Breaking Bad season 1 - Game over

[DarkLightA]

VOTE: Salamence

I swear I played with you a while back.

[DarkLightA]

it didn't get to L-1. but be sure to check my wagon if I flip scum.

Ugh... This is one of those situations that can be analyzed to eternity. And now I've been trying to make up my mind, but I'm going to have to lean town on this one. Still, ughh... That is BAD.

VOTE: shos

only mafia would want to stop talking about BB

On the other hand, call it gut, but I feel this is a scummy post. Conveniently placing himself in a bandwagon with minimal effort, and minimal suspicion. It's an early read, but I feel there's something there.

[DarkLightA]

VOTE: hiplop

[DarkLightA]

it didn't get to L-1. but be sure to check my wagon if I flip scum.

rephrasing:
it didn't get to L-1. but I defended the possible attack on the wagon, so if I flip scum, you should search for my scumbuddies on this buswagon.

...that's irrelevant because I'm not going to, so no worries.

Dear lord you're making this complicated. I can't figure out how this would come from town. Then again, I don't think scum would be stupid enough to post it. Argh..

[DarkLightA]

Back for more uggs.

I slept on it, and I've convinced myself that shos is scum. Still can't figure out why scum would make that post, but I definitely can't figure out why town would.

[DarkLightA]

Well that escalated quickly
VOTE: ABR

That was a false claim, intended to see who takes the bait and jumps on asap. Guess who.

I wasn't convinced after your initial 'slip', but you're convincing me now. What is your role, and what is your flavor?

[DarkLightA]

Why Eek? I don't see his posts as that scummy—generally when I see reckless play like that it tends to be from town, unfortunately.

[DarkLightA]

vote: DarkLightA

Why? You didn't mention me day 1, and now you're just sheeping off Cuttle.

[DarkLightA]

I gotcha.

[DarkLightA]

@Shos, who do you feel placed the most opportunistic vote? Why?

I don't like this questioning.

[DarkLightA]

Spoiler: Mantis quote

UNVOTE: cuttle
VOTE: mr ree

krystal bald is my hydra account

no it's my hydra account
why the mreeree vote?

I'm not sure about shos, but with DLA's reaction, I'm certain that no matter shos's alignment, DLA is scum. Please let us lynch him instead of shos. tia

pretty sure it was mine.

actually... it's funny, cause i was thinking that no matter sho's alignment that mr ree was scum either way. how come DLA for you? all you said about him was the 'ugh' thing.
i just didn't like mr ree's post.
tired though.
just wanted to respond to this quickly

Mantis hasn't been saying... anything. Typically, I see that as coming from vanilla town. However, in the quoted post he appears to be trying to look productive. I don't like that combo.

VOTE: Mantisdreamz

[DarkLightA]

Why Eek? I don't see his posts as that scummy—generally when I see reckless play like that it tends to be from town, unfortunately.

Reckless? I only see one vote and it's rvs.

Dark please answer my question.

Sorry.

Maybe my definition of reckless is different to yours. What I mean is that he is unproductive—he seems to be in it just based on entertainment value from his content thus far.

[DarkLightA]

I've spent some time going through ISOs now and I agree with Mr Ree. I still don't like Mantis' play, including his recent responses. He went from not willing to put shos on L-1 because of the deadline being 19 days away in 98 to stating intent to hammer in 147 and hammering in 167, not 12 hours later.

@Ree: 141 and 232

I fail to see any relevance to the argument in these posts. Can you explain it to me?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Hopkirk

[DarkLightA]

Hopkirk, upon your request I did a reread of the situation.

I'm only interested in the situation between #98 (your refusal to L-1) and #147 (intent to hammer).

I see your #98 stating that we should spend the 19 days, then Hopkirk getting to L-1, then getting a bit of breathing space with an unvote, and then back on L-1, at which point he claims miller. This is when #147 comes into play.

What bothers me is that you're justifying #147 with what happened after it.

It requires a shift in attitude

to go from #98 to #147, and I don't see sufficient reasons for you to do so in between the posts.

[DarkLightA]

when i forgot we had different roles

What is this referring to? I feel like I've missed out on something? Different roles?

