum may have changed some things while I was gone. keep opening one quote in a new tab and then a different quote in the orignal tab and keeps fucking up. Not sure if that's my fault or new coding.

Sorry about that though.

[Whiskers]

RVS still usually has a reason attached. It would not have been a terribly serious vote, in my first post of the game, on page two, HAD I even voted you.
Though, there is scum motivation in preying on newbies, and that should be apparent?

Yeah, but it's usually a silly/funny/nonsensical etc reason. Your vote would

not

have been RVS if you had voted me for voting Kaboose.

Yeah, it would have been. Because it would have been a poor, not-very-strong reason. Thats the "etc" part.

Is there? It could be argued it's better scum strategy to leave the newbies until the later game phase where they can be easier to manipulate than more experienced players. What do you think about that?

Yeah, it could be argued that. Case closed.

Also, are you suggesting that if a newbie does something that appears scummy they should not be questioned because they're a newbie? Like, that somehow takes the scumminess out of their posts?

No, I'm not saying that at all, but thanks for twisting my words, mate. What I'm

saying

is sometimes people do or say things that seem scummy, but can really be attributed to them being new at the game, and not having a very deep understanding of the game and how it works and how it's played. Remember, the question in question was

What do I do if the person I wanted to vote for in RVS is already taken?

Which is something that a newbie might not know. A newbie asking this doesn't make them scummy. Someone who knows the game though, should know the answer to this question. It looks like fake confusion. Who wants to befuddle? Scum. A practised player, a not-noob, should know the answer.

Learn

"exagguration,"

and come back to see me, darlin'?

Sure, exaggeration is great and all that, but, is drunk posting a scum-tell or not?

It doesn't matter, as according to you, RVS can be for a "nonsensical reason." Consider this that; I said it was always a scumtell, and that was nonsense.

Or, if you'd prefer, I'll say, no, there's no trend (to my knowledge) of scum doing this more than town. So no, it isn't a scumtell. It still is, though, anti-town. It still is, too, a dickbag move.

[Whiskers]

@Whiskers why is the exaggeration defense only coming out now and not earlier when I asked you much the same questions as BBT here?

Oh, um-- sorry? Let me grab your ISO real quick...
You mean post 108? Look, you and BeeBs are asking pretty much the same questions so I'm just cherry picking what I answer and when-- I'm pretty sure I've gotten to everything by this point, though.
Also, I didn't think it would be such a thing. For a while, I would make a post and assume we were done with the issue. I'm not sure why a first-post,

RVS vote

is up for discussion, especially one this in-depth.

Your RVS did not seem very RVS like at all. You would have voted BBT but chose Guyett for drunk post, as has been mentioned with an always qualifier to really ram home how often drunkposting is a scumtell. Seems suspect. WhaWhat's the story here without any glibness or nebulous reasoning?

I would have voted BBT for a weak-but-real reason, one that I didn't think made him scum, necessarily, but that's ok in the first post of the game, on page 2, when there are no strong reads or tells, and

nobody

should be "definitely scum" to anybody else. I WOULD HAVE VOTED BBT, as a weak-reasoned

RVS vote

.

Then I kept reading and say Guyett's post. It made me mad, because he was posting while drunk. Instead of the other

RVS vote

I was prepared to make, I made that one. "It made me mad" is the reasoning for my

RVS vote

on Guyett.

[Whiskers]

@105 - I'm not questioning where you put your vote. I'm questioning your intent and your thought process.

If you thought there was scum on my wagon, why haven't you engaged/questioned those people on my wagon to develop reads?

Again, nothing to go on. Your wagon will be better for information at a later stage when it can be anaylized better, after a few flips. Right now there is nothing in it that would be worth following up, it was for all intensive purposes the opening RVS bandwagon that comes in nearly every game.

For all

intents and purposes,

you might mean. Yes, it was that. But if it wasn't worth bringing up for analysis or discussion, why did you bring it up?

What do you think is Whisker's motivation behind the over-reaction?

over-reaction could be anything... buddying, protecting, making excuses for someone.... Its the mannor of how he jumped about it that seems off to me.

Why do you insist it was an overreaction? It wasn't even that strong of a reaction, I didn't use caps or italics or anything. Tell me what makes you say I was over reacting, because it seems to be the foundation of your attack and scum read on me, and it's fucking annoying.

I

don't feel I over reacted, by my quote and short mention of BBT's post, but

you

clearly do, so go on. Clue me in.

What makes it an "over reaction"?

You're half assing things

Yes, that is accurate.
Though, what about my reads is "redundant," as you call them?

you really want me to explain why your reads are redundant? because there is nothing to them, they seem like you are randomly spouting names for the sake of making it seem you have reads. As I said, you're half assing things and not really following up on your reads as to why these people are town/scum.

So hows about you stop half assing, and get your ass into gear?

They aren't redundant though. No one's said them yet. And more importantly, they're useful for me-- that's why I gave a reason at all; if I didn't, I'd forget why I'm reading them that way. As it stands, I can scroll up the page and go, "Ah, scripten is making sense to me, having good reasons behind the thoughts he's sharing. He seems to be actively scumhunting," and, "Guyett hops on the Kaboose bandwagon because according to him, kaboose is good as town, and apparently isn't playing good enough right now."

Which, before I get attacked for tunnel-vision, is separate from the drunk-posting bit. Guyett is basically making a meta attack on Kaboose, and not a very good one. While Kaboose may be scum, it's not because "he's good when he's town," and saying that "he's not good enough to be his town meta" is a very fucking weak argument

So: I listed those reads the way I did as a note-to-self, and to update the game on some spare reads I had.

And anybody else who wanted to know about 'em, could ask. Although when I type that down, I think about how I've attacked people in the past for that: "They should have just listed the reason for their reads in their initial post!" So that makes me a bit of a hypocrite.

Kaboose should be gaining votes really quickly.

Thanks.

...why though?

You're really not caring about actually catching scum are you?

Maybe a bit early to speculate on teams and connections without a flip but I am liking Kab/Whiskers as a scum partnership.. And further makes me think my thoughts of over-reaction to a Kab vote by Whiskers earlier is justified. [/quote] What makes you say that, actually? What makes you think I'm "not interested in catching scum"? Look here, kid:
My involvement in this game so far has been

entirely

pushing off little nits that decide they want to fight with me about an RVS vote and post that I made. I'm beating three of you off with a stick over the

first post I made in the game.

Pick a serious topic to talk about and I will maybe take you more seriously. Pick a different topic to talk about, and I won't feel like I have to make all of my posts about defending myself. As it is, most or all of my posting is dumped, wasted, on this incredulous, sarcastic defence against an inane attack that I'm still scratching my head over why it happened.

Yeah, I am liking Whiskers/Kab right now.

Good for you. One post, a sarcastic one at that, might be a bit too little information to start basing

scumteams

on.
Keep in mind, I wasn't chainsaw-defending Kaboose, I was attacking BBT for scummy behaviour. Later, when I looked into it, I found that the person BBT attacked wasn't actually a noob-- meaning that what

I

had attacked them for wasn't eve scummy. So I backed off about it. It was never about Kaboose being the one under attack, it was about BBT potentially going for an easy target. It was also

super weak reasoning

that

wouldn't normally warrant a vote

, but it was my first post of the game, page 2, most everyone was still in RVS stage, so I went ahead and offered up that I WOULD have laid down my RVS vote right there, on the

weak attack

(you know, the one that was WEAK and NOT an Overreaction?) I made on BBT.

ALSO

You're complaining about how you can't possibly analyse the BBT wagon, or question anybody on that wagon, because nobody's flipped and it won't be useful until later days? That's perfectly true, but still you're trying to create and match scumteams, a method that is

useless

until one scum member has flipped. If you want to flip me to see if I'm scum, that's fine, but don't try to convince people I'm scum because I'm supposedly partners with another unflipped scum. Pick a camp: is it too early to analyse shit? or am I scum with Kaboose? If the former, why are you making proposed teams? If the latter, why aren't you doing shit about the BBT wagon that

YOU

emphasized early on?

[Whiskers]

Fucked up one of the quotes on that last bit there-- sorry.

[Whiskers]

I can see now the confused face, and I'll let it slide not that there was much there to be honest as you didn't try to form a case but just wanted to probe with a question about the exchange.

>offers to let it slide
>doesn't unvote

ok cool

Also your role sounds incredibly dangerous to town-- or incredibly helpful to town, if you're town. Honestly, I kind prefer to think it's the latter. Otherwise, we know we have vengefuls or SKs or Vigilantes-- town-aligned killing roles.

Oh! though, deathfisario makes a good point: if the power is 1-shot, it's fairly balanced to give to scum.

Literally one sentence I typed is what is setting off your alarms, apparently.

I feel your paaaaain.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Kaboose

Posts 111+144.
I think I now have a conjecture on how to balance a 10:3 full PR game. My initial thought was something in lines of "1 shot lynchproof" mafia PR. Like, if it activates the day just ends there and the lynchee doesn't die. But that still leaves a full night worth of town PR gang powers to fight against. So it may still be town-favoured.
How about a "1 shot lynch return" on top of being lynchproof, the hammerer dies instead of the lynchee. If scums discuss their PRs in pregame PT, they're not gonna fall victim to their teammates powers so it removes 1 town and they get to shoot too.

Originally just wanted to know the scumcount but since you're dropping breadcrumbs I'm gonna eat them and play outsmart the mod =P

Man, reading this again. Why are you so concerned with the well being of the scum team? I mean, you're typing out a way in your head to make sure it's balanced for scum, why would you care if it's balanced for scum? Shouldn't you want an advantage?

Also why are you trying to outsmart the mod instead of scum?

Lol dude what the fuuuuck

Unvote
Vote: Kaboose

[Whiskers]

massive, can you vote Kaboose then?

Do you think that him outing his possible lynchproofiness is something that scum would do?

Now,

this

is actually pretty interesting. On one hand, sure, why wouldn't he? He's trying to avoid a lynch, so why not breadcrumb a role like that? If he's scum, why not try to get people to lynch him even? If he really is lynchproof, and the lynch fails, Town loses their D1 lynch. Correct?

What strikes me as odd is, if he were faking the claim, why would he claim LP, specifically? It's a little odd.
So I'm taking his claim as true-- the question still remains if he's town or scum, though.

It's pretty simple. Kaboose's "I'm not playing until you threaten to kill me" is so anti-town that I cannot fathom it coming from a town player. I'm significantly more sure of his scum-ness than I am of 4burner due to a combination of his play and the post I quoted. I can see potential town motivation behind 4burner's posts, but not Kaboose's.

The bigger issue I have with is is that he crumbed BP, which defeats the whole purpose of being BP if town and is a fairly basic claim for scum to make.

Do you mean earlier, the bit about, "I won't be dying"?
Later he crumbs lynchproof, instead.

[Whiskers]

Oh god, I just hammed Kaboose.

aahhhhhh ok.

We'll see if he's lynchproof, and then everybody can hate on me lots and lots and probably lynch me, as is the standard punishment for quickhammering.

[Whiskers]

Also your role sounds incredibly dangerous to town-- or incredibly helpful to town, if you're town. Honestly, I kind prefer to think it's the latter. Otherwise, we know we have vengefuls or SKs or Vigilantes-- town-aligned killing roles.

Oh! though, deathfisario makes a good point: if the power is 1-shot, it's fairly balanced to give to scum.

-snip-

Lol dude what the fuuuuck

Unvote
Vote: Kaboose

This gives me pause, though. Where do you stand on Kaboose being town right at this very moment? Because in the same post you make allusions to him being town and scum. (Note: Not town or scum.) Might just be due to it being a ketchup post, but eh... assumptions and stuff.

Not sure what you mean. I don't think I said anything about him being both town and scum at the same time; obviously he must be one or the other.

I'm optimistic about him being scum, but no guarantee... I think he probably would have been the lynch for today, eventually anyway, but I wasn't ready for the day to end-- and neither, I think, was anybody else.

Well I already said I wasn't lynch proof. Now you all need to figure out what it means when I flip town. Sorry about the bad play.

You want to quote the post where you said you weren't? And maybe give final thoughts and reads? Sorry about the quickhammer.

[Whiskers]

Yeah, it would have been. Because it would have been a poor, not-very-strong reason. Thats the "etc" part.

OK, so you didn't 'RVS' vote me because you found a better place to put your vote. I'm gonna go ahead and assume that given you had reasoning for this second vote, reasoning that made it your priority vote, that it was a serious vote.

It doesn't matter, as according to you, RVS can be for a "nonsensical reason." Consider this that; I said it was always a scumtell, and that was nonsense.

Or, if you'd prefer, I'll say, no, there's no trend (to my knowledge) of scum doing this more than town. So no, it isn't a scumtell. It still is, though, anti-town. It still is, too, a dickbag move.

But here, you're making it seem like your vote on Guyett(?) was not a serious one either? So you placed your serious vote on Guyett for a scum-tell you thought you had (even though you exaggerated it), you then retracted this scum-tell and said that actually it isn't a scum-tell, and proceeded to follow this with arguing that your vote on Guyett was actually an RVS vote. What a load of %&^$.

I can't rightly say that it truly is a scumtell. So why would I carry on with it? It

still

was my first post in the game. It was

still

a vote for not a very good reason.

I kept my vote there later 'cause I found Guyett scummy, just I voted him, initially, in my

first post

, because he did something that I personally dislike.

yup, Ollie. My thoughts exactly. It seemed like an 'oops did I just hammer' knowing full well he did. The Ahhh ok seemed to make out that he didn't care and accepted he had just hammered without care and the bottom is nothing but trying to justify what he did.

Don't get me wrong. I thought Kaboose was scum with him (Whiskers), I was wrong on that regard and I probably would have voted him if I had been back before lynch. But that whole hammer vote and follow up was pretty off to me.

Kaboose was L-2 when I voted him-- or, as I was reading along, that's where I wrote it in my post. I voted, I posted, then continued reading, and saw someone else vote him... Which meant I had just been the hammer, unless someone had unvoted. They hadn't.

