Open 669 - Nightless Vengeful Mayhem [Game Over]

[Friend Computer]

Sorry, I have a tight schedule...

[doomfeathers]

@MOD:

Vote Count 1.5

Sesq

(3/7)

- doomfeathers, magnaofillusion, ultimate despair

Friend Computer

(2/7)

-

doomfeathers

, sesq, wgeurts,

magnaofillusion

,

ultimate despair

Revan

(1/7)

- superhans

Superhans

(0/7)

- revan

VOTE SESQ

I think this may have been missed.

Although I shouldn't answer for Doom, sorry.

RU voting me because I'm voting you? That's how this feels to me.

I think you misread the question. I asked Friend Computer why he voted karnos. I still want an answer, by the way.

The timeline fits. Sesq and Friend were the players under pressure when the Daykill went off with Friend being under more pressure. Votes more or less immediately piled up on Friend after the reset. Sesq begins her “Woe is me” act at 287. At the time she had ZERO votes (see the Mod vote-count at 276) and Friend had racked up 5 of the 7 needed to lynch.

Sweet glory, you're right. Mozamis' vote came after that post. I'll double-check the timing later, but I think I'm fine with lynching Friend Computer today and Sesq tomorrow.

Scum reading me is fine, but to make ridiculous leaps in logic to

try and tie me with FC and Sesq

is really shoddy play.

If it was obviously ridiculous you’d have pointed out what specifically was ridiculous. Instead you just handwave it. And point of fact in that post I was seeing relational tells

to Sesq not FC

(in fact I had assessed your behavior as not likely with Friend as scum given how bad you would look). Thus the sentence “some pretty strong relational ties to

Sesq

”.

Was that misrepresentation accidental on your part? And why, if scum reading you is OK, do you immediately try to say me doing so is “shoddy play”?

Sacred bovines. Now that you point that out, that looks a lot like a scumslip to me, as if Superhans already knew who the scumteam were. At this point, I'm looking at Superhans for the day 3 lynch.

[MagnaofIllusion]

Sweet glory, you're right. Mozamis' vote came after that post. I'll double-check the timing later, but I think I'm fine with lynching Friend Computer today and Sesq tomorrow.

Double check it for yourself but Moz's Sesq vote did come afterwards.

Feel free to drop a Friend Computer vote. Especially after his prod dodge post this page.

EVERYONE

- If you didn't read the rules closely make sure to not Vote

MUST

go on a separate line per the rules list to count. Most of the confusion on voting at this stage is 100% driven by votes being tucked inside lines and thus not being counted.

[wgeurts]

I've got exams until next week Wednesday so that's why I'm going to be somewhat less active the coming few days. I'll find some time to binge on mafia this weekend though.

[Sesq]

VOTE: Friend Computer

Moving back to him as the whole “Sesq is defeated” posting she has been making timed with Friend Computer’s conspicuous absence paints a picture to me of a Scum Goon trying to take the bullet for the Scum Daykiller to make sure they don’t miss out on their second Daykill.

The timeline fits. Sesq and Friend were the players under pressure when the Daykill went off with Friend being under more pressure. Votes more or less immediately piled up on Friend after the reset. Sesq begins her “Woe is me” act at 287. At the time she had ZERO votes (see the Mod vote-count at 276) and Friend had racked up 5 of the 7 needed to lynch.

Furthermore I’m seeing the following –

Well, if anyone at this point it's VOTE: Revan, this man's play is scummy as shit. I might construct something tomorrow, but I realize that even twitching my finger at this point is a scumtell.

New readslist. Top is scum, bottom is town.
-Scum-
Revan
Friend Computer

Sesq was voting Friend right after the vote was reset. She was part of the group that got him to 5 votes. And supposedly is scum reading him. Yet she doesn’t vote him who is the viable counter-wagon to her. Regardless of alignment she should be wanting to lynch the more viable candidate of her scum reads (as Town because she would know she’s Town and a lynch elsewhere is always preferable, as scum to save her own neck). Yet she isn’t doing it despite many opportunities to do so.

The only logical reason why she isn’t doing this is because she is protecting Friend.

And Doom has addressed the following post but I think misses the most important point.