[DarkLightA]

Ah, right. Thanks for the explanation. I still fail to see how this realization would take you from "let's wait with putting him on L-1 as it's still early" to intent to hammer.

[DarkLightA]

the people voting hop - please provide reasons and these reasons can't have anything to do with the hammer.

thanks

Why are you so hesitant to read into the hammer? Here is my reasoning:

I've spent some time going through ISOs now and I agree with Mr Ree. I still don't like Mantis' play, including his recent responses. He went from not willing to put shos on L-1 because of the deadline being 19 days away in 98 to stating intent to hammer in 147 and hammering in 167, not 12 hours later.

The hammer was a very significant development in the game, and Hopkirk swift opinion change seems really opportunistic.

is hopkirk getting voted for his hammer?

Yes and no. Not for the hammer itself, but the way he did it.

[DarkLightA]

But you seem to be ignoring the important fact here that he explicitly said he didn't want to put shos at L-1

because there was 19 days left

, and then ended up hammering pretty much immediately. I don't find the hammer itself scummy, but I find the method scummy. Suddenly he was all over that lynch.

[DarkLightA]

Fair enough. That's what I reacted to.

[DarkLightA]

It's Salamence's alt.

[DarkLightA]

but stalling a claim is scummy so why blame hopkirk when shos was the one who was in the wrong?

if people have reasons for hopkirk that revolve around his play, i'm all ears but if people are using the hammer as a reason to vote they are wrong and should be ashamed of themselves.

hammering a townie, even if it's warranted always puts the most attention on that person and call me old fashioned but I still think scum's ultimate priority is to try and stay off the radar as much as possible.

This is why i think dark is a good lynch, he fan'd the flames of the shos fire but didn't want to actually take any part of it.

Why do you keep on writing it like this? Neither me, nor any of the others suspicious of Hopkirk that I'm aware of, are voting him

because he hammered

. I, at least, am voting him because of the

way

he hammered. Not because he hammered. Not because shos was town. Because he went from not wanting a L-1 situation because the deadline was far away to hammering in 12 hours.

[DarkLightA]

You didn't want to put him at L-1

because of

the deadline. You hammered him

in spite of

the deadline. Your initial post showed that you don't like early lynches. Neither do I. Day 1 is important for gathering information for the subsequent days. I'd imagine that's why you were hesitant to put shos at L-1. Your sudden eagerness to lynch tells a different story.

[DarkLightA]

Furthermore: If someone fakeclaims, refuses to claim and looks scummier in between two posts why can my attitude towards lynching them not possibly change.

The thing is, it's not your attitude to lynch

him

that I'm suspicious of. It's your attitude to lynch

at all

that suddenly changed.

[DarkLightA]

@Hoppy
Again, I'm not questioning your hammer on him. I'm questioning why you would hammer anyone, when you clearly felt it was too early.

[DarkLightA]

Darklight- why did you wait until shos flipped to "call me out" on changing attidude?
I said in 147 and 157 if he didn't claim i would lynch.
You made 158 so you saw this.
I think you wanted me to hammer (to kill town) then to use it to vote me today.

Frankly, I didn't connect you with 98 at the time. It was a short comment, and my head can't keep track of all such short comments. Reading back now I see the inconsistency in your play.

[DarkLightA]

Also again: You didn't address my queries of "sudden" and "no warning": You saw the two warnings during day one.

I don't care if you gave him 50 warnings. 'Suddenly' refers to the duration between the L-1 hesitance and the hammer.

[DarkLightA]

So again: Why could my attitude not change if he became a much greater scumread?

I've gone through this

so

many times now.

Why would i not want to L-1 shos?
You still haven't answered that.
I have said several times he got worse and refused to claim multiple times and i just remember the setup.

Huh? I've assumed you didn't want to L-1 shos because of the deadline being so far away, as you stated in the original post.

Sudden literally mean WITHOUT WARNING so 394 is crap.

You find me scummy because of my grammar choices?

[DarkLightA]

Guys, guys, guys... I'm sorry I used 'suddenly'. It will never happen again.

I used suddenly to refer to the change in attitude compared to the deadline. 12 hours compared to 29 days is relatively suddenly in my eyes.
However, it will not happen again. Substitute 'within a short period of time' in the place of 'suddenly'.