For the record, it always looks scummy when someone quickhammers and follows up. Looks scummy when someone quickhammers and doesn't. Looks scummy when someone quickhammers, regardless.

I likely would have voted him in the end, anyway-- just like you claim you would have done. I didn't mean for it to be a quickhammer. It's too bad about his role, that seems really powerful, and it's too bad he got mislynched-- but that seems to be the way it was going to go.

But look, don't say it's my follow up post. It's important for me to acknowledge that I had fucked up. And after, to try to get Kaboose's final reads, in Twilight of his lynch. You think it's disingenuous? What's a "good" oopslynch post look like, Red Arrow?

[Whiskers]

My gut says scum kills scripten to send us on false trails. NK could have fallen on townie lurker of which there are at least one, for lack of info, but instead hits scripten. I don't think he was any more of a threat than anyone else, and he definately wasn't a universal town read. So why kill him over a strong town lead?

He could have been mislynch bait, but instead they NKd him. Something I need to think about.

What??

Why on earth

would scum kill a townie lurker? To be nice to the townies? First of all, that would be entirely bad scumplay.

Scripten was really, really town. I don't know who else thought he was, or if he was unanimous or not-- but he clearly was, even prior to the flip. He was a "threat" because he was clever about his post and reads, in other words, he was a good scum hunter. Let's go back and take a look at his suspicions and dig around in there a little bit, because maybe he

was

a threat to a scum somewhere.

Who was a strong town read? first thing that comes to mind, is to frame that "strong town read", but I'm not sure there

were

any. Scripten was pretty far up there, IMO.
And yeah, he could have been mislynch bait, or a townie lurker could have. You're acting too dumb to scum, but I'm not sure I'm buying it. How many scum games do you have under your belt, mister?

I'm quite liking BBT's 239, although,

@220 - @death - Your assumption of why I voted you is concerning. It shows self-awareness, which is usually a trait coming from a scummy mindset. Is this something you spoke about overnight?

I disagree that this is really a scumtell. I think it's pretty important for all players to keep in mind how they're being perceived. A good town player (though, perhaps not all playstyles of good town player) will use manipulation just as much as a good scum player would.

[Whiskers]

BBT is simply pushing the 'I said scum could be on his wagon' post meaning I am not looking into it, despite the fact I have adressed it MANY fucking times.

Yes, I said scum could possibly be on it. However, as i've said 1000 fucking times already. I am going after legit scummy behaviour (Whiskers & Kaboose) over a simple hunch. I never said it was a guarentee. I said it was possible that at least one scum was on it.

But again as I said 1000 times, and this one last time I will post it in big bold letters to get it through your thick fucking skull.

I will scum hunt based on legit behavior of others and not a hunch.

He is just repeating the same thing over and over and over without realizing I answered the question many times day 1. I will go on actual scummy behaviour than a simple hunch that someone may have been scum on his wagon. I don't get why he is pushing this so much. I said a few times its worth coming back to at a later time.

Right now I will go for people who are actually scummy. I have nothing more to back up 'at least 1 could be scum'

this is dragged on far too fucking long. BBT Deal with it.

What's scummy about my behaviour? In your own words? Please make a full case, with citations and reasons. Also, please answer my question yesterday, about why you think my first post, regarding BBT, was an "overreaction."

[Whiskers]

I won't be voting for Whiskers any time soon, either. He is low-hanging fruit, scum would have banked on town speedlynching his ass toDay. Not happening.

I am low hanging fruit for scum, but what if I were actually scum? Pull off a 'Too scummy to be scum' ploy and count on somebody -- in this case, it was you -- coming to my rescue?

@Guyett

I know how BBT's vote ended up in me. It's not that hard to see.
I misjudged Kaboose's PR because he breadcrumbed the opposite direction. He never denied that he was LP even when pressure built up so the possibility of him being more so BP didn't even cross my mind. If he's conditional infinite BP, he should have SUPER towned, not "gonna afk until people start dying". And lynchproof wasn't a far-fetched idea, as Scripten was lynch resistant (which makes way more sense for town).

Take a step back and re-read 199. Does it sound like I'm protecting Whiskers or suspecting you? Try saying you still think I'm protecting Whiskers.
I can only see that as lining up mislynches (actually if Whiskers flips scum I'd likely be next to be lynched because you planted the idea that I "protected" Whiskers? But 1-1 trade is never worth it for scum so... this is so hard).

Both flipped town PRs were strictly pro-town, I'd take a step further and argue that all town PRs are. Two flips so far: one allows you to actively scumhunt and obvtown without fear of NK, the other gives one fewer NK. Nothing grey about these powers. According to people the game's generally believed to be 10-3 and you need a guilty child in the game when there are 10 PRs? I don't think you're outguessing the mod, you're outderping the scum.

Kaboose (7-LYNCH)- BROseidon, Guyett, BlueBloodedToffee,

Scripten

, deathfisaro, 4burner, Whiskers

At least one of these has to be scum, it's too hard to imagine a 7 town mislynch.
Both you and BBT were on Kaboose wagon and now you two are starting day 2 with Whiskers wagon. However, from the opening of day 2 BBT's play makes sense. RA was on Whiskers wagon from yesterday so him joining makes sense. Yours doesn't.

As for who I find scummy from day 1, I need to re-read the whole thing. I was already on vacation when this game started and couldn't follow up closely enough. I'm still busy till 2nd (expecting 14-16 hr work days till then) but I'll try to check in.

This is pretty town. Earnest and at times stupid in a way that I wouldn't expect scum to be.

This. Remind me why people are suspicious of Death?
Ollie's votes are bad. First one is just a vote, no reason. Then,

No one has come out as Man U yet, interesting.

Considering the mod supports Forest, I'd say that Liverpool are likely to be scum in this game. Only team I know their fans don't like cos of Hillsborough. Not sure how else the mod would decide who the scum were, maybe he'd line the clubs up with roles first then work from there? It might be pissing in the wind a bit to try & work out which clubs were allocated to which roles but it still might be worthwhile looking at that.

I hate the 2nd attempt to push this even more

Also, why would you vote Guyett then push his shitty-ass reasoning?

I voted for Guyett for justice & to uphold the integrity of mafia moderation around the globe.

It's my reasoning you filthy animal. The first thing I did when I replaced in was ask the mod who he supported. You're reaching like a mother fucker. So I like my vote more on you now...

VOTE: BROseidon

how do you like them apples, bitch?

BTW,

this

is more like an overreaction. (Take note, RA.)

BRO didn't even vote you here. He didn't even vote you, eventually. He just called you out, and you curse at him and throw out an OMGUS vote. Shows how strong your Guyett vote was: not very.

Also, really not a fan of Post 217. BBT was saying, "don't waste a lot of time on setup speculation can try to pass it off for scumhunting," not because it's scary and you might figure out all the roles, but because everybody has already thought of that, so no mod worth their fucking salt makes scumteams incredibly obvious, without offering them fakeclaims. It's a WIFOM situation, and you should know that-- although, looking at your join date, maybe you

wouldn't

know that yet. But you should, and now you do, congratulation, you have just learned a great lesson.

[Whiskers]

What are your thoughts on the formation of your wagon Whiskers?

Honestly? Inevitable. Wouldn't have been surprised if I had been lynched, but I'm also not surprised that I wasn't lynched. I've been in this situation before.

But let's not talk about me.

- Guyett's vote on me is alone in it's post. Just a vote.
post 200] - RA's vote on me is in a post with non-tells, and the fact that he would have done the same thing that I did.

Post 201 - Guyett's reasoning is quite a bit of a stretch-- using samples from likely long before this game was in the planning, long before Nexus wrote roles or even had the idea to run a game with this theme. (deathfisario already said this, though, in post 199.) The bit about my prior play is fine, if just on the principle that I delivered a quickhammer.

Post 209 - I already addressed this, but RA calls my reaction to my own accidental hammer oppourtunistic (not sure how you figure that...?), and says I show an uncaring attitude about it. That part may actually be true, but once you hammer, there's not really anything to do about it but ask the condemned for any last words. Also, while I hadn't intended that to be a hammer, the only thing wrong about it was my timing. A few days later (14 days until deadline!), I wouldn't have flinched about hammering Kaboose, probably. He was scummy and there was support from the town-- and from myself-- to lynch him.

So, tl;dr, I was "uncaring" because there's no use in crying over spilled milk.

Post 216 by Yiley is pretty bad. Not sure what needs said about it, his reasoning is vague. Though, it's there, so I suppose we can question him about it. You already asked, though, BBT.

In fact, most of this has already been said. What do I think of the wagon on me? Meh. I already thought Guyett and RA were scum. Yiley's under suspicion for the vote with no useful reason.
Your vote, BBT, I took for a joke (a "joke"), as it was based on my role name / character, and because you took it off pretty soon after.

[Whiskers]

EBWOP:

What are your thoughts on the formation of your wagon Whiskers?

Honestly? Inevitable. Wouldn't have been surprised if I had been lynched, but I'm also not surprised that I wasn't lynched. I've been in this situation before.

But let's not talk about me.

Post194 - Guyett's vote on me is alone in it's post. Just a vote.
post 200 - RA's vote on me is in a post with non-tells, and the fact that he would have done the same thing that I did.

Post 201 - Guyett's reasoning is quite a bit of a stretch-- using samples from likely long before this game was in the planning, long before Nexus wrote roles or even had the idea to run a game with this theme. (deathfisario already said this, though, in post 199.) The bit about my prior play is fine, if just on the principle that I delivered a quickhammer.

Post 209 - I already addressed this, but RA calls my reaction to my own accidental hammer oppourtunistic (not sure how you figure that...?), and says I show an uncaring attitude about it. That part may actually be true, but once you hammer, there's not really anything to do about it but ask the condemned for any last words. Also, while I hadn't intended that to be a hammer, the only thing wrong about it was my timing. A few days later (14 days until deadline!), I wouldn't have flinched about hammering Kaboose, probably. He was scummy and there was support from the town-- and from myself-- to lynch him.

So, tl;dr, I was "uncaring" because there's no use in crying over spilled milk.

Post 216 by Yiley is pretty bad. Not sure what needs said about it, his reasoning is vague. Though, it's there, so I suppose we can question him about it. You already asked, though, BBT.

In fact, most of this has already been said. What do I think of the wagon on me? Meh. I already thought Guyett and RA were scum. Yiley's under suspicion for the vote with no useful reason.
Your vote, BBT, I took for a joke (a "joke"), as it was based on my role name / character, and because you took it off pretty soon after.[/quote]

[Whiskers]

I'm not, but you can't take my word for it.

Also, I did figure out you must have some experience with Guyett. Took me a couple of reads but I realized you must just be busting his balls, so to speak.

Tell me, what's your level of knowledge and experience with Mafia, on site and off?

It's hardly an OMGUS vote when I've already pointed out that I voted for him because the page was littered with multiple posts exhibiting a scummy pattern of behavior, the piece de resistance being his post about me.

Not in Post 290, but I assume you mean your Post 292?

I think he's trying too hard to come across like he's all about taking down scum. He's reaching far too much, looking to swoop on stuff that isn't there. Talking about innocuous posts like they're a personal slight on him. Just cast your eye down his posts on this page. It looks fake.

I disagree. I don't think it looks like he's "trying to come across" as anything. He's just posting a bunch of catch ups. What makes you think it's fake? Just a feeling?

[Whiskers]

Guyett voted me as his newcomer of the year on the other site I play on so you should probably do what I say at all times unless you deem him to be an idiot. I won't be following the common thinking on this site, that's for sure. I'll be doing my own thing.

Well, as a matter of fact...
You should maybe concede a little, though. By all means, use your own experience to play here-- but if you reject the way people play here, you'll just be at odds with everybody, which isn't going to be useful for anybody.

yeah post 292 was made before your post so I don't know why you didn't take this information into account in your analysis of my vote?

Again you ignore what I said & ask me a question you already have the answer to. lol just a feeling? No not just a feeling. Just a feeling really means "I have no reason but want to vote/cast shade on you anyway". For the reasons I have already stated in the post you quoted.

Yeah, that's great, but it's not accurate.
Even if I take into account post 292, it's just "look at this page for your own reasons, in addition to my OMGUS."

And you haven't made me feel more comfortable, that it's

not

just an OMGUS. It sounds like it's just a gut, uneasy feeling from you-- I don't think BRO is being "fake." So, since that's the extent of your attack, it's my word against yours. Would you like to step up your attack, since you're so convinced that he's scum that you're

voting

him?

[Whiskers]

I'm not going to ignore other people's opinions, but I will use my own methods.

No it's not, it's; "Look at his posts on this page & here's why". Reasons you're ignoring because you don't agree. You don't think he's being fake, I think he could well be, is what it boils down to. So why is it my word against yours? It's not directly to do with you & neither of us know for sure if he is being fake, well at least I don't. What an odd comment!

Would I like to step up my attack? wtf? If I want to do something I'll do it. This post from you is idiotic at best.

No, dude, let's pick apart your fucking "case", and see why it's wrong.

I think he's trying too hard to come across like he's all about taking down scum.

It's great that you think that. Why do you think it, though? He's not doing anything to suggest that. This is an opinion, so I can't really ask you to prove it.

He's reaching far too much, looking to swoop on stuff that isn't there about innocuous posts like they're a personal slight on him.

Oh my, he's

swooping on stuff

. Whatever that means. I don't see

any

reaching in those posts, I don't see anything that suggests he's taking any post as a "personal slight." You believe this? Prove it. Quote the part you think shows him "reaching" or "swooping," and explain it. I've looked, I don't see it.

Just cast your eye down his posts on this page. It looks fake.

Again, tell me what you think looks fake. None of it looks fake to me. Give me a specific example, and then we'll discuss it.

The reason it's my word against yours, is you've just pointed to three posts and given vague reasons as to why they could be scummy. THAT looks fake, kiddo. If you really thought it was scummy, and weren't just trying to put pressure on a townie, you'd be able to point to something specific. You didn't so I assume you can't. In turn, it makes me think you don't actually see something scummy. That means you're faking it.