I have 0% hope that I'm not somehow getting lynched today. Sorry to be a waste of time to Town, I guess. Is self-hammering allowed? I'd do it right now if possible.

This doesn’t come from a Town perspective. But the most important reason is something Doom hasn’t hit on – Town who are lynched Day 1 get a Vengekill. Town who feels they are going down at least know they still have a chance to catch scum. Thus rolling over and suggesting a self vote (aside from laying down AtE that the current meta of MS eats up like it is candy) means she would be giving up ability to read scum who are pushing her wagon. She’s not even pretending that her lynch has any scum driving it.

But I’d rather lynch Friend Computer given Sesq’s behavior.

Or maybe I just think Revan looks scummier? FC's wagon isn't that big and I was originally triying to redirect votes from my wagon to his. Don't really see this.

[havingfitz]

Mod...does the mozamis vote on Sesq in Post 288 not meet your voting criteria?

Sesq...your last two votes (on mozamis and Revan) have not counted because you did not put them on unique lines like you have already acknowledged being told by the mod. Why do you keep making votes that do not count?

Have you not noticed that your vote is still on FC? Do you still suspect FC?

Also...wrt Post 301...I think you messed up your reply to my question. It looks like you are saying you were misrepping me. FFS...can you pay attention to what you post? You say here that you intended to vote Doom for LAMIST. Your initial vote for Doom came immediately after his LAMIST post but you only mention that your vote on him is because he was shading you (I assume for the cat comment he made about you). Which seemed pretty RVS-ish. All you say when you make your vote on Doom official is that you are making your earlier vote official. No mention of LAMIST. Even when MOI asks you about it. You only mention LAMIST slightly in your Post 130 and no mention of it being why you are voting Doom...until you accuse me of misrepping you on it.

@MOI

...thank you for the [302=post]posting tutorial[::post//}. I was just a bit more focused on getting caught up than making things pretty. It's not the norm for me.

@Superhans....what do you mean with the scum works as a team comment when you say you do not understand why the kill wasn't made on behalf of another player? Whether the kill was made on behalf of the day vigger or one of the goons makes no difference. The fact is Hawk was killed. If there is a way of determining who might have been threatened by Hawk's existence that could point to someone...ANYONE...on the scum team.

@Superhans....if you don't understand my posts ask a question. My catch up was me commenting on things I saw as I saw them. The Hawk kill came as a surprise to me when I saw it. Not sure how my reaction is obnoxious. Also...do you consider obnoxious scummy? And I could care less if you find me verbose or annoying to read. Do you find those traits scummy or are you just doing what you accuse me of?

@Superhans....you do not think the Hawk DK was a reaction to panic but you do think the DK had definite intent. Are you saying those things are mutually exclusive?

@Doom....I disagree. How does scum help promote mislynches if they do not voice suspicions on the mislynch target? Scum absolutely need to suspect others. WRT FC...I guess you commented but that was some f'd up content to be giving him credit for.

As for saying I have faulty reasoning wrt your DK online hunting techniques...what do you consider faulty about what I said? And how is "poor reasoning" not scummy? If mafia were able to make sound logically reasoned cases they would be extremely hard to find. But having to make shit up all the time produces plenty of instances of poor reasoning by scum. So you saying it isn't is just wrong. Also...to nitpick a bit...I do not "claim" you are using "poor reasoning." Even though I do think that is the case. If you want to say you think I am inferring something that would be fine but don't attribute comments to me that I did not in fact make. Thanks.

@Revan....I've made two catch up posts where I am making observations. Other than stating a few players I think are town...what fence sitting do you see me doing? Also...consider me caught up. Pressure away. And could you please explain why you have me in your two out of three scum pool? Make that two of four....or is it three of four????

@Doom...."unless we can hit the shooter let's lynch Sesq today." So Sesq is for sure not the shooter? Gaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

@Doom....And once more...how has it been determined that Sesq is not the killer? If I missed something in my catch up that shows sound rationale for Sesq being excluded from dayvig status could you (or anyone) please link me to it?