Really though, is my diction relevant here?

[DarkLightA]

So again: Why could my attitude not change if he became a much greater scumread?

I've gone through this

so

many times now.

Why would i not want to L-1 shos?
You still haven't answered that.
I have said several times he got worse and refused to claim multiple times and i just remember the setup.

Huh? I've assumed you didn't want to L-1 shos because of the deadline being so far away, as you stated in the original post.

Sudden literally mean WITHOUT WARNING so 394 is crap.

You find me scummy because of my grammar choices?

1.) Not the last 4 times i've asked.
2.) That is why i said it so obviously i want you to tell me:

What is the scum motivation of that and why can't i change my mind?

3.) You stressed the words and defended them so you must support them.

[DarkLightA]

Spoiler: Nothing to see here, according to Hopkirk

Furthermore: If someone fakeclaims, refuses to claim and looks scummier in between two posts why can my attitude towards lynching them not possibly change.

The thing is, it's not your attitude to lynch

him

that I'm suspicious of. It's your attitude to lynch

at all

that suddenly changed.

You didn't want to put him at L-1

because of

the deadline. You hammered him

in spite of

the deadline. Your initial post showed that you don't like early lynches. Neither do I. Day 1 is important for gathering information for the subsequent days. I'd imagine that's why you were hesitant to put shos at L-1. Your sudden eagerness to lynch tells a different story.

but stalling a claim is scummy so why blame hopkirk when shos was the one who was in the wrong?

if people have reasons for hopkirk that revolve around his play, i'm all ears but if people are using the hammer as a reason to vote they are wrong and should be ashamed of themselves.

hammering a townie, even if it's warranted always puts the most attention on that person and call me old fashioned but I still think scum's ultimate priority is to try and stay off the radar as much as possible.

This is why i think dark is a good lynch, he fan'd the flames of the shos fire but didn't want to actually take any part of it.

Why do you keep on writing it like this? Neither me, nor any of the others suspicious of Hopkirk that I'm aware of, are voting him

because he hammered

. I, at least, am voting him because of the

way

he hammered. Not because he hammered. Not because shos was town. Because he went from not wanting a L-1 situation because the deadline was far away to hammering in 12 hours.

But you seem to be ignoring the important fact here that he explicitly said he didn't want to put shos at L-1

because there was 19 days left

, and then ended up hammering pretty much immediately. I don't find the hammer itself scummy, but I find the method scummy. Suddenly he was all over that lynch.

the people voting hop - please provide reasons and these reasons can't have anything to do with the hammer.

thanks

Why are you so hesitant to read into the hammer? Here is my reasoning:

I've spent some time going through ISOs now and I agree with Mr Ree. I still don't like Mantis' play, including his recent responses. He went from not willing to put shos on L-1 because of the deadline being 19 days away in 98 to stating intent to hammer in 147 and hammering in 167, not 12 hours later.

The hammer was a very significant development in the game, and Hopkirk swift opinion change seems really opportunistic.

is hopkirk getting voted for his hammer?

Yes and no. Not for the hammer itself, but the way he did it.

Hopkirk, upon your request I did a reread of the situation.

I'm only interested in the situation between #98 (your refusal to L-1) and #147 (intent to hammer).

I see your #98 stating that we should spend the 19 days, then Hopkirk getting to L-1, then getting a bit of breathing space with an unvote, and then back on L-1, at which point he claims miller. This is when #147 comes into play.

What bothers me is that you're justifying #147 with what happened after it.

It requires a shift in attitude

to go from #98 to #147, and I don't see sufficient reasons for you to do so in between the posts.

That's all the times I've explained this.

[DarkLightA]

A town player who is hesitant to lynch 29 days before the deadline would be hesitant to lynch 28.5 days before the deadline. Scum adopts fake attitudes, which they are more likely to breach.

[DarkLightA]

A town player who is hesitant to lynch 29 days before the deadline would be hesitant to lynch 28.5 days before the deadline. Scum adopts fake attitudes, which they are more likely to breach.

[DarkLightA]

I hope you're not expecting me to answer those questions.