[Whiskers]

I know I said I would post today, but I need to declare V/LA until at least Sunday. Sadly we lost our dog tonight to cancer, and my heads really not in this game right this minute and I need a day or so to myself.

That sucks, dude. Regardless of game state, condolences.

[Whiskers]

Now mod confirming flavour is important, if nexus is a liverpool fan then it could be a flavour related Named Townie/Innocent Child thing. Nexus isn't a liverpool fan going by that post so either whiskers is a guilty child or something outed him. Guilty Child fits more with the flavour of the game.

This is dumb.

This reasoning was not the same as mine like BRO claimed, tried desperately to link me & Guyett with this later on. Hence: Reaching.

Considering the mod supports Forest, I'd say that Liverpool are likely to be scum in this game. Only team I know their fans don't like cos of Hillsborough. Not sure how else the mod would decide who the scum were, maybe he'd line the clubs up with roles first then work from there? It might be pissing in the wind a bit to try & work out which clubs were allocated to which roles but it still might be worthwhile looking at that.

I hate the 2nd attempt to push this even more

Also, why would you vote Guyett then push his shitty-ass reasoning?

2nd attempt to push a different theory?

2nd part of that has been explained.

Ok, so... they look like basically the same reasoning: The mod doesn't like/support the Liverpool team out of game, so they're probably scum in-game.
The difference in your reasoning is a slight one, and it's where you're basing the attack from-- Guyett is using a years-old post to show that mod-Nexus doesn't like Liverpool, and you, Ollie, are showing us that mod-Nexus supports a team that I... think? is opposed to Liverpool.
But the attack you're making is very, very, very the same: "Whiskers/Liverpool is scum, because Nexus doesn't like Liverpool."

There's not even really a noticeable difference.

I really don't like those whisker posts on the last page. Like really don't. So that's where my vote goes.
VOTE: whiskers
I should be more active now that the holidays are over.

This also needs to be killed with fire.

Really? Why?

There are a couple of reasons that come to mind. First of all, Yiley's post here does a really bad job of making an attack. Instead of a concrete case, he just plops in with a vote and says, "yeah, uh, he has some bad posts." He really needs to say what he doesn't like about them. He's too vague.
Second thing, some people, BBT for one, has said they think that those posts of mine that Yiley doesn't like. So instead of just being obviously, unanimously considered to be terrible posts, the posts that Yiley "doesn't like" and is pointing to as such clear evidence that Whiskers is scum, that he doesn't even

need

to give clear reasoning for voting her, those posts are actually disputably town-ringing posts.
I'm not sure what fault you're finding in BRO's calling out of Yiley.

I have a sneaky feeling scum are being quiet letting town make noise fighting each other

Let's fill the thread with empty posts that look shiny on the surface level but don't actually do anything!

Pointless comment that did nothing & didn't even look shiny on the surface!

Here, Guyett is saying something "town-y", that is, "let's stop looking at active players, and be suspicious of lurkers!" I personally don't have a problem with this sort of thing, but the point is that it's just generally town-looking to say, but there's no reason scum wouldn't say it for a little credit. It literally hurts a scum player NONE to say, "oh, but watch out for lurkers!" and in fact, could help to move attention off of scumbuddies.
So: it looks a bit townie, no matter who says it. However, it's not really related to scumhunting, here, and doesn't really change anything going on here, and can actually be a useful ploy for scum.

Although, yeah, I feel like this last one didn't need to be there. But we can't all make 100% goodposts.

[Whiskers]

tl;dr
Ollie:
1. Your reasoning does seem to be the same. What's the difference?
2. BRO has a pretty good reason for calling out Yiley. Why are you against it?
3. Guyett's post appears pro-town, but was no-risk and didn't do anything. BRO's post is also useless, though, IMO.

[Whiskers]

Hmm big surprise your defending somebody who is attacking someone who is attacking you. Will have to do some thinking though.

Hm, I'm attacking someone who is playing shitty. Big surprise.
You're on that fucking list too, you little twat.

[Whiskers]

Hmm big surprise your defending somebody who is attacking someone who is attacking you.

I don't know why BBT voted for Yiley after this post btw.

Because Yiley's play is seriously underwhelming. Why don't you take a page out of-- oh!

Oh.

Take a page out of

your own book

, Ollie.

Hmm big surprise your defending somebody who is attacking someone who is attacking you. Will have to do some thinking though.

Hm, I'm attacking someone who is playing shitty. Big surprise.

You're on that fucking list too, you little twat

.

& you have the audacity to have a go at me for an over reaction!

I specifically pointed it out because RA said, over and over and over, that I overreacted in my first post of the game. I think that's a crock.
And yes, I'm pissed that this guy even suspects that I'm defending this guy to save myself-- well, more than any of us are.

btw you're the one who has quick hammered a townie who'd voted for you (OMGUS, er didn't you accuse me of that?) in this game Whiskers. In contrast I've voted for somebody & you've disagreed with my reasoning. I'd say you're winning when it comes to shitty play.

No, man. I hammered a townie who I would have gladly hammered a few days later. I voted him for being scummy, not because he voted me. In fact, there was a ton of room between when he voted me, and when I voted him.
Let's contrast with

your

vote, which you still can't give suitable reasoning for, which came in a post right after you were voted, where you freaked out about the guy voting you. Looks pretty suspic.

I've reread the thread & realized you're Liverpool...

Mod announcement: Whiskers is Liverpool Football Club.

Did I miss your explanation for why your club was outed? Did you ask for it to be outed?

Now it makes sense to me why you're backing up people who disagree that Liverpool could be scum & going on the attack against me. I'm actually a Liverpool fan (F U BBT ) & I have experience of the weird thing Forest fans have against Liverpool. I don't think the mod would think it was an obvious link. It's not like an Everton/Liverpool rivalry. It's not even a rivalry, it's a one sided thing for Forest fans. That was my theory, Guyett's is based off the role. Same conclusion but the similarity ends there.

Just thinking through this, I've arrived at a conclusion of what I think the role Liverpool were paired with is, that actually tallies with my thinking in a weird way. I reckon I could write out a version of your PM & it would be quite similar to what you have.

I think Man U won't be scum because it would be too obvious to make them scum. I am having doubts since nobody came forward when I asked though, but I'd still lean towards them most likely being town if they're in the game. Chelsea too to a lesser extent for the same reason.

If people don't wanna draw links based on clubs then just stfu cos I'm having my say about it anyway. I think I'm getting somewhere with it & I'm certain it's gonna be useful to theorize about clubs/roles going forward.

I never explained it.
And that's not the reason I'm defending people who are against throwing scumhunting out the window to play guess the mod. It's not the reason I'm attacking the people who are completely ignorant of the way games are usually designed, the people who also can't explain their reasoning and do terrible anti-town shit. Constantly.

Look, you're allowed to speculate on setup. Just make sure that's not ALL you've got, when it comes time to make a case. Voting somebody based solely on flavour is foolish.

Oh yeah, and

answer my post 325.

[Whiskers]

And yes, I'm pissed that this guy even suspects that I'm defending this guy to save myself-- well, more than any of us are.

just like I was & am unsettled about this lame linking of me & Guyett. We know each other form another site & that's it.

No, that's actually not "it." Your insistence on focusing on flavour over scumhunting is something you both share, for instance.

Now,

Now mod confirming flavour is important, if nexus is a liverpool fan then it could be a flavour related Named Townie/Innocent Child thing. Nexus isn't a liverpool fan going by that post so either whiskers is a guilty child or something outed him. Guilty Child fits more with the flavour of the game.

This is dumb.

This reasoning was not the same as mine like BRO claimed, tried desperately to link me & Guyett with this later on. Hence: Reaching.

Considering the mod supports Forest, I'd say that Liverpool are likely to be scum in this game. Only team I know their fans don't like cos of Hillsborough. Not sure how else the mod would decide who the scum were, maybe he'd line the clubs up with roles first then work from there? It might be pissing in the wind a bit to try & work out which clubs were allocated to which roles but it still might be worthwhile looking at that.

I hate the 2nd attempt to push this even more

Also, why would you vote Guyett then push his shitty-ass reasoning?

2nd attempt to push a different theory?

2nd part of that has been explained.

Ok, so... they look like basically the same reasoning: The mod doesn't like/support the Liverpool team out of game, so they're probably scum in-game.
The difference in your reasoning is a slight one, and it's where you're basing the attack from-- Guyett is using a years-old post to show that mod-Nexus doesn't like Liverpool, and you, Ollie, are showing us that mod-Nexus supports a team that I... think? is opposed to Liverpool.
But the attack you're making is very, very, very the same: "Whiskers/Liverpool is scum, because Nexus doesn't like Liverpool."

There's not even really a noticeable difference.

I really don't like those whisker posts on the last page. Like really don't. So that's where my vote goes.
VOTE: whiskers
I should be more active now that the holidays are over.

This also needs to be killed with fire.

Really? Why?

There are a couple of reasons that come to mind. First of all, Yiley's post here does a really bad job of making an attack. Instead of a concrete case, he just plops in with a vote and says, "yeah, uh, he has some bad posts." He really needs to say what he doesn't like about them. He's too vague.
Second thing, some people, BBT for one, has said they think that those posts of mine that Yiley doesn't like. So instead of just being obviously, unanimously considered to be terrible posts, the posts that Yiley "doesn't like" and is pointing to as such clear evidence that Whiskers is scum, that he doesn't even

need

to give clear reasoning for voting her, those posts are actually disputably town-ringing posts.
I'm not sure what fault you're finding in BRO's calling out of Yiley.

tell me how your reasoning is different from Guyett's.

[Whiskers]

No, you're not being tied together because you come from the same forum!

That's not the reason you're being linked!

Even if you repeat it a hundred times.

And no, you

haven't

discussed your reasoning! You just OMGUSsed Bro when he said it was the same as Guyett's, you told me over and over that it was an "OPINION" when I said it was the same as Guyett's, but you won't explain what makes it

different

from Guyett's!!

I've already discussed my reasoning, why I arrived at the conclusion I did & why it is different in post 332 & I'm bored shitless of you droning on repeating questions that I've already answered & actually ignoring the answers. You don't even take in the content of my posts or read them properly.

NO, YOU DIDN'T!!

First of all, post 332 is 4burner's. I'm assuming you mean your post 322, where the extent of your discussion is literally:

This reasoning was not the same as mine like BRO claimed, tried desperately to link me & Guyett with this later on. Hence: Reaching.

One single line that just repeats the same answer again: "Wah, It's NOT identical to Guyett's reasoning!"

But, you're not willing to discuss why. You're not giving an answer beyond just announcing that it's different, though everybody else weighing in on the subject agrees that it is.

Vote: Ollie

[Whiskers]

No, you're not being tied together because you come from the same forum!

That's not the reason you're being linked!

Even if you repeat it a hundred times.

@Ollie

- and then tries to game a Mod on a site he's only pretty just freshly joined? Unless he knows them from offsite or something similar.

part of his scum read on me in a post he's linked myself & Guyett in.

Just so you know, this is linking you and Nexus, not you and Guyett.

You read what you want to read & see what you want to see & that is anti town so fix the fuck up & get a grip of yourself.

Really? Fuck you. I tried to figure out your typo and was wrong, that's not me "seeing what I want to see." Next time, don't fuck up and I won't have to guess, how about that?

And no, you

haven't

discussed your reasoning! You just OMGUSsed Bro when he said it was the same as Guyett's, you told me over and over that it was an "OPINION" when I said it was the same as Guyett's, but you won't explain what makes it

different

from Guyett's!!

oops wrong again...

I'm actually a Liverpool fan (F U BBT ) & I have experience of the weird thing Forest fans have against Liverpool. I don't think the mod would think it was an obvious link. It's not like an Everton/Liverpool rivalry. It's not even a rivalry, it's a one sided thing for Forest fans. That was my theory, Guyett's is based off the role. Same conclusion but the similarity ends there.

I'm failing to see how yours is also not based off the role. Also, in the post you made your vote, you said,

The first thing I did when I replaced in was ask the mod who he supported.

Which has nothing to do with your explanation in 336.

But, it doesn't matter because you're still saying, "Ah, the Whiskers' rolename points to her maybe being scum, for some out-of-game reason!" I completely don't see the difference.
Oh, no, actually I do. Ok. So there's no difference between your reasoning in post 290 (quoted above) and Guyett's reasoning. It's "the mod doesn't support that team, so would have made it scum."
The "updated" reasoning in 336, that you gave after being pressured over and over and over to show that it's not the same -- no, you managed to come up with something that's not, strictly, the same.

What kind of crap is this, it only goes to show that you don't read my posts properly. You'd have been able to figure that out which post I meant if you did. I meant post 336 now try again.

Maybe the flavour-based setup-speculation in

that

post had looked any different from the

other

flavour-based setup-speculation you'd posted...

[Whiskers]

This knocking the idea down because itd "outguessing the mod" is annoying though. Yes it can only go so far but I got Stoke and my power is to do with restricting someone (like a Tony Pulis Stoke team). The mod doesn't like Liverpool so I would be absolutely shocked if he made Liverpool an Innocent Child.
So in my opinion either there is some role that makes the mod confirm a players flavour publicly or he is a Guilty Child type of flavour.

I've honestly never heard of a "Guilty Child" role-- I mean, obviously it's a variant. But how would it even work? An Innocent Child is confirmed to be Town-aligned. A "Guilty-Child" would be confirmed to be... scum-aligned? That'd make the lynch pretty easy to figure out!

[Whiskers]

In the initial theory I posted that the Liverpool role was likely to be scum aligned, I didn't realize you'd been outed as Liverpool when I said that so I never said YOU were scum & wouldn't have if I'd known about the possible innocent child connection.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter WHO is Liverpool, the fact of the matter is you're still assuming the mod would not only assign roles based on who he supports (which may be as likely as not), but that, in a scenario where Nexus assigned roles in that way, that he'd

tell

you what teams he supports. IF Nexus made Teams town or scum based on his liking of the team, then he'd sure as hell not go off and say, "oh, I like this team, but not this other one." This is

HIGHLIGHTED

by the fact that there's a role power that has the mod confirm it's NAME, and not it's ALIGNMENT. If you knew the Mod's Personality, you'd have an unfair advantage. The game would be unbalanced (even moreso than a so-called "bastard game"), and wouldn't be fun for anybody.