Here's where I am seeing people att:
Town leaning - Magna, UD,
Slightly less town leaning - wgeurts, lucca
Need to look over more - Superhans
Suspect a little - Doom and ....................... mozamis
Suspect a lot - Sesq, FC, Revan

VOTE: Friendly Computer

Revan would be my next choice. Sesq gets a bit of a bye today from me for at least being somewhat active.

P.edit...I see others have since commented on the voting issues but I'll keep my comments despite it.

[Sesq]

Also, (sorry for doublepost)

VOTE: Revan

It wasn't an independent line before

PEDIT: HAHA havingfitz beat me. Don't worry, it's handled.

The reason I'm not making votes that count is because I keep forgetting it. Forgetfulness and ignorance is a recurring theme over here throughout this game.

As for that early stuff, I've already explained it a million times. I'll answer when someone asks something new.

[havingfitz]

As for that early stuff, I've already explained it a million times. I'll answer when someone asks something new.

I wasn't asking anything. Just pointing out something that I don't like.

[doomfeathers]

@Doom....I disagree. How does scum help promote mislynches if they do not voice suspicions on the mislynch target? Scum absolutely need to suspect others. WRT FC...I guess you commented but that was some f'd up content to be giving him credit for.

There's a difference. Scum need to look as if they suspect others. They don't need to actually guess at who is scum. Mozamis was claiming that hewould need to suspect others of being scum, thereby implying that he is townie.

As for saying I have faulty reasoning wrt your DK online hunting techniques...what do you consider faulty about what I said? And how is "poor reasoning" not scummy? If mafia were able to make sound logically reasoned cases they would be extremely hard to find. But having to make shit up all the time produces plenty of instances of poor reasoning by scum. So you saying it isn't is just wrong. Also...to nitpick a bit...I do not "claim" you are using "poor reasoning." Even though I do think that is the case. If you want to say you think I am inferring something that would be fine but don't attribute comments to me that I did not in fact make. Thanks.

Poor reasoning can be made by either side. To be scummy, it must have scum motivation. Otherwise, we'd just constantly lynch the people who are the worst at arguing. Also, you didn't actually prove that my method of finding scum wouldn't work. Those are the two faults I found with that paragraph.

Now I'm a little confused. I thought you were saying that the method of finding scum by login times was faulty in its reasoning, but you're saying that faulty reasoning is not the point. Could you clarify what is wrong with the method if you don't think it's illogical?

@Doom...."unless we can hit the shooter let's lynch Sesq today." So Sesq is for sure not the shooter? Gaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

@Doom....And once more...how has it been determined that Sesq is not the killer? If I missed something in my catch up that shows sound rationale for Sesq being excluded from dayvig status could you (or anyone) please link me to it?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant "unless we find that someone else is more likely to be the shooter". If Sesq is the shooter, by all means let's lynch Sesq today.

@Magna: I meant that I need to check whether it's plausible that Sesq's faceplant was meant to protect Friend Computer. I'm studying at the moment, so I am taking only short breaks. I should be able to later today.

[karnos]

Vote Count 1.6

Sesq

(3/7)

- mozamis, doomfeathers,

magnaofillusion

, ultimate despair

Friend Computer

(3/7)

-

sesq

, wgeurts, magnaofillusion, havingfitz

Revan

(2/7)

- superhans, sesq

Superhans

(1/7)

- revan

Nobody needs a prod.

(expired on 2017-01-27 08:45:01) until deadline.
With 11 alive, it takes 6 votes to lynch.

[karnos]

Mod...does the mozamis vote on Sesq in Post 288 not meet your voting criteria?

Noted, and fixed in the latest VC.

[Superhans]

I'm already voting Regan...

When I posted that I had referenced the Mod’s last Vote-Count and see you not listed as voting. The most recent vote count refutes that point. Consider it an error on my part.

Scum reading me is fine, but to make ridiculous leaps in logic to try and tie me with FC and Sesq is really shoddy play.

If it was obviously ridiculous you’d have pointed out what specifically was ridiculous. Instead you just handwave it. And point of fact in that post I was seeing relational tells to Sesq not FC (in fact I had assessed your behavior as not likely with Friend as scum given how bad you would look). Thus the sentence “some pretty strong relational ties to

Sesq

”.