[DarkLightA]

Why must changing my opinion on him make me scum? Why can i as town not change my attitude to lynching someone if they become a much greater scumread?

Yeah, you're right. I didn't address why you changing your mind makes you scum.

Spoiler: Answer to the question

Oh, wait... I forgot about these:

The thing is, it's not your attitude to lynch

him

that I'm suspicious of. It's your attitude to lynch

at all

that suddenly changed.

You didn't want to put him at L-1

because of

the deadline. You hammered him

in spite of

the deadline. Your initial post showed that you don't like early lynches. Neither do I. Day 1 is important for gathering information for the subsequent days. I'd imagine that's why you were hesitant to put shos at L-1. Your sudden eagerness to lynch tells a different story.

Neither me, nor any of the others suspicious of Hopkirk that I'm aware of, are voting him

because he hammered

. I, at least, am voting him because of the

way

he hammered. Not because he hammered. Not because shos was town. Because he went from not wanting a L-1 situation because the deadline was far away to hammering in 12 hours.

But you seem to be ignoring the important fact here that he explicitly said he didn't want to put shos at L-1

because there was 19 days left

, and then ended up hammering pretty much immediately. I don't find the hammer itself scummy, but I find the method scummy. Suddenly he was all over that lynch.

is hopkirk getting voted for his hammer?

Yes and no. Not for the hammer itself, but the way he did it.

[DarkLightA]

Why is that?

I'm scum hunting
I'm asking questions
I've given reasons why I like certain people for scum and those reasons make sense
I've given reasons why I don't like certain people scum and those reasons make sense
I've commented on things pertinent to the game.
I've called out people when they say things that aren't true
I defend myself when needed but don't let my defense interfere with me trying to find scum.

All of these are things a good player does.

In my brain. I used to be a fly off the handle kind of player. I got really emotional and things got ugly. That's why I took a break, too emotionally involved.

When I decided to come back I asked myself what does a good mafia player do. The above is basically the things I came up with. I'm also using stuff in a couple of old threads I've found on site. Like this one - http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21886

I'm a work in progress so I'm taking constructive criticisms to heart. I want to be a player people enjoy playing with rather one people avoid like I was in the past.

Holy fuck that sounds calculated.

[DarkLightA]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Mantisdreamz

All you're doing is pointing fingers. You have literally no case against Mr_Ree. I don't like how certain you appear based on your lack of evidence.
Also, that may be the most consecutive posts I have seen.

[DarkLightA]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Mantisdreamz

All you're doing is pointing fingers. You have literally no case against Mr_Ree. I don't like how certain you appear based on your lack of evidence.
Also, that may be the most consecutive posts I have seen.

I mean you had no case on hop and you were pretty sure he was scum...

At least I went pretty hard against Hopkirk as I thought he was scummy. Mantis has done basically nothing.

[DarkLightA]

Anyone find it odd that Ree and dark used the exact same wording?

Mr_Ree was essentially quoting my argument there, furthering the same case. Nothing odd about that. The only odd thing is how religiously you contested the case.

[DarkLightA]

Seriously though, what intent does scum have to copy wording?

[DarkLightA]

See what I'm trying to accomplish by asking that question is generating discussion. Instead of answering the question you decided to avoid it and tried to discredit me for asking it. Why not just answer and explain your answer? Why avoid discussion?

Are you kidding me? How is this avoiding discussion? We are currently discussing.

And that's why I asked the question in the first place. It's suspicious to me and I want to hear others opinions. If nobody else finds it suspicious then I can tell myself to ignore it

So you're admitting your question is only relevant if other people see it as such?

[DarkLightA]

You're going through this game seeing only what you want to see, Beck.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Beck

[DarkLightA]

You're going through this game seeing only what you want to see, Beck.

That makes no sense. Of course I can only see what I see cause I can't look through other people's eyes

You're doing it again.

[DarkLightA]

Then why are you misrepresenting what I said?

[DarkLightA]

What I'm saying is that he appears to ignore things that don't suit him. Not paranoia, but intentional overlooking. See the previous exchange with Beck for evidence.

[DarkLightA]

You're going through this game seeing only what you want to see, Beck.

That makes no sense. Of course I can only see what I see cause I can't look through other people's eyes

You're doing it again.