Would BBT be so obvious as to off two of the guys hassling him though?.& then he's voted for Yiiey as well. So not sure about that one.

Do you think BRO & 4burner could be linked? They could be getting whiskers to do their dirty work for them by the looks of things.

Where the

fuck

did you pick up the idea that Scripten was "hassling" BBT? I mean, Kaboose was a lynch, and BBT only had a hand in 1 vote of 7 required to "off" him, so the idea that it was BBT's goal to lynch Kaboose, because Kaboose was "hassling" him is asinine. So that's half of that theory in the toilet.
But then somehow you also think Scripten was somehow hassling BBT? No. Scripten backed off BBT way early. He did a ton more hassling of 4burner than he did of BBT. Hell, you could make a better case for scum-Whiskers killing off Scripten, than scum-BBT killing him! Although, he backed off of both 4burner and Whiskers by the end of the day, too. (Which is actually why scum-Whiskers would have killed him: Last thing Scripten did was give a town read of Whiskers. If he dies in the night (which he did), he doesn't get a chance to reconsider that read.)

You're totally bonkers.

BBT is a town read for now. While a lot of his posts have just been him questioning people and this could be seen as just posting to appear to be active and town orientated I do see town in other posts and it does look like he is open to changing reads based on new information.

Err... the posts that are "just him questioning people" is kind of the core of scumhunting. I mean, it's good you "see town in other posts" but please tell me you see town in the posts where he asks questions, too? You know, the scumhunting ones?

[Whiskers]

I have BBT & Whiskers as town atm.

I voted for BRO as a reaction test after he scummed up the page. He had his vote on Yiley who I consider to be lynchbait atm & then as soon as I vote for him (& under cover of whiskers attacking me) he switches his vote & votes for me. Very bad vibes from him.

4burners reads post was terrible but I need to see more from him.

Not gonna attempt to put a scum team together til some players pick their activity levels up. There are nearly always lurkers in the scum team.

So... you voted him as a reaction test, now?
Why?
If you already think he had "Scummed up the page," then what did you need a reaction test for? Why not just vote him for being scummy?
If it was a reaction test, how would he have "passed the test," so to speak? Your "reaction test" looked like a bad OMGUS. Makes you look all kinds of suspicious, if you didn't already.

What about 4burner's reads post was bad? I just went back and read it again and, again, am sitting here nodding my head all throughout.

[Whiskers]

I certainly read you each as scum.

There are plenty of other problems with your posts that I feel obligated to poke holes through but it doesn't matter. People will come and see for themselves.

Somebody prod me when it's time to lynch.

[Whiskers]

You know what it is, I think some people have a problem with us not following the site trend of reading people purely by if other player's town reads align with their town reads or not.

That's not a fucking thing. That's a trend among bad players, not a site-trend.

I need more out of yiley before I read him one way or the other. I think BBT is town though.

You fuckin idiot. You're giving Yiley no incentive to post, as you'll never vote him, or even read him until he posts more. scum-Yiley is safe with no effort, and, for that matter, town-yiley is too.

[Whiskers]

Your thinking is shallow.

[Whiskers]

Red Arrow:

I like your consistency from D1 to D2. But I feel like Whiskers has towned up a lot recently. Do you still want to focus solely on Whiskers? If you're town and Whiskers is town and you tunnel on Whiskers, we'll mislynch and you'll likely to rise as a scummy candidate tomorrow. That's not beneficial to town. In the last 150 posts or so, your conviction on Whiskers was practically zero and yet Whiskers' defence was quite active. So in the scenario you're town and Whiskers is scum, you'll have to obvtown and townlead well, otherwise it's going to shoot yourself in the foot. Also sorry for your loss.

Mixed bag.

(probably will swing one direction soon)

Whiskers:

I like recent posts from you but any scum in your position would do the same. Just to clarify, Kaboose never claimed LP. He claimed some sort of "not dying" power and because he wasn't playing to draw NKs I assumed it was "not dying during the day" thus lynchproof and I was wrong. And yet you said things as if Kaboose himself has claimed LP. Combined with bad hammer D1, your scumminess from D1 hasn't been cancelled out by your effort for towniness D2. I like your vote on Ollie but given the combination of scum powers, they may be able to afford to sacrifice a buddy for town cred. My concern is, you're being scumread by too many people too easily. I would be thinking way too hard if this was a scum master plan from pre-game to sack their bad playing buddy (which you volunteered) to paint the scum team with shining towniness. Yeah I think that's an extreme stretch but why can't I just shake it off?

Still scumlean

Re:Red Arrow
It sounds like you're having trouble reading him because he's been V/LA for the last several days. Keep in mind that his arguments aren't up to date, and keep in mind that he's going to have a bunch of catching up to do when he comes back in, and the transition may be jarring or he may still be convinced of his old position.

Re:Whiskers
My bad about the LP bit, I jumped to that conclusion once he was leaning that way. Still, he was likely the lynch for the day and I didn't regret lynching him, just it was too early (and I do regret lynching his role... oops).

What do you mean, "the combination of scum powers"? Do you have insight into what the scum powers are?

Why does it matter to you if I'm "being scumread too easily by too many people"? Does that have an influence on your read of me? Why?

You can't shake the feeling of a scum ploy because it would be a good one to make, however, let me put your mind at ease:

Ollie replaced in, and, were we both scum, I wouldn't have had time to know that "he's a terrible player" who "needs to be sacrificed for towncred."

Mafia night QTs tend to move very slowly. A couple of days IRL time is enough to hold an exchange of a few sentences, but I wouldn't have gotten a feel for his playstyle or ability in that time.

Either Ollie or Whiskers paired up with BBT makes more sense, looking at your scum reads: Whiskers and Ollie are fighting, and BBT wants to break it up. Is scum-BBT's partner losing the fight? Is scum-BBT's partner putting her foot in her mouth? Either way, BBT wants to take attention off of them. (I don't actually think that's the case, though. I'm town reading BBT and suspect it's just because Ollie/Whiskers is taking up a bunch of space and wasting time.)

[Whiskers]

BBT, I meant something along the lines of, "BBT says he likes those posts, so Yiley not-liking them doesn't mean it's the town's opinion." The point being that, Yiley needs to have said more than just "I don't like these posts," because it's not clear WHY he doesn't like them; the opinion isn't shared and so he should explain himself.

Remind me why Ollie is a townread for you?

And then, remind me why we shouldn't lynch him on policy anyway?

[Whiskers]

so that's a no then.

No, it's not a "no." Let me show you an example of your shallow thinking:

& it's strange for you to call me a f#cking idiot for in your opinion 'giving Yiley no incentive to post' when you read us both as scum, agreed that we're a team & you have your vote on me.

I mean if we were both scum then I wouldn't be putting him under pressure & that'd be ok scum play

so I wouldn't be an idiot (in your book) for that.

Bolding mine: You'd still be an idiot. If you're both scum, and scum together, then

of course

you'd still put pressure on him, maybe even more than if you were one or both town. If you're both scum, then:
A, you want to look town, so would pressure him to post.
B, want him to look town, so would pressure him to post.
C, wand your scumteam active, so would pressure him to post.

So no,

not

putting your scumbuddy under pressure to post, because he is your scum buddy, is

terrible

scum-play. And you'd still be an idiot.

See, it's not so much what you do, that makes you a good or bad mafia player, so much as why and how you do it. You can say "oh, a vig would have shot you, because you quickhammered," but a better vig would make sure someone like you stays out of LyLo, because even

if

you're town, you can't be counted on to make sound decisions.

[Whiskers]

What the fuck is the "confirm-Liverpool incident"?

[Whiskers]

Oh, because the mod-confirmed that I'm Liverpool. OK, next question, who the fuck has been discussing that? Not Guyett and Whiskers. It's only been mentioned a couple of times and it's not the main focus of any discussion.
Could you, like, explain yourself and quote somebody?

[Whiskers]

I don't even

understand

what you're being accused of by theelkspeaks. Big surprise, he's not around to make sense of what he said earlier.

[Whiskers]

Also, Ollie:
-Don't suggest anything to him. Rather than asking, "was it this," let him tell you what it was. Don't let him simply agree to what you suspect, because it takes a ton of pressure off of him (if he's scum), makes it a lot easier. Also, you could end up reading more into it than he actually says.
-When did you peg me for innocent child?? I sure as fuck don't remember you saying that.

[Whiskers]

Nevermind, I found it-- it's part of that flavour bullshit that you two keep going on about.

Just to clear things up, I'm obviously,

clearly

, fucking

NOT

an Innocent Child role, nor a "Guilty Child" role. If I were one of those, my alignment would have been confirmed by the mod. I'm more like a "Liverpool Child" role, in that my flavour, my role-name, "Liverpool," was confirmed by the mod.

So, shock of shocks, you're still going to have to figure out my alignment the old fashioned way.

[Whiskers]

ALSO, just because I'm thinking of it and it needs to be addressed:

Ollie, just because somebody has a scumread on two people, doesn't mean they're necessarily speculating that they're on a scumteam

together

. You don't seem to fucking understand this; I have a scumread on you, Guyett, and Yiley. I'm

NOT

suggesting that you're all scum together, or even that you're all necessarily scum.

So every fucking time you go, "Oh, so now I'm on a scumteam with ____? " because someone scumreads you

and

another player, it's just another example of how poorly you understand the game.

[Whiskers]

I said his reads page looked good. I said something like "I was reading it and nodding my head." In most cases, I agree with him, or I at least find his reads appropriate.
But you also "say that" in response to Elk, just now-- unless I'm reading something wrong.

[Whiskers]

2) I'm saying you may be purposefully playing bad for your scummates to lynch you for towncred. But other towns are also noticing it, obviously?
3) Ollie has nothing to do with the plan, how would he be in pre-game. I said Whiskers is the sacrifice. You read portion of my post perfectly and suddenly super-fail on reading another portion of the same post?
4) I don't think Whiskers and Ollie are fighting. Your later half of the post are misdirecting me somewhere else.

2 & 3)
Er, am I playing bad?
I completely didn't get the idea that I was the sacrifice. "I like your vote on Ollie, but seems the scum could make a sacrifice," made me think that Ollie was the sacrifice. The guy who, if we were both scum, and I had a vote on, would be the one closer to being a lynch? If not, why mention that you like my vote on ollie, in the same sentence?
So yeah, when you said "bad playing buddy," in the scenario where we were both scum, I assumed you were referring to Ollie.

4)
ALSO, the reason I bring up Ollie and Whiskers fighting (which you

should

think we were doing, because, uh, we were, please read the thread), is your painting of Whiskers and Ollie as a scumteam together-- which you did when you said (or I misinterpreted you saying) Scum-Whiskers sacrifices Scum-Ollie for towncred. I was saying, "no, look, that team doesn't even make any fucking sense."

[Whiskers]

Why Yiley over elk? 2 day active lurking deserves to die over 9 day active lurking?

The difference is that elk wasn't "active lurking."
And it pisses me right the hell off that elk just waltzs back in here after all this time to dump a single, solitary, second post on this game, instead of being replaced. He should have been replaced long ago. But no, he shouldn't be modkilled. He should be replaced with a competent player-- this town is rather lacking in them, at the moment.

[Whiskers]

Unvote

Guyett, you're acting damn scummy, please stop.

[Whiskers]

MAJOR OVER-REACTION - MAYBE WORSE THAN WHISKERS DAY 1 POST

You shoul maybe read every post I have made about you so far.

I did note this when reading through on my catch up. I refer to it above, this is maybe worse than your over-reaction in my eyes.

I'm just going to let this go, rather than try to torture an explanation out of you. I still hold that nothing in that post was an overreaction, and that you're making shit up.

It looks pretty much like your hammer post lol.

Great, so my hammer post looked good and the least scummy it could? Glad you think so and let me off the hook for it. Whew.

I don't think it was such a weak attempt to get people posting more Death, it seems to have worked on you. & that's actually what it was, not a call to vote for people with less votes than myself. I don't even know how you get that from that post.

For the record, it looked exactly the same to me-- seemed like you were calling for votes on low-post-count people.

I can't do anything without some fanciful conclusion being drawn in this game. I've never experienced anything like it! I think in future games I'm gonna make like 2 posts a game day to ensure that I don't get misrepresented so badly & so often.

Maybe you could make 2 clear posts a real day, and then people could actually fucking understand you? Then you wouldn't get misread so badly and so often.

I don't want Ollie lynched, I'm pretty sure he's town.

I'm pretty sure I'm dead, my role won't stop my lynch. It's nothing useful to help scum hunt or protect anyone. Worse luck, so many people are on me in this game, the info from my lynch will be shit. & most of the reasons are flat out ridiculous when everyone looks back on them. The one good thing is that you will be cleared of being in a scum team with me &

maybe people will stfu about the Liverpool thing.

But I doubt it with these guys. Kaboose, me then you I bet, good luck.

Dude
dude dude dude

There are like, three people talking about "The Liverpool Thing."

YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.

You are literally complaining about yourself, Guyett, and me. And I'm fucking exempt, for it being my role.

Also, you don't claim ONLY because your role is useful. A roleclaim can be useful sometimes even if your role is shit. I've seen people get out of lynches for claiming VT.

[Whiskers]

Unvote

Guyett, you're acting damn scummy, please stop.

Also this implies you are town reading me in some capacity. Why?

More that you're not totally incredibly stupid, and that seems to be kind of a fucking luxury in this Town.

Also, whether or not I have a scumread on you, I'm always willing to hear you out, if you can make sense.

And honestly, I'd

prefer

to townread most players. It bugs me when people do things like strongly defend someone whose alignment they can not know, (you cannot know his alignment ifyou're town,) with no discernible reason. It means either you're a cop, or you're scum.

Actually, let me delve into this a little further: Why don't you think Ollie is scum?