Was that misrepresentation accidental on your part? And why, if scum reading you is OK, do you immediately try to say me doing so is “shoddy play”?

Ah sorry, I made a mistake and I take back calling what you said shoddy, I didn't read what you had written properly.

[mozamis]

Anyway, since I think it's ""officially"" day 1 i'll reconfirm vote on VOTE: doomfeathers

This worries me a bit.
It could be scum using the non day 1 start as an excuse to jump on the doom wagon.
First vote worthy thing I've seen (yes, Hawk, Doom, Wguerts are all town.)

VOTE SESQ

[mozamis]

The contradiction was Revan saying "We should look for DK stuff, but I'm not doing it." Mozamis backing Revan up looks like scum play now I think about it. 241 did look town, or at least unplanned.

Pretty sure this is bollocks. Revan was pretty clear that he didnt think any OF US should analyze the day kill. And he defintely wasn't going to partake.
I think you are panicing scum.

VOTE SESQ

p.s would rather a sesq lycnh as i actually think he is scum. As opposed to FC who i have no clear read on, but people who i think are town seem convinced of his scumminess.
Ideal from my point of view would be for everyone to transfer from FC wagon to sesq wagon.

[mozamis]

seems to be some confusion over my votes.
its very clear - i ahve only voted Sesq this game.
Once before the DK, and once after.
So I dont know why people are confused, but there it is.
And for once i may actually have caught scum!

[Superhans]

Mod...does the mozamis vote on Sesq in Post 288 not meet your voting criteria?

Sesq...your last two votes (on mozamis and Revan) have not counted because you did not put them on unique lines like you have already acknowledged being told by the mod. Why do you keep making votes that do not count?

Have you not noticed that your vote is still on FC? Do you still suspect FC?

Also...wrt Post 301...I think you messed up your reply to my question. It looks like you are saying you were misrepping me. FFS...can you pay attention to what you post? You say here that you intended to vote Doom for LAMIST. Your initial vote for Doom came immediately after his LAMIST post but you only mention that your vote on him is because he was shading you (I assume for the cat comment he made about you). Which seemed pretty RVS-ish. All you say when you make your vote on Doom official is that you are making your earlier vote official. No mention of LAMIST. Even when MOI asks you about it. You only mention LAMIST slightly in your Post 130 and no mention of it being why you are voting Doom...until you accuse me of misrepping you on it.

@MOI

...thank you for the [302=post]posting tutorial[::post//}. I was just a bit more focused on getting caught up than making things pretty. It's not the norm for me.

@Superhans....what do you mean with the scum works as a team comment when you say you do not understand why the kill wasn't made on behalf of another player? Whether the kill was made on behalf of the day vigger or one of the goons makes no difference. The fact is Hawk was killed. If there is a way of determining who might have been threatened by Hawk's existence that could point to someone...ANYONE...on the scum team.

@Superhans....if you don't understand my posts ask a question. My catch up was me commenting on things I saw as I saw them. The Hawk kill came as a surprise to me when I saw it. Not sure how my reaction is obnoxious. Also...do you consider obnoxious scummy? And I could care less if you find me verbose or annoying to read. Do you find those traits scummy or are you just doing what you accuse me of?

@Superhans....you do not think the Hawk DK was a reaction to panic but you do think the DK had definite intent. Are you saying those things are mutually exclusive?

@Doom....I disagree. How does scum help promote mislynches if they do not voice suspicions on the mislynch target? Scum absolutely need to suspect others. WRT FC...I guess you commented but that was some f'd up content to be giving him credit for.

As for saying I have faulty reasoning wrt your DK online hunting techniques...what do you consider faulty about what I said? And how is "poor reasoning" not scummy? If mafia were able to make sound logically reasoned cases they would be extremely hard to find. But having to make shit up all the time produces plenty of instances of poor reasoning by scum. So you saying it isn't is just wrong. Also...to nitpick a bit...I do not "claim" you are using "poor reasoning." Even though I do think that is the case. If you want to say you think I am inferring something that would be fine but don't attribute comments to me that I did not in fact make. Thanks.