Look right here for a second. Do you recognize a discrepancy?

[DarkLightA]

Don't you realize that "what you want to see" is different from "what you can see"?

[DarkLightA]

Just sticking to the theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC15PyBhzI8

[DarkLightA]

where's salamence? where's DLA?

I'm gone for a day and I'm already being missed. I feel the love ...or hate?

Post 691 by Beck is an awful case against Mr_Ree. He's pulling cases out of his ass again. Point 1 & 2 are null. Point 3 is absolute crap. Point 4 is impossible to know unless Beck is scum.

This means that Eek's negative response to the case is the correct response, while Rob's positive response is the wrong response.

[DarkLightA]

Points 1 and 2 were the portion of the case I agree with. That was a scum gambit, imo, for the reasons I stated above. Not a town gambit.

I respectfully disagree.

Aww you mad Ive caught your entire scum team?

Yeah.

[DarkLightA]

Dark - do you often calm people scum but refuse to vote them?

Why did you ignore this dark ?

I vote the person I find the most scummy. If the deadline is approaching, I may compromise with another of my scum reads.
^ If you noticed, that happens to be you. Congrats

[DarkLightA]

Dark - do you often calm people scum but refuse to vote them?

Why did you ignore this dark ?

I vote the person I find the most scummy. If the deadline is approaching, I may compromise with another of my scum reads.
^ If you noticed, that happens to be you. Congrats

But day 1 you didn't do that. Why would you if you were town not vote the person you just calked scum?

I did though.

[DarkLightA]

Again, you're cherry picking your reads. It's like me picking out this quote from your ISO:

I am scum, why does he want to lynch hop first?

...and building a case around it. If you add context to it, you'll see that that's not what you meant at all. (Though I tend to find such "if I were scum" posts questionable.)

1) I said I thought hiplop was scum.
2) I voted hiplop.
3) I had a hesitant scumread on shos.

Now you're pointing out the last of the three with no mention of the first two.

[DarkLightA]

I'm going to need your assistance in finding that.

[DarkLightA]

Again, you're cherry picking your reads. It's like me picking out this quote from your ISO:

I'm not cherry picking my reads at all.

Haha, good one.

(Though I tend to find such "if I were scum" posts questionable.)

I never once said "If I were scum" so why post this?

*Sigh*
I'm fucking paraphrasing, alright? If it helps, I'll rewrite it:
(Though I tend to find such "I am scum" posts questionable.)

1) I said I thought hiplop was scum.
2) I voted hiplop.
3) I had a hesitant scumread on shos.

The below quote doesn't sound like you have a hesitant scum read on him. This is you saying that you convinced yourself that shos IS scum. If it was hesitant you would have said "most likely" or something similar. Saying "shos is scum" is declaring he is scum AND it's not being taken out of context like you just tried to falsely accuse me of doing. Nice try

Back for more uggs.

I slept on it, and I've convinced myself that shos is scum. Still can't figure out why scum would make that post, but I definitely can't figure out why town would.

Really?

What's the deal with you? Seriously. I already said I was more in favor of a hiplop lynch. I was more confident there. And then you accuse me of not voting shos. *sigh*

[DarkLightA]

I'm going to need your assistance in finding that.

just did

Now I'm really confused. Where?

[DarkLightA]

I really don't understand what you're trying to accuse me of here. Am I not allowed to vote the person I feel most strongly about?

[DarkLightA]

I was talking about you playing "if I were scum, then..." games in 437

[DarkLightA]

I was talking about you playing "if I were scum, then..." games in 437

again I don't think you read that post right.

Rob said That I am either scum defending hopkirk OR I am scum trying to whiteknight him.

THIS QUOTE

Now in both of those scenarios I am scum BUT Rob wants to lynch Hop first. If both of those scenarios I am scum, why does he want to lynch hop first?

is me pointing that out. ROB thinks that I am scum in both scenarios.


Reading is fundamental

vote: dark

Do you even realize the point I was trying to make with that quote? Your cases are equally absurd to me quoting said post the way I did.

I don't vote hop as frequently as you may want me to, and definitely not when it would be pushing a quickhammer on day 1.

[DarkLightA]

Okay.