[Whiskers]

Actually, you're not "backfoot defending utter rubbish"-- or, you ARE defending rubbish, but you're not defending AGAINST it. 4burner was surprisingly accurate when she said, you try to discredit players and laugh off reads. I couldn't put it into words, but he's right.

And it's something that I wonder, if it comes from being from offsite, not from being scum-- by the way, the bit where you copy+pasted from your role PM is illegal. We may not actually lynch you at all, if the mod comes in and decides it's breaking the rules, and modkills you. That'd kind of suck, though.

It's very good that we knew your role, though-- or at least your role claim. Without it, some unsuspecting townie hammers you, how could you not see the information as useful? Instead, why don't we volunteer Yiley, or-- or hell, even Elk, to hammer? Yiley would be ideal, but he refuses to play the game so probably won't be coerced. Elk is in a slot that's been empty all game, and we can not get a read on.

Let's have Elk hammer Ollie.

[Whiskers]

Would you do it Whiskers?

No, of course not. I'm town, and even if some people think I'm not town, they can make a case and try to lynch me. Elk, on the other hand, has made two posts in the game. There can not possibly be any read on his slot, no case made against him. If a player should be sacrificed, it should be him.

btw am I going to congratulate people on reading me as scum for reasons I find unfathomable? Should I throw them an amazing player party? I can't work out how people are reaching most of their conclusions & the terrific points I do make get ignored in the midst of this mass confirmation bias gang bang.

An example being 4burner saying I thought you were scum so I should have voted for you as part of the reason he thought I was scum. I argued against it with two actual quotes, then brought it up again, both times it wasn't even responded to. So when that happens I start attacking the credibility of the player as it's useless to defend flat out wrong reads that won't even get responded to.

Eh. I'm looking at the whole thing with you and 4burner, and while that wasn't his only reason for voting you, he was taking into account your stuff about Liverpool possibly being scum. You said you didn't make the connection between Liverpool and Whiskers initially, and so were reading them separately, and maybe 4burner missed that.

Maybe 4burner never intended to respond to that, since you really did prove it to be wrong (in Post 338)-- he misremembered something, and that was the basis for that part of the attack. But then you brought it up again in Post 391, and then...

4burner

did

respond to you. In Post 446, he doesn't argue with you that he was right about it, he argues that the way you handle it is bad. He doesn't cling to his initial idea that you should have voted Whiskers, because it was based on an incorrect memory. Instead of clinging, he points out that you

telling

him that it was a major reason he scumread you.

Ugh, I wish I could conclusively tell you that that's wrong, but when you go back 4burner's initial reads post, Post 335, it's true that it's about 2/5th of the paragraph he gives on Ollie. What's up with that, 4burner?

What else is wrong with 4burner's posts, I'll look into it? Reading his posts and yours, I see a lot of scummy stuff from you-- things like in Post 391, where you say his post long, just to make it look better, when actually it was just long to respond to you. Or later in that post, where you go, "You're just throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks" and "Pick on the new guy day, is it?" in response to an decent point he made-- and I'm sitting here wondering why it's "shit" to you.

And other stuff of yours just makes me want to lynch you, regardless. 391 is a good example of that, too: in your opening paragraph, you make the assertion that 4burner's reads are crap and "full of nonsense" because he reads you as scum, and you are, according to you, not scum. When I read something that, I go, "great, but WE don't know your alignment. WE can't look at his reads and say they're bad because "you're not scum," because WE don't know "you're not scum."" And when that's your best argument against the guy's reads-- when it's even

included

against his reads, it looks like you haven't got a better reason. Like you're flailing for anything to defend yourself. Like you

are

scum. But good scum player knows that already. Why would you include it? Why would

anyone

include it?


Ugh, why am I doing all the legwork here?

Give me something else to look into, I guess, if I'm going to be the one to do it.

[Whiskers]

My point is, even though that appeared to be a big part of 4burner's case, and even though he didn't respond to it immediately, and part of his current case against you is the way you're acting about it,

and part of that's due to the way 4burner behaved

, you still have scummy behaviour, and it still bothers me.

[Whiskers]

Whiskers

, read 4burner's posts here as if he's talking about you...

@Ollie

- Comes in swinging, takes a tone I really don't like, and then tries to game a Mod on a site he's only pretty just freshly joined? Unless he knows them from offsite or something similar. Basically I'm thinking scum due to Whiskers/Liverpool/Mod stuff ala Guyett. And never actually voted Whiskers despite agreeing with the anti-whiskers stuff from memory. Votes BRO over very little, comparatively.

Comes in swinging... so what? That's not alignment indicative of anyone. Tone again means nothing, he doesn't know me. Guyett does, he's not seen anything in these things. Trying to outguess the mod isn't alignment indicative either. Last part is flat out wrong as you know. So this is fluff/wrong. From that....

He doesn't know you, so tone is one of the few things he has to go one-- same goes for the rest of us. The tone you took was very queen-ish. It's not alignment indicative, but it sets people on edge. Prepares them to distrust you.

The fact that Guyett "doesn't see it", doesn't help you, but we'll get onto that later-- more importantly, players other than Guyett think there's something up.

Trying to outguess the mod isn't alignment indicative in and of itself, but it's generally regarded as bad play, not very useful, filler. Not only were trying to "outguess the mod", but the fact that you were trying to guess how Nexus, specifically, would behave, without knowing his tendencies, made it even less likely you'd be able to do it with any amount of accuracy. Even if you guess correctly by random chance, there's no way to use it since you don't have good logic getting there.

The point is that it was a waste of time.

But ultimately, that's what this first read of 4burner's comes down to: you spent some time playing a game of "outguess the mod" which you could not win, and you're haughty without having deserved the right.

So I've got my scumteam as Guyett/Ollie/Yiley, which I'm scarily confident in for a D2 read. But everyone else is basically town bar a few nulls, so let's see how this shakes out.

He's scarily confident that the 3 of us are a scum team, not just one of us, the 3 of us. Early on day 2.

Exaggeration exists in all players. Obviously if one of you flips town, he's not going to hold onto the idea that you're all scum together. Why is this much worse than being confident of just

one

scumread you have?
But sure, you can say this is confirmation bias or posturing or whatever. Nobody else is worried about it though. Not even me.

Plus,

you keep talking to Guyett

. So. I don't know what you want from me.

This is the worst point ever. To not scum read me for conversing with other players would be a start.

This is an easy one: he was talking about how much you complained for being linked to Guyett.

You complained a ton, said it was a huuuuge stretch, but then kept talking to Guyett, asking her questions or trying to get her to agree with you. No matter what you say, you were buddying up. It wouldn't have been such a big deal, except that you

made

it a big deal.

Oooh look so not only does 4burner have his scum team locked in but his lynch order is now decided...

Right, that'll do. VOTE: Ollie because you started bad, then just got worse. Guyett can wait til tomorrow. Yiley the day after.

This doesn't have to do with anything. It's just him saying you moved up on his to-lynch list. The rest is nothing more than reminding us that he has other reads.

How am I supposed to reason with this guy?

Reason about what? Trying to get him to change his read? Address his concerns, but also appear rational and logical. Make sense when you're making an attack or accusation or case, and take note when someone challenges it or tells you you're wrong-- accept criticism and learn. Don't freak out when someone votes you, or makes a link between you and Guyett.

And ultimately, go without, rather than within. Making a good attack makes you look better than putting up a good defence. It's risky, it takes alertness and a show of good thinking. It implies willingness to take responsibility for being wrong. It shows you're selfless and always trying to scumhunt and help town, even if you may be in danger yourself. It erases any sign of a guilty conscience, demonstrating your confidence that, because you're town, you'll never be lynched.

You'd pick all of this up in a newbie game. You're sort of already expected to understand this by now.

[Whiskers]

I need to catch up thoroughly but I have skimmed.

Can someone clarify who is on Ollie wagon please because Ollie is town as fuck.

Still waiting for you to clarify why you think Ollie is town at all. Guyett's explanation is "offsite meta," which I would think shouldn't sit well with you, but...?

I think this is accurate

Ollie (4)-

BROseidon

, 4burner,

theelkspeaks

,

deathfisaro

Whiskers (1)-

, Yiley

Yiley (2)-

BlueBloodedToffee, Ollie

deathfisaro (1)-

Guyett

Guyett (1)-

massive

Not voting (2)-

Red Arrow, Whiskers

L oh fucking L at this wagon.

Bolded could all be scum. Doubtful that all 3 scum are on this wagon though...

Also, why BRO scum? Why death scum? Like, I'm not just asking to be contrary, BRO is a townread and I don't get a lot of trouble out of death. What's your problem with 'em?

Ollie does not need to be lynched toDay, for pretty obvious reasons.

He can be sorted at a later date.

4burner, vote Yiley please.

They're still not obvious.
How many people do we get to "Sort at a later date"?

And, not that I want to put him into the running ATM-- but what about Elk? What does

everybody

think about elk?

[Whiskers]

Usually modkills end the day, death.

Of your list, Guyett and BBT, I'm down for lynching Yiley and Elk. But elk is a policy lynch a much as anything.

preedit

Has

Elk been on the site 6 times over the course of those nine days? I wasn't aware of that.

To my knowledge, Elk had been completely absent from the game, from the site, all of it, for the nine days. That's not active lurking. If Elk has been active elsewhere during that time, then sure, he's active lurking.

[Whiskers]

To be fair, he wasn't posting

anywhere

between Dec 31, when Day 2 started, and Jan 5, yesterday. And he explained it later has having limited access. Seems legit.

You have to ask where he was Day 1, but Day 1 was only three days long.

[preedit]
So what you're saying is, Yiley need to be blacklisted from all games, right?

[Whiskers]

death, who said you were scum for wanting a modkill? It's just not a good idea, generally. (As I said, modkill usually ends the day, it remove a player slot without having any good reason, we don't get the analysis from having a wagon)

I'm not 100% on an Elk lynch, either. There's something that feels wrong about lynching lurkers, as though we don't have actual scum to be focusing on. I know, it's a bit more serious than lurking, but just a bit.

[Whiskers]

almost no resistance on whiskers wagon earlier, likewise with Ollie wagon to get it to L-1.
However there's some resistance against elk wagon already

Do you understand why?

I don't want Elk in the game, but that's a problem I have with the player, not the slot. I can't read the slot, really-- the best I can do is say, "he was avoiding the thread." But then, why not Yiley, who has been both lurking in the thread, and useless when he does post?

Ultimately, I'll support either of these lynches, but I'm a bit uneasy about both of 'em.

Also, there was resistance to Ollie's wagon, in the form of Guyett and BBT. I don't remember who was the first to townread Whiskers, but clearly there was enough "resistance" if it didn't go through to lynch, even if that resistance was silent.

[Whiskers]

RA and massive have easy reads. Death fits in there too, but his reasoning shows independent thought. And, death has made the hardest push for the Elk wagon, which is now the popular wagon.

[Whiskers]

Elk. Why no posts over the course of Day 1. I can maybe let your unexpected 5 V/LA slide, but that's the entirety of the game so far, Day 1, plus your unannounced V/LA. Where were you Day 1?

You can't get reads on anybody? You're not a good mafia player? I haven't seen you so much as

try

. Either do something-- NOW-- or we're going to lynch you. You were an inch away from getting replaced. I went to the replacement thread and saw your slot up for grabs. I was going to ask the mod publicly why you hadn't been replaced. And then you came back to be useless some more? No.

Be useful, or be lynched. You should have been replaced. After this, go play newbie games until you're not "just not a good mafia player."

Like, it's certainly not just you, and I'm pleased that you're humble and shit-- but we seriously need fewer "just not good mafia players" loose out in the forums. You guys are playing in regular games. An excuse like that is either evidence that you're scum, or evidence that you're in over your head.

[Whiskers]

No, no, no, you misunderstand. I want you

to have been

replaced. To replace you now means a bunch of time waiting for "Everyone" (really only five players or so) to come to a decision, waiting for the mod to put up another replacement ad, waiting for someone to replace in, waiting for that person to catch up on the game, and just hoping that they're a level above "shit" at playing... No, replacing you now means wasting a bunch of time. Before, I

wanted

you to be replaced. Now, I want you to do your best. I don't care if you make a mistake or are bad at the game, but you need to

do something,

and quickly, because otherwise you're going to get lynched pretty immediately.

[Whiskers]

I finally fucking agree with Ollie (it's a rare occurrence, but it does happen sometimes). I don't care what you think of the case on you.

I'm giving you one last shot, to actually produce reads or a case or anything interesting, really. If you don't bring us back something,

anything,

it's over.

[Whiskers]

Jesus, I curse an awful lot. Maybe I should try to tone it down a bit.

[Whiskers]

Yiley is being replaced.[/b]

yippie~

[Whiskers]

Is Guyett just scum for being generally unwilling to cooperate? And for never posting anything longer than a line?

That's all fine but we have a lot of those in this game. What's you case for Guyett look like at this point, massive? Is it convincing enough to get people to switch over quickly?

[Whiskers]

And tbh, I'm taking the echoing silence from Elk to be a bit of a scum-tell. I told him several times, "you get one chance," and in his response each time he just complained more that he wasn't good enough. This just kind of looks like a newbie playing AtE and playing the noob card, and then silently trying to wait out the phase under the radar.

[pre-edit]
@BRO, how do we feel about the SS claim? There's a chance that it's fake and he's scum, and a chance that we're wrong. In that case, how do we tactically manoeuvre around the hammer? Such as having Yiley or Elk hammer, in case of true claim?

Do we have enough shit for a Guyett wagon? I think that a different lynch today will give us something to look at that might support a Guyett lynch tomorrow, Ollie or Elk, for instance.

I'm predicting that BRO or massive dies toNight, so "last" reads and cases would be nice.

[Whiskers]

Anyone who has Whiskers as a null read: IGMEOU.

[Whiskers]

Hey guyett, would you seriously fuck off and get replaced? Maybe then we can have a player who posts more than one line at a time.

You're not doing nothing, so you're not the worst offender here. But I'm pretty sure nobody is trying to convince

you

to participate in lynching Ollie.

Is Guyett just scum for being generally unwilling to cooperate?