@Revan....I've made two catch up posts where I am making observations. Other than stating a few players I think are town...what fence sitting do you see me doing? Also...consider me caught up. Pressure away. And could you please explain why you have me in your two out of three scum pool? Make that two of four....or is it three of four????

@Doom...."unless we can hit the shooter let's lynch Sesq today." So Sesq is for sure not the shooter? Gaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

@Doom....And once more...how has it been determined that Sesq is not the killer? If I missed something in my catch up that shows sound rationale for Sesq being excluded from dayvig status could you (or anyone) please link me to it?

Here's where I am seeing people att:
Town leaning - Magna, UD,
Slightly less town leaning - wgeurts, lucca
Need to look over more - Superhans
Suspect a little - Doom and ....................... mozamis
Suspect a lot - Sesq, FC, Revan

VOTE: Friendly Computer

Revan would be my next choice. Sesq gets a bit of a bye today from me for at least being somewhat active.

P.edit...I see others have since commented on the voting issues but I'll keep my comments despite it.

Doomfeather is analysing the interactions of players who were online at the time with Hawk, and I was pointing out that this is not the way we should be looking at it. I think we're agreeing on this one, Hawks interaction could have been with anyone in the scum team.

Instead of asking questions, you could just clarify it a bit more int he first place. I don't find your behaviour scummy and like the type of questions you're pushing on players such as me and Doom, as it suggest you are trying to further discussion / try and solve the game.

not sure about Hawks death, but I'm unsure what would have triggered the scum to assume she would be a threat to them, consdiering she had very little content. Most simple explanation would be Sesq, but because this is so simple, I think it very very unlikely to actually be the case. If Hawk was killed over her push on Sesq, it is likely that this actually means Sesq is

less

likely to be scum? if that makes sense?



@Superhans....you do not think the Hawk DK was a reaction to panic but you do think the DK had definite intent. Are you saying those things are mutually exclusive?

[Superhans]

seems to be some confusion over my votes.
its very clear - i ahve only voted Sesq this game.
Once before the DK, and once after.
So I dont know why people are confused, but there it is.
And for once i may actually have caught scum!

If Sesq flips scum who would you suspect?
If Sesq flips town who would you suspect?

[Superhans]

I skimmed your case, sorry, being lazy
having gone back over it, my feeling is that you are probably on the right track.
E.g.:

However there is scum motivation to appear like scum-hunting while not wanting to antagonize the person you effectively FOS.

is a good point. His "nullscum read" of Superhand seemed like someone trying to put down some sort of read without - as you say - making waves.
All in all, he does seem very blendy.
That's kinda my problem with your case though, and its not really your fault, because he is so blendy. And thus, there isnt THAT much of a case to go on ATM.
So while my gut is telling me he could be scum (his posts are remarkably content free), I'm more convinced of Sesq, simply because I feel he has actually given himself away.
And i wasn't aware who FC was vtoing for, which you may believe or not, as you wish. *alec guinness voice*

How has Sesq given himself away? Maybe this is my fault for not really engaging with the game early on, but for the sake of simplicity give me a breakdown of your scum read on him.

[doomfeathers]

@Superhans....you do not think the Hawk DK was a reaction to panic but you do think the DK had definite intent. Are you saying those things are mutually exclusive?

D'huh? Why are you asking yourself questions?

[Superhans]

@Superhans....you do not think the Hawk DK was a reaction to panic but you do think the DK had definite intent. Are you saying those things are mutually exclusive?

D'huh? Why are you asking yourself questions?

that was in response to Havingfitz.

[Superhans]

typo.

[Superhans]

Mod...does the mozamis vote on Sesq in Post 288 not meet your voting criteria?

Sesq...your last two votes (on mozamis and Revan) have not counted because you did not put them on unique lines like you have already acknowledged being told by the mod. Why do you keep making votes that do not count?

Have you not noticed that your vote is still on FC? Do you still suspect FC?