Yeah I'm not going to cooperate if it means a town read of mine gets lynched.

And when I said you were uncooperative, I was specifically thinking of:

vote: death

Is there anything, anything at all you'd like to say to qualify this?

Not really no.

Scanning your ISO, Guyett, your game seems to be based on wagon analysis. Not a bad tool but maybe you could do more to build a case on someone you think is scum?
Also, your defence of Ollie, who you "think is town" (which became so strong that it now is "will not lynch") is meta, off-site meta. Please, please understand that for everybody BUT you and Ollie, that's really fucking weak and impossible to check. Maybe you could do more to write a compelling argument for why Ollie isn't scum?

You're not doing

nothing

. You beat out Yiley and Elk in that regard. I wish you would do more, though. And I completely don't understand what you're so fucking frustrated with, since you're haven't been willing to put forth the effort to, like, beat scum to death.

I'm actually kind of coming around on my read with you-- my early read may, admittedly, just have been based on frustration with your behaviour. I'm reading through your shit and yeah, you're doing more than I realize. I wanted to say you're not doing anything, but that's just not fucking true. You

might

be scumhunting. Your reads certainly change over time and with new information.

We have two days irl until deadline. Ultimately, we're probably going to lynch Elk. No fucking chance you're getting nightkilled, also no way

I'm

getting nightkilled. We're just not "town" enough players-- plus our roles are questionable and make us lynchbait. So when Day 3 rolls around, let's fucking help each other out, so we don't have another day like today: completely fucking useless.

[Whiskers]

I was fishing for someone to make a case on you, actually. Nobody has. I think if you're scum, it'll be easier to see that tomorrow. I'm not sure, I'm not accustomed to your playstyle beyond terrible noobs who think they're hot shit (be honest it's a similar style) and, say, Thor.

The Elk wagon is so fucking slow because there's nothing to read from him-- and because everyone else has disappeared. It seems like we should be able to move beyond "lynch a lurker."

Nevertheless, I'm tired of waiting.

vote: theelkspeaks

[Whiskers]

Your VCA relies on BBT being town, and you're just parroting Red Arrow's "wagon analysis" from Day 1. See 75 for me pointing out what's wrong with this "analysis."

"What's wrong with this analysis," according to you in post 75, is that Red Arrow didn't bother to follow it up at all. That's... Guyett's problem, somehow?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the wagon VCA, and certainly don't have as much faith in it as Guy does, but I think you might want to clarify your position a little bit...

[Whiskers]

-snip-

Don't forget the coaching with Ollie that I did.
Also,

those guys

were calling for your lynch today. I was telling them to make a case. I'm not calling for your lynch today. I'm saying to postpone anything of the sort until

at least

the next Day phase, where we'll have some flips relevant to you. But, if they wanted to put together a case, and it looked good and convinced a bunch of people, then people would move to your wagon. Just like with any other player.
Just trying to get people to fucking

play,

you know?

[Whiskers]

@Whiskers drifting towards not is not.

?????????

[Whiskers]

I actually

would

like Guyett to have a voice-- although to do more than just answer yes or no questions ambiguously. He needs to come under hard scrutiny after the Ollie flip, as does BBT. Guyett using his role on himself to survive another day is actually a pretty clever scum move. I've done this in the past myself... I might even be able to dig up the links!

Regardless, I'm tired of the spamming.

Vote: Guyett

BlueBloodedToffee,

you need to explain why Ollie was

ever

"Town as fuck," and what prompted you to turn around and make a case on him in the end of the Day while pushing another lynch.

[Whiskers]

Hi BROseidon. Are you town?

[Whiskers]

Good show everyone. Return to the night phase in preparation for day-ending modkill.

[Whiskers]

Oh yeah, on that note,

And it's something that I wonder, if it comes from being from offsite, not from being scum-- by the way, the bit where you copy+pasted from your role PM is illegal. We may not actually lynch you at all, if the mod comes in and decides it's breaking the rules, and modkills you. That'd kind of suck, though.

[Whiskers]

BBT stuffs:
BBT's main targets are, BRO, Yiley, and me. BRO is the target of Guyett & Ollie combo, Yiley has been an easy scapegoat whole game, I spent the entirety of day 2 going after Ollie and Ollie flipped scum. So BBT hasn't actually done any scum hunting the entire game. The only person that townread BBT for his "scumhunting" was Guyett.
BBT and Guyett were on the same wavelength the whole game I suspected the two could be masons, but now Guyett's come out with post restrictor and ate it himself they can't be masons.

Actually, I townread (past tense) BBT. He looked pretty good initially and I considered him town until he suddenly championed Ollie as "obviously town."

I like your analysis though. I should say, I think that a post-restricter, built to backfire, isn't unlikely in a bastard-mod game (which this is), and I know that town has some negative utility roles (my role, for instance). Of course, that's all speculation and impossible to prove, especially since Guyett claims only to have one-shot of it. So it really doesn't matter, does it?

Guyett using the power on himself to frame someone else would only have worked if Guyett hadn't told us he

was

the restricter. Using it on himself to avoid answering any questions is obviously suspicious. Using it on someone else (and it accidentally backfiring) is naturally scummy for the reasons you point out.

Still, Guyett's tendency (this game at least!) is not to play a particularly good or clearly-good townie. While the role is scummy in and of itself, would that be a great reason to give it to a townie? And as a townie, if you have a power, you'd likely use it-- Guyett definitely.

I dunno. I'm not saying he's town or that I actually give him the benefit of doubt or anything, I'm just trying to cover the opposite side of your case... which ultimately turned out to be "but what if you're wrong?"

*shrug*

[Whiskers]

Don't see any scum motive in what Guyett is doing. Scum already lost 1 to a modkill... why would csum risk another modkill by breaking restrictions/posting role PM.

Guyatt as scum makes no sense right now, he can't talk properly, or answer anything etc... too easy a wagon and too fast a wagon.

"Why would scum even consider doing X?" is a perfect reason for scum to do X as WIFOM. And the risk of a modkill isn't that great,

as mod already stated he's not willing to modkill again unless he absolutely has to

.

Ahh,

that's

more fuckin' like it, man.

But Guyett didn't know that, nor did anyone else at the time... he flat out expected a mod kill when he posted.

Guyett offending post was post 618 http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p6524444

The Mod didn't make the statement until post 639 -

21 posts later

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p6525386

VOTE: eelk

This is wrong though, Red. Guyett didn't expect a modkill; the first mention of a modkill was the post after Guyett's, belonging to BBT. Guyett expected a warning-- or at least, that was what I read it as.

[Whiskers]

His shitty-ass defense of Ollie and his desperation in dissolving the wagon is pretty damning.

I'm more confident that Guyett is scum than Elk, and Guyett also is more annoying to deal with. That's like 2 reasons to want to lynch Guyett. My confidence in Elk-scum is much lower.

But why are you appealing to BBT, the

other

only person to try to dissolve the Ollie wagon? You know, the one who townread Ollie for no reason until the attention had shifted elsewhere?

What is the actual reasoning for guyatt being scum.

Sorry, I just can't get past how convienient all this is, lynch the guy who can't talk or defend himself.

It doesn't smell right.

So... does this make you our fourth scum?

Sorry, I don't mean to be flippant. Scum-read you early on, just like Guyett, until you disappeared, when I forgot about how scummy you were. I guess that makes actually makes BBT the fourth scum, technically.

You want to tell me a good reason he's

town

? I mean, I know that's not how mafia works-- it's innocent until proven guilty... usually. But I'm not sure why you're against his lynch, instead of being, at most, curious to see his flip.

[Whiskers]

elk defend Guyett

No no no no no, dude, no. No, no.

What? Elk is

attacking

Guyett circa last page. Unless you mean yesterday-- when elk didn't do anything... kind of attacked Ollie a little bit but it was a weak one. I think you're getting elk confused wiht RA here.

Also, so you can setup spec more easily, the reason my flavour is constantly revealed is because it's prt of my power. Like, a mandatory, always-fires, part of my power. It's not a revealer doing it.



Ooh, then Guyett gets interesting.
I read it as Guyett saying that he's got confirmation bias on YOU-- not that you have it on BBT. If massive is reading it right, Guyett claims Ollie defended BBT, right?

I read: the attack on BRO is conf-bias, so nevermind that. Instead, lynch BBT

(though Whiskers might have some conf-bias himself...)

Let me know if that last, bolded part is correct, Guy.

[Whiskers]

Hmm I don't know where this is going but I'm going to give Whiskers more room to get on hard scumhunting.

I'll unvote Guyett for now because Guyett's putting tons of votes because of post restriction (and too many on himself for the vote count to stay stable) and if Whiskers is being brilliant, scum might lolhammer Guyett to silence Whiskers when the vote count is juicy.
UNVOTE:

However, if detective Whiskers doesn't dig up something amazing, I'm going back.

Oh! Oh, uh...

Actually, being a townie like you, I'm just as in the dark as you. Well pretty much. All I was doing was providing a check and counterpoint to your case-- partially because Guyett can't, and partially because it's the job of all good townies (and scum-who-want-to-look-like-townies).

So erm... how about this:
You tell me where you thought I might be amazing, and I'll focus my efforts there for a while, and see what I can dig up? Specificity is preferred to generality.

[Whiskers]

(By which I mean, instead of something general like, "Find The Scum," ask me something specific, like, "Find Links Between Kaboose and Other Players" or "Find Evidence to Support BBT's Lynch")

[Whiskers]

Waait a minute.

Posts incoming in like an hour or two. Life etc.

As an aside, I think

whomever hammers is going to have their club revealed.

I don't mind this being me. So if someone has intent to hammer then we can play vote swapsies.

Or alternatively if you think I'm scum with some hammer based ability, just be warned that I think the hammerer will be outed and proceed accordingly if you dint want that to happen.

4burner crumbed investigative role here.
Then is nightkilled.

So it really isn't alignment-indicative, or if I

really

want to stretch, only adds to the concept of BBT scum: 4burner Neighbourizes BBT, BBT kills the Very Nice role. But that's WIFOM.

BlueBloodedToffee, what is the

reason

you obv-town-read Ollie in the first place?

[Whiskers]

Yeah, I know. You turned your position around. But I'm

still

fucking on about it, because you said Ollie was "town as fuck" when his wagon was gaining momentum, and then didn't make a case about him until his wagon was waning-- not dissolved, really, but the lynchtarget had been replaced by Elk. It's the timing, ok? And you had a big ol' hand in moving that wagon. Speaking for myself, you were one of the reasons I gave up the Ollie wagon.

Wait, actually, it's wasn't just after a skim! You said of Ollie x Whiskers,

Town vs

And this was your first announced read of Ollie.

[Whiskers]

That quote should read "town vs town," btw.

What's the scum motivation of destroying a wagon on a scumbuddy, then moving back to bus that scumbuddy?

Really??

[Whiskers]

Uh, for the same reasons anybody busses. If you push Ollie while he's a lynch candidate, he might get lynched and you lose a scumbuddy. Still, you need to bus him for towncred upon his eventual flip? So you bus him when he's not on the table for a lynch anymore.

[Whiskers]

And your effort to "destroy" the wagon was actually resistance to it all along, resistance you never explained, only said was "obvious," and repeated over and over.

[Whiskers]

bus bus bus bus bus.

In short, death, should we lynch Elk and retreat back to our scumchat for the day?

[Whiskers]

Are you more convinced that elk is scummier than Guyett + BBT combo? I mean, elk is still scummy but I don't think as much as the other two.

Nope. problem is, BBT is still questionable-- I mean, unsure. It's not obvious. Elk is more-obviously scummy and until he's gone, it'll be more difficult to push a lynch on the subtler BBT. As for Guyett, he's out of commission. Sure we can lynch him today, tomorrow, at any time, but I'd like to be able to hold his feet to the fire right up until we do it, make sure he's got nothing we need,

then

lynch him. We just can't do that now.

I'll get to this game properly as soon as I have time. It will probably be the weekend but I'll fully catch up.

BAHAHAHA

HAA

, no! You've said this a lot, is it just your go-to excuse? What about all the posts you've been making, isn't that "getting to this game properly"? Man, try

again!

[Whiskers]

From what Guyett linked:
Voting no lynch a bunch of times in a row refers to a post number. Count the number of no lynch votes he makes. Like
no lynch
no lynch
no lynch

no lynch
no lynch
no lynch
no lynch

no lynch

is "341", because the first section has 3 no lynch votes, the second section has 4, and last section has 1. Then, Guyett comments on it by saying No Lynch or Lynch (though I don't remember which is which off the top of my head.)

Also one of the things is giving reads from Town to Scum.

I'm not sure what some of the posts are, though, like 734. I'm guessing his scumreads are BBT, Yiley, and Elk (actually, sounds about right via last page), and that he wants to lynch Yiley now...?

[Whiskers]

VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch

6

VOTE: no lynch

1

VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch

8

VOTE: Elk

UNVOTE:

618,
referring to Elk (as in, hey Elk, this is the answer)
Unvoting to keep the votecount in balance.

btw,

Unvote

[Whiskers]

VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch

VOTE: no lynch

VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch
VOTE: no lynch

VOTE: Elk

UNVOTE:

Just checked, by the way: when Guyett does a post number and then a No Lynch, it's good. Lynching a post means he thinks it's bad.

[Whiskers]

Umm, I had Ollie as scum as well.

But, Guyett isn't scum soooo......

Well, that's because you're scum trying to lynch townies.

Amirite?

Vote: BlueBloodedToffee

[Whiskers]

367 - Jesus Christ this post is bad. I don't quite know how I managed to miss all of this first time around. I imagine it was because I was skimming.

Again, Ollie looks for confirmation from Guyett on how to proceed. This question looks very specifically like 'Guyett, give me a reason to reverse my read on Whiskers and scum-read him.

Weak reasoning, and kind of contradictory, behind voting BRO.

370 - Whiskers,

I find it highly unlikely that BOTH Guyett and Ollie and scum.

I think Ollie is scum leading town!Guyett along. The following post link makes me think Guyett knows something is up as well.

374 - Says it all.

The above is the post from BBT's case on Ollie, where he says "hey, Ollie is scum but Guyett isn't!"

Whiskers, I thought Ollie was town and when I re-read I realised I had missed a lot of scummy things.

I was building a case on Ollie, I have nothing to explain.

VOTE: Guyett

I think he has done this to prevent having to explain his town-read and 'never voting' of Ollie.

Then only two posts later (posts of arguing with Ollie at the end of the day, and supporting an Elk lynch instead), he comes out and suddenly votes Guyett. Who, according to his case Day 2, was being "led along by scum!Ollie."

VOTE: BBT

[Whiskers]

I explained the vote on Guyett.

It was also not two posts later.

Whiskers, I wold really fucking appreciate it if you would realise I am town and then we can work together with Guyett to find scum.

Scum fear town-blocks. Let's form one.

Your explanation was fucking bad, though. You "think Guyett has Post-Restricted himself to avoid having to explain his townread on Ollie," one which you shared for most of the day. Yes, you bailed at the last minute to bus him. But it shouldn't matter. Here's why:

You already townread Guyett. According to you, Ollie was scum, leading Guyett. The implication is also there that Guyett's play is weak enough to kind of just take the flattery. Regardless, you said yourself that If Ollie was scum (he was) Guyett probably wasn't. THEN YOU VOTE HIM LITERALLY TWO POSTS LATER. (post 567 is the case. ISO #86
post 586 supports and elk lynch and says "look at Ollie tomorrow". ISO. #87
post 576 argues with Ollie a little bit about BBT's case. ISO # 88
url=http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p6524401]post 616[/url] BBT votes Guyett, saying he needed to explain his never-lynch-town-read on Ollie, and that he castrated himself to avoid doing so, despite the fact that he

should

be townreading him due to the fact that Ollie flipped scum.

Second problem? Guyett

did

explain his read on Ollie. It was stupid and weak reasoning, but you didn't seem to mind at the time:

Still waiting for you to clarify why you think Ollie is town at all. Guyett's explanation is "offsite meta," which I would think shouldn't sit well with you, but...?

I don't care much for Guyett's reasoning for town-reading Ollie. If I was scum-reading Ollie, there would be a problem.

[Whiskers]

So to recap:
your explanation of the Guyett vote is shit.
it was, in fact, two posts later.
Now, you say you want to work together with Guyett, despite him being scum, despite him being town.
I'm not fucking forming a town block with you. Maybe with death and either massive or BRO.

[Whiskers]

EBWOP:

I explained the vote on Guyett.

It was also not two posts later.

Whiskers, I wold really fucking appreciate it if you would realise I am town and then we can work together with Guyett to find scum.

Scum fear town-blocks. Let's form one.

Your explanation was fucking bad, though. You "think Guyett has Post-Restricted himself to avoid having to explain his townread on Ollie," one which you shared for most of the day. Yes, you bailed at the last minute to bus him. But it shouldn't matter. Here's why:

You already townread Guyett. According to you, Ollie was scum, leading Guyett. The implication is also there that Guyett's play is weak enough to kind of just take the flattery. Regardless, you said yourself that If Ollie was scum (he was) Guyett probably wasn't. THEN YOU VOTE HIM LITERALLY TWO POSTS LATER.
post 567 is the case.

ISO #86

post 586 supports and elk lynch and says "look at Ollie tomorrow".

ISO. #87

post 576 argues with Ollie a little bit about BBT's case.

ISO # 88

post 616 BBT votes Guyett, saying he needed to explain his never-lynch-town-read on Ollie, and that he castrated himself to avoid doing so, despite the fact that he

should

be townreading him due to the fact that Ollie flipped scum.

ISO #89

Second problem? Guyett

did

explain his read on Ollie. It was stupid and weak reasoning, but you didn't seem to mind at the time:

Still waiting for you to clarify why you think Ollie is town at all. Guyett's explanation is "offsite meta," which I would think shouldn't sit well with you, but...?

I don't care much for Guyett's reasoning for town-reading Ollie. If I was scum-reading Ollie, there would be a problem.

[Whiskers]

I'm too dumb to see you're town and you're too dumb not to have contradictory play.

<3

[Whiskers]

I do love Post 491, though. The reasons for Ollie town are "his scumhunting," the "scumminess of his wagon," and that "his alignment becomes pretty apparent at some point in the game."
The last one is my

favourite!

You know, I never found out he reason his alignment was supposed to become apparent. Can you reveal that now? That'd be so cool!

[Whiskers]

Ok. Setting aside his

great

scumhunting and the

intense

level of scum on Ollie's wagon, what about that reason-- that Ollie was a Super Saint-- changed and had you voting him?

I mean, it'd still be neat if you explained what made his scumhunting so great or why the wagon was bad. But your read seems to have gone from "It'll be obvious if he's a supersaint!" to "oh yeah, or he could be scum (but let's still not lynch him)."

[Whiskers]

How do??

Massive could be scum as well.

Massive/Ghostlin for final scum?

Maybe because this is fuckin

weak???

Although looks more like an OMGUS to me.

[Whiskers]

Dude when someone attacks you and you shrug it off with "you're wrong."

So, the last three scum, according to you, are massive, elk, and ghostlin? And bro, who is trying to lynch townies.

ghost still hasn't show up, so fuck him, he can be lynched or replaced. Elk is weak and that would be fine except he's not fucking playing either. lynch him too, whatever.

In the mean time, someone fucking dies every night. So whatever.

[Whiskers]

I mean, I want Ghostlin first.

Ghostlin and Elk are by far my two preferred options.

yippie, you especially want to lynch the players who can't defend themselves. looks extra good on you. hurray.

[Whiskers]

well, yeah unless the scum are any of the other candidates you wanted to lynch today. or guyett who is likely as not pulling a big scum ploy. or you.

why is massive "maybe" scum?
why was BRO supposedly scum, for a while, until you decided he actually wasn't?

[Whiskers]

I don't give a damn if you want to pursue them today I want you to fucking explain them
why are you so fucking dense that you can't understand that?

[Whiskers]

vote: yiley, er-- I mean, Ghostlin

If he doesn't pick up the prod we're just lynching him.
We might lynch him even if he does.
My, but I wish it didn't come down to a game of "who lurks the most!"

[Whiskers]

Then what about elk, who is only semi-present, as opposed to non-present, and trying, but bad?
Who do we policy lynch first? The player who has given us nothing and replaced a scummy slot, or the player who is bad and replaced an empty slot?

[Whiskers]

The more a person posts, the more chances they have to look scummy.

Those with no posts at all should be considered the scummiest of among us; they haven't even taken the chance to be investigated.

And anyway we need the lurker trash gone before LyLo.

[Whiskers]

However, BBT, I'd like to hear your reasoning on scumreading Death, Bro, and Massive over the course of the game. Like, sooner, rather than later. Invariably, one of them will flip town tonight and I want to know your case on 'em before you can just hand wave it away with "It doesn't matter, they're flipped now~"

Please.

[Whiskers]

Death, let's not make someone replace into the Yiley/Ghostlin slot, which we're just going to lynch anyway since no player can answer for the inactivity.

We can lynch Elk tomorrow.

[Whiskers]

So... brief recap on why elk is bad? Just because he lurks and is a bad player, or is there something specific? I can tolerate an elk lynch today, eh.

[Whiskers]

God damn it ika I am TRYING to lynch BBT would you please just get out of the way so I can do that tomorrow without any major stupid distractions, as in BBT completely ignoring me and spamming up the thread bickering with you like fucking 8 year olds

[Whiskers]

litarly to move this game foward this slot needed to go otherwise we can just play "my pretacetors lurked it" and never move the damn game foward

Argh, that's what I've been saying.
Ok, you're forgiven (for your dickery).

Let's lynch this slot and MOVE.

[Whiskers]

You shouldn't already be lynched, actually. Only vote that changed was Guyett unvoted you and voted you again.

[Whiskers]

Also, if you've actually been following the game, can we have... idk, real reads?

Or would you please tell me why guyett's obv town? And what's your read on me?

[Whiskers]

@WHISKERS

Did you get neighbourized at the start of the night?

Who would even neighbourize me? Didn't our neighbourizer get killed?

Nah

Vote: BBT

*proceeds to read the rest of the thread*

[Whiskers]

I cba.

Then replace out, you cock, and don't be arsed to every play in another mafia game, fucking christ

[Whiskers]

Well, I feel I'm fairly obviously town.

Magical! Means you won't have to worry about voting yourself.

[Whiskers]

@WHISKERS

Did you get neighbourized at the start of the night?

Nah

I cba.

Cool.

Also, teehee, let me get a good re-read on the beginning of the game and all the shit revolving around me.

Who likes the idea of a Red Arrow / Big Black Theatre scumteam? I'm a fan of it, right now. Surprisingly, you can see them linked at the beginning of the game in a couple of ways, and they each have interesting interactions with Ollie-- in Red Arrow's case, that meant largely avoiding the thread.

Actually, skimming through an ISO page with Red Arrow and Ollie, and seeing a lot of fighting between BBT and Red Arrow (It's apparent in a lot of RA's posts). So maybe they're not a scumteam after all?

If we can nab the other scum today, I can POE the last member(s) down.

[Whiskers]

Actually, I take it back: this post from RA is fucking great. RA town. Town forever. Go town.
It has good interaction attacking Ollie, good interaction attacking BBT. Good interaction everywhere, not merely repeating stuff people already said, either. Not happy about the bit about "Whiskers' Overreaction" and you still like to hear an explanation for it, but I probably won't fucking get one. Whatever.

RA town.

Spoiler:

Sorry for the delay, I am quite a bit behind, however I am reading for the first time properly and making my notes as I see what is said in game.

Just a heads up, Whiskers is L-2. Lets not make this a quick lynch and get nothing from today in terms of information and furthering our reads.

Nervous of wagon building. Does nothing to stop it. Noted.

@

Absolute rubbish and clutching at straws. Simply saying don't lynch fast is not being 'nervous' It is simply a warning. At the time I wanted my no1 scum read lynched, but not in a spuer speed wagon were no other info is brought about in that day.

I'm not into this outguessing the mod game.

For all we know, the mod picked 13 clubs, randomly assigned alignments to each and then randomly assigned roles.

Whiskers is scummy independent of the mod's announcement.

People should be stating reasons for why Whiskers is scum without basing it on flavour.

Hmmm let me guess why you don't want us to look at what clubs could be what roles...

Hi BlueBloodedToffee, you are Everton, Everton are shit so you are a shitty scummer.

btw don't tell people what to do. Only I am allowed to do that.

not too fond of the attitude here, and fully agree with BBT. Playing out guess the mod does nothing but create confusion. We only have 2 flips, we do not know what other teams or roles are in the game. Find scum based on behavior rather than anything else.... ironic as this is the point I was trying to put out to BBT earlier in the game.

Right, so are you expecting me to be able to use psychic powers and assign the reads to the individual players? As much as I would like to, I can't. Goes against my game playing morals.

Now, who is town and who is not scum?

I actually don't care what you do lol. At this point I didn't se any of them as scum.

No one has come out as Man U yet, interesting.

Heres a question. WHY WOULD ANYONE come out with their role flavor? This is the 2nd time I've noticed you role/flavor fishing. BBT also caught the first.

No one has come out as Man U yet, interesting.

Considering the mod supports Forest, I'd say that Liverpool are likely to be scum in this game. Only team I know their fans don't like cos of Hillsborough. Not sure how else the mod would decide who the scum were, maybe he'd line the clubs up with roles first then work from there? It might be pissing in the wind a bit to try & work out which clubs were allocated to which roles but it still might be worthwhile looking at that.

I hate the 2nd attempt to push this even more

Also, why would you vote Guyett then push his shitty-ass reasoning?

I voted for Guyett for justice & to uphold the integrity of mafia moderation around the globe.

It's my reasoning you filthy animal. The first thing I did when I replaced in was ask the mod who he supported. You're reaching like a mother fucker. So I like my vote more on you now...

VOTE: BROseidon

how do you like them apples, bitch?

MAJOR OVER-REACTION - MAYBE WORSE THAN WHISKERS DAY 1 POST

For the record, it always looks scummy when someone quickhammers and follows up. Looks scummy when someone quickhammers and doesn't. Looks scummy when someone quickhammers, regardless.

But look, don't say it's my follow up post. It's important for me to acknowledge that I had fucked up. And after, to try to get Kaboose's final reads, in Twilight of his lynch. You think it's disingenuous? What's a "good" oopslynch post look like, Red Arrow?

It looks pretty much like your hammer post lol.

BBT is simply pushing the 'I said scum could be on his wagon' post meaning I am not looking into it, despite the fact I have adressed it MANY fucking times.

Yes, I said scum could possibly be on it. However, as i've said 1000 fucking times already. I am going after legit scummy behaviour (Whiskers & Kaboose) over a simple hunch. I never said it was a guarentee. I said it was possible that at least one scum was on it.

But again as I said 1000 times, and this one last time I will post it in big bold letters to get it through your thick fucking skull.

I will scum hunt based on legit behavior of others and not a hunch.

He is just repeating the same thing over and over and over without realizing I answered the question many times day 1. I will go on actual scummy behaviour than a simple hunch that someone may have been scum on his wagon. I don't get why he is pushing this so much. I said a few times its worth coming back to at a later time.

Right now I will go for people who are actually scummy. I have nothing more to back up 'at least 1 could be scum'

this is dragged on far too fucking long. BBT Deal with it.

What's scummy about my behaviour? In your own words? Please make a full case, with citations and reasons. Also, please answer my question yesterday, about why you think my first post, regarding BBT, was an "overreaction."

You shoul maybe read every post I have made about you so far.

BTW,

this

is more like an overreaction. (Take note, RA.)
.

I did note this when reading through on my catch up. I refer to it above, this is maybe worse than your over-reaction in my eyes.

Note as of this point - Yiley is creeping up to scum... very quiet so far, votes whiskers and I don't think I've seen much since. Could be pretty opertunistic.

Right now if I was to say who was scum. Ollie is role/flavor fishing majorly and Yiley is starting to peak my interest.