Also...wrt Post 301...I think you messed up your reply to my question. It looks like you are saying you were misrepping me. FFS...can you pay attention to what you post? You say here that you intended to vote Doom for LAMIST. Your initial vote for Doom came immediately after his LAMIST post but you only mention that your vote on him is because he was shading you (I assume for the cat comment he made about you). Which seemed pretty RVS-ish. All you say when you make your vote on Doom official is that you are making your earlier vote official. No mention of LAMIST. Even when MOI asks you about it. You only mention LAMIST slightly in your Post 130 and no mention of it being why you are voting Doom...until you accuse me of misrepping you on it.

@MOI

...thank you for the [302=post]posting tutorial[::post//}. I was just a bit more focused on getting caught up than making things pretty. It's not the norm for me.

1)
@Superhans....what do you mean with the scum works as a team comment when you say you do not understand why the kill wasn't made on behalf of another player? Whether the kill was made on behalf of the day vigger or one of the goons makes no difference. The fact is Hawk was killed. If there is a way of determining who might have been threatened by Hawk's existence that could point to someone...ANYONE...on the scum team.

2)
@Superhans....if you don't understand my posts ask a question. My catch up was me commenting on things I saw as I saw them. The Hawk kill came as a surprise to me when I saw it. Not sure how my reaction is obnoxious. Also...do you consider obnoxious scummy? And I could care less if you find me verbose or annoying to read. Do you find those traits scummy or are you just doing what you accuse me of?

3)
@Superhans....you do not think the Hawk DK was a reaction to panic but you do think the DK had definite intent. Are you saying those things are mutually exclusive?

@Doom....I disagree. How does scum help promote mislynches if they do not voice suspicions on the mislynch target? Scum absolutely need to suspect others. WRT FC...I guess you commented but that was some f'd up content to be giving him credit for.

As for saying I have faulty reasoning wrt your DK online hunting techniques...what do you consider faulty about what I said? And how is "poor reasoning" not scummy? If mafia were able to make sound logically reasoned cases they would be extremely hard to find. But having to make shit up all the time produces plenty of instances of poor reasoning by scum. So you saying it isn't is just wrong. Also...to nitpick a bit...I do not "claim" you are using "poor reasoning." Even though I do think that is the case. If you want to say you think I am inferring something that would be fine but don't attribute comments to me that I did not in fact make. Thanks.

@Revan....I've made two catch up posts where I am making observations. Other than stating a few players I think are town...what fence sitting do you see me doing? Also...consider me caught up. Pressure away. And could you please explain why you have me in your two out of three scum pool? Make that two of four....or is it three of four????

@Doom...."unless we can hit the shooter let's lynch Sesq today." So Sesq is for sure not the shooter? Gaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh

@Doom....And once more...how has it been determined that Sesq is not the killer? If I missed something in my catch up that shows sound rationale for Sesq being excluded from dayvig status could you (or anyone) please link me to it?

Here's where I am seeing people att:
Town leaning - Magna, UD,
Slightly less town leaning - wgeurts, lucca
Need to look over more - Superhans
Suspect a little - Doom and ....................... mozamis
Suspect a lot - Sesq, FC, Revan

VOTE: Friendly Computer

Revan would be my next choice. Sesq gets a bit of a bye today from me for at least being somewhat active.

P.edit...I see others have since commented on the voting issues but I'll keep my comments despite it.

1)
Doomfeather is analysing the interactions of players who were online at the time with Hawk, and I was pointing out that this is not the way we should be looking at it. I think we're agreeing on this one, Hawks interaction could have been with anyone in the scum team.

2)
Instead of asking questions, you could just clarify it a bit more int he first place. I don't find your behaviour scummy and like the type of questions you're pushing on players such as me and Doom, as it suggest you are trying to further discussion / try and solve the game.

3)
not sure about Hawks death, but I'm unsure what would have triggered the scum to assume she would be a threat to them, consdiering she had very little content. Most simple explanation would be Sesq, but because this is so simple, I think it very very unlikely to actually be the case. If Hawk was killed over her push on Sesq, it is likely that this actually means Sesq is

less

likely to be scum? if that makes sense?

[Superhans]

Slight scum read on Lucca as a response to his response to Hawks death, being 'wtf' and 'random' which seems like a dismissal of an attempt to consider motivation behind the kill.

[Sesq]

Here's a game I was scum in.

Main thread: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69351

Maifa thread: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=69349

[Revan]

Super answer my question.