Yeah, yeah, I'll put that in the golden rules alongside scum never hammer or defend each other. I could do without a lesson from the guy who ran a train on poor Kaboose on day 1. Incidentally, you wouldn't be one of those scum who hammer because they're not expected to would you Whiskers?

the 'Poor' Kaboose thing seems overly wrong.. almost like he is trying to appeal to emotion on this.

Hmm big surprise your defending somebody who is attacking someone who is attacking you. Will have to do some thinking though.

Any other thoughts aside from a one liner?

Hmm big surprise your defending somebody who is attacking someone who is attacking you.

I don't know why BBT voted for Yiley after this post btw.

Hmm big surprise your defending somebody who is attacking someone who is attacking you. Will have to do some thinking though.

Hm, I'm attacking someone who is playing shitty. Big surprise.

You're on that fucking list too, you little twat

.

& you have the audacity to have a go at me for an over reaction!

btw you're the one who has quick hammered a townie who'd voted for you (OMGUS, er didn't you accuse me of that?) in this game Whiskers. In contrast I've voted for somebody & you've disagreed with my reasoning. I'd say you're winning when it comes to shitty play.

I've reread the thread & realized you're Liverpool...

Mod announcement: Whiskers is Liverpool Football Club.

Did I miss your explanation for why your club was outed? Did you ask for it to be outed?

Now it makes sense to me why you're backing up people who disagree that Liverpool could be scum & going on the attack against me. I'm actually a Liverpool fan (F U BBT ) & I have experience of the weird thing Forest fans have against Liverpool. I don't think the mod would think it was an obvious link. It's not like an Everton/Liverpool rivalry. It's not even a rivalry, it's a one sided thing for Forest fans. That was my theory, Guyett's is based off the role. Same conclusion but the similarity ends there.

Just thinking through this, I've arrived at a conclusion of what I think the role Liverpool were paired with is, that actually tallies with my thinking in a weird way. I reckon I could write out a version of your PM & it would be quite similar to what you have.

I think Man U won't be scum because it would be too obvious to make them scum. I am having doubts since nobody came forward when I asked though, but I'd still lean towards them most likely being town if they're in the game. Chelsea too to a lesser extent for the same reason.

If people don't wanna draw links based on clubs then just stfu cos I'm having my say about it anyway. I think I'm getting somewhere with it & I'm certain it's gonna be useful to theorize about clubs/roles going forward.

I'm sorry, but you really are just trying to out teams and fish rather than find scum. your motives seem overly invested in trying to find out who is Utd, Chelsea etc. No town motive, you're fishing for roles to sniff out I believe.

VOTE: Guyett

everyone should sheep me, he's definitely scum.


BTW I am Stoke City and I can give someone a post restriction of sorts for 1 day. I haven't used my power yet.

loldudewtf???????

why out yourself and why post something so unrelated to anything going on right now?

End of page 14.. I actually am starting to warm to whiskers as maybe town. Not 100% but he has slipped down the scum list majorly with Olie and Yiley replacing him at the top.

That's what I have so far, these are my reactions to posts as I saw them, again yes I am a bit behind and I appologize, I am trying to catch up. Hopefully a bit more either later or early tomorrow.

[Whiskers]

God damn it @ Post 969. I don't fucking KNOW why, but for some reason if I open a quote in a new tab, post, and then open another quote in another new tab, it includes the first quote, as though I had Q+'d them.

It's really fucking infuriating!

But-- that's the explanation for all the extra, misplaced quotes. I'm just not always catching them when I post.

[Whiskers]

massive you've hardly contributed anything, who are you reading as scum? Who are you town reading?

He also posted this about massive.

He isn't pressuring him for lurking or low-posting. He simply gently prods him for reads. Why is he so aggressive pursuing Yiley for lurking but not massive?

Why are you trying to use this same post to push another mislynch? Obviously it wasn't

He started off defending Yiley and then voted him after inactivity (which Yiley had been doing all game and Ollie was defending him for it)

so now it's "he aggressively pursued Yiley but not massive." Maybe you should just give up on associated tells?

(Elk, btw, this is his reason for suspecting Yiley -- associative tell, not an actual scum read. And why he didn't want to go back and quote himself or summarise himself, since it would make it obvious how bad it was. See

744-750-754

.)

If I'm scum, pretty sure I just hammer BBT here and go about my merry way.

LOL. That is weak as fuck reasoning for why you can't be scum.

That's some good misrepping right there from massive (it's like you don't take into account the time frames of posts)

I like massive for scum a little more.

Spoiler:

You know what I actually cba catching up on like 350 posts.

Reads;

Town; Whiskers, Death

Null/leaning town; massive, RA

Null/leaning scum; Guyett, BRO

Scum; Elk, Yiley.

Although, if what everyone is saying is true and Ollie did go after Yiley hard, then Yiley might not be scum and I would replace him with BRO.

Hmm.

He started off defending Yiley and then voted him after inactivity (which Yiley had been doing all game and Ollie was defending him for it)

Yeah, I like that.

He got off Yiley first chance he got.

VOTE: Ghostlin

Not sure how to read Guyett right now. Would he really go through all this trouble as scum? Would he break his post restriction? (which I forgot about and it was something I town-read him for). Guyett can go back in my town pile, I think I was suffering from OMGUS and frustration.

I think if we lynch Ghostlin, BRO and Elk we probably win this game.

I'm not seeing how Massive is Misrepping you.
Between the latter two of your posts, Guyett makes a post referring to post 513.

Your conclusion on seeing 513 is good: "Hey, Ollie got off of Yiley as soon as possible!" Fair. Fair.

But now you're saying Ollie was "aggressively pushing him"? Hm, not sure about that!

Remind me, please, how Massive is misrepping you.

[Whiskers]

Alright before I go to bed, Yes, I have slacked, I've been on a killer schedule that has not seen me take a day off in nearly 2 weeks. (business setup sucks) However, I have the bulk of it done so this game shall have me being a lot more active now again.

Please do.

[Whiskers]

Alright before I go to bed, Yes, I have slacked, I've been on a killer schedule that has not seen me take a day off in nearly 2 weeks. (business setup sucks) However, I have the bulk of it done so this game shall have me being a lot more active now again.

I could tell you knew my flavor, but thought you were some sort of Role Cop. Given that (as far as we can tell) flavor =/= alignment, I can't see why town would want a flavor cop.

I think BBT is underselling a scum role cop role.

I think this could be possible. A Flavour cop is totally useless to town, though only marginally more useful for scum.

I'm saying that your claimed PR is so useless that you're probably scum hiding a less-useless PR, in this case rolecop.

This though, I disagree with. I'll tell you more when it comes time for me to claim.

[Whiskers]

Alright before I go to bed, Yes, I have slacked, I've been on a killer schedule that has not seen me take a day off in nearly 2 weeks. (business setup sucks) However, I have the bulk of it done so this game shall have me being a lot more active now again.

I could tell you knew my flavor, but thought you were some sort of Role Cop. Given that (as far as we can tell) flavor =/= alignment, I can't see why town would want a flavor cop.

I think BBT is underselling a scum role cop role.

I'm saying that your claimed PR is so useless that you're probably scum hiding a less-useless PR, in this case rolecop.

BBT, replace out. I pretty gladly townread you most of the game up until the apathy.

[Whiskers]

damn these sticking quotes.

MS, would you please fucking do something about this?
god damn it.

[Whiskers]

Sorry, am I replaced yet? Actually forgot about this game while other stuff was going on with my main comp (which is now in the shop, but I have a backup, so no real excuse here.)
As i'm not replaced

yet

, I'll go ahead and claim, though I think it's awful scummy that Elk refuses to claim before me.

I'm whatever-it-says in the mod posts at the beginning of the day (I don't follow football, so I don't know anything about the teams). My power is that my flavour is announced at the beginning of each game day from day 2 onward.

Elk, go.

[Whiskers]

I think that the role claims don't really do much in terms of sorting things out. Nothing's here that couldn't conceivably be a scum role, and a lot of shit isn't particularly viably provable (mine, RAs). Lynching off reads is the correct play.

That's true. But doesn't hurt to massclaim either, we have a sense of transparency. Except for in RA's case, IGMEOU RedArrow.

The massclaim didn't make anybody obviously scum, but it pointed out some things (like there are even

weaker

roles than BBT's), and now it's clear and out of the way and we don't have to

wonder

if it would have made somebody obvious scum, anymore. Because we've done it.

[Whiskers]

oh right, I remember now. NVM on my stuff about Elk not being willing to claim.

[Whiskers]

The person I'm most confident in being town is Whiskers, due to the way D2 started. It was an easy lynch for scum to try and push. Guyett and RA are the two people left from that train. I could lynch either or probably both of them.

I typed out a long fucking post on why this is bad but this tablet is a piece of shit that won't stay connected to the Internet for two fucking seconds.

Short version is, Whiskers had quickhammered. It's expected and usual for the next day to be a quickwagon on that player, whether town or scum. It might be interesting to look at who the first players to try to diffuse the wagon were, though, and see if they look like pandering to whiskers for towncred.

[Whiskers]

ok, awesome, the same problem again.

1. I don't wholly like VCA, but I want to see red arrow go down for my own reasons. Guyett's cherrypicking of the vc s doesn't feel good.

2. I don't like elk's role claim. It seems extemely powerful, in a game where all the town-based roles (not the scum ones though, mind you) have been weak ones.
3. I'm not 100% on bro being town, but if we assume he is, isn't there some way we could use his power to prevent lylo from actually happening?
4.

@mod: there wasn't an announcement of my Liverpool-iness today. Why is that?

[Whiskers]

I don't think we

do

have an obvious next NK. I mean, people have been largely agreeing that I'm town for Days, but it hasn't seemed to matter.

Also, Elk May Not use his power. If he uses it right now, whoever gets it should use it to lynch him. Otherwise, Elk gets doublevote powers tomorrow. No! If elk is scum that'd be exactly what Guyett mentioned-- waiting until Lylo to use it.

Hell, elk really probably should be lynched anyway, lest he use his power tomorrow on his buddy (or just accidentally on scum), or if it is restricted, lest he use it to jockey for position.
...short version is I'm super wary of that PR.

[Whiskers]

I like how nobody has voted at all yet, not even no-lynch. It makes me feel fuzzy inside, and that's not just the bear cub I swallowed earlier.

[Whiskers]

At MyLo, Guyett, we generally No Lynch. Mislynch and Lose, but No Lynch, and narrow down suspects by one.

Of course, you also whittle down town members by one.

So, before you go out, could you give me a rundown, once, really quick, about why you so vehemently ate Ollie's crap? :/

Anyway, I'm counting on Bro or me, so everybody plan accordingly.

[Whiskers]

It's time to start speculating on scumteams, too. Associative Tells should happen.

[Whiskers]

Thank

goodness

Um.
1. What the hell post are you reading? Whiskers didn't say anything about who does NKA.
2. There are a few things I don't like:
A. The analysis itself is really simplistic - according to Whiskers Scum only kill people they perceive as threats, would never kill a lurker, why does it matter whether he was a universal townread, etc. Why is that a problem? Scum strategy is far more sophisticated than that, which I'd expect Whiskers to know as a player who's been around the block before.
B. What does that oversimplification mean? Well, there's a motive behind everything we say. I see Whiskers trying to manipulate people's thoughts about the kill, I ask why. I think: Whiskers was trying to suggest a push on Scripten's scumreads without bringing the subject up himself. Perhaps so as to look less complicit when 4burner flipped Town? (Whiskers and Kaboose were Scripten's other 2 scumreads.)
C. Whiskers specifically refers to Scripten as "a good scumhunter." Scripten's highest scumread had already flipped Town at this point, and his second scumread was Whiskers (though the hammer made him think Whiskers could be Town or 3p). His third was 4burner. Admittedly I have the bias of hindsight here, but 4burner was literally the towniest motherfucker in this game. The scumread Scripten brought in to replace Whiskers on the list was "prolly one of them lurkers, iunno" which also doesn't make a point for good scumhunting. 2/3 were Town. Did Whiskers feel threatened? Or was that "he's a good scumhunter" statement just another misdirect?

In summary: bad theory, bad motivations, paranoia.

P.S. it really worries me that BRO didn't say anything about it, given that BRO is good at Scum strategy.

Ok. Let's look at the analysis, since everything stems from that.

Scum wouldn't never kill a lurker, but there is very little reason to. It's foolish to say "X

never

does Y" or "X

always

does Y." But the time that scum has reason to kill a lurker are:
Weird Misdirection, such as to create more confusion in LyLo or cause WIFOM
The Lurker is discovered to be a PR
The Lurker is Conftown

stuff like that. They're outliers. It doesn't happen usually.

Also, let's look at the actual kill. Scripten was the towniest motherfucker in this game, IMO. Iirc, his scumhunting was sound, even if his results were incorrect. Your assertion that bad flips means bad scumhunting... bothers me. I'll remember that.

So in my mind, there's no reason for scum to kill a lurker over someone very townie. There were, presumably, no PRs, there were no conftown players. There was not an outted PR who needed to be framed. The person who was doing some of the best scumhunting was the player who was killed and died. Why go for the sub-optimal route of NKing a lurker? Why let Scripten keep scumhunting and give him the chance to catch scum? Why kill a lurker who is doing nothing, and will just

keep

doing nothing, if allowed to live.

Scum strategy is to eliminate their enemies and cause confusion. I don't see what's wrong with that analysis, even if it is simplistic.

Now, if you want to talk about simplicity: You suggesting I'm trying to do anything subtly is silly-- at least to me. Subtlety is not my forte. I want to be straightforward and clear, for the most part, because everyone can understand me better that way. Good communication is pro-town.

Welcome, goodmorning.

[Whiskers]

I"m still not seeing why game is over: Seems there were three Town endgamed, a fourth killed during the night, and two Scum.

So uh, daystart with 3 townies and 2 mafia??

What am I missing??

[Whiskers]

4burner neighbourises Whiskers (successful)

Also, ????????????????

???????????????

When were you going to tell me about it?