[DarkLightA]

Beck, are you going for a record of the most misrepresentation in one game?

[DarkLightA]

Shos- full claim or i hammer.

Well that escalated quickly
VOTE: ABR

That was a false claim, intended to see who takes the bait and jumps on asap. Guess who.

Also if anypne hammers quickly to end the day that might just be a scumclaim too imo. If I ever need to claim, I will - the crumb is already there lol - but

no quickhammers please

Going to shower,

ill be back soon

151-3 are making it worse.
I will give you one last chance: full claim with name and actions in your next post or i will hammer you.

making a post~

Well i can't think of anyone in the show who could be a jester.

Vote shos

Hammer.

Beck, do you not think 165 is of

slight

importance here?

[DarkLightA]

Looks like he was trolling thinking hop wouldn't actually hammer.

Didn't you see the post he was referring to? The one posted after the hammer? Or are you oblivious to that too?

[DarkLightA]

There really is no arguing with you, is there? Why are you so stubborn?

[DarkLightA]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Hopkirk

Choo choo!

[DarkLightA]

Beck, you'll always find something to complain about, won't you?

[DarkLightA]

*2. put Shos at L-1 for no reason -

Once again you see only what you want to see, Beck.

Here's a post you made before:

the people voting hop - please provide reasons and these reasons can't have anything to do with the hammer.

thanks

Remember that? How you didn't see voting for shos as scummy? Oh wait, that just applied to Hopkirk, of course. When it comes to your case on Rob, that's a point that goes towards proving him being scum.

Surely it's not just me that sees these cases being pulled from Beck's ass?

...furthermore he says this in his case:

(...) so there are 3 examples of opportunistic votes from Rob (...)

Yet now he himself is displaying an even more opportunistic voting style:

vote: Ree

Since nobody wants to vote rob/dark

That should be l-2 btw

------

@mod: V/LA for (expired on 2014-08-18 10:00:00)

Push hopkirk and beck for me while I'm gone.

[DarkLightA]

Back from V/LA.

i kinda think beck is townb but the more he posts the more scum he looks.

The more sense I make the scummier I look ? Wtf?

Surely I'm not the only one seeing that Beck is consistently misrepresenting people?

Back to the first guy, who's mysteriously faded into nothingness as people have looked at Ree.

This is a good point.

Is it a little weird, at first glance, that [Hopkirk] turns around on hammering shos like that? Yes. Does it make him scum? No. As he's explained, and has been debated ad nauseam, Hop asked shos to claim multiple times and he didn't. So I don't see an argument for Hop being scum based on the hammer being all that convincing.

You, like many others, are ignoring that Hopkirk stated he was making a post. A hammer would have been okay and justifiable if the deadline was pressing, but we had plenty of time, as Hopkirk himself noted.

Frankly, I see nothing on the Mr_Ree case. I'll do a re-read of his ISO sometime to see if I see reason to suspect him. However, I haven't seen anything coming from him that seems particularly suspicious.

[DarkLightA]

Yes, I meant Shos.

What are you suggesting I haven't read?

[DarkLightA]

Can you quote specifically the posts which you're referring to, and what questions you want answered? I can only find things I already answered, and then lots of prodding to answer said questions.

[DarkLightA]

I misinterpreted his post of “making a post” as him saying, “you don’t have the balls to do it”.

But really, how can "making a post" mean anything other than "making a post"? You look like you're just trying to awkwardly row your way away from it.

[DarkLightA]

For once I understand what you're trying to say. Thank you for clarifying.

The meme still applies though.

[DarkLightA]

The case on Hopkirk, as requested by Tier:

Point 1: Hopkirk doesn't want a lynch, then he hammers 12 hours later

Hopkirk, upon your request I did a reread of the situation.

I'm only interested in the situation between #98 (your refusal to L-1) and #147 (intent to hammer).

I see your #98 stating that we should spend the 19 days, then Hopkirk getting to L-1, then getting a bit of breathing space with an unvote, and then back on L-1, at which point he claims miller. This is when #147 comes into play.

What bothers me is that you're justifying #147 with what happened after it.

It requires a shift in attitude

to go from #98 to #147, and I don't see sufficient reasons for you to do so in between the posts.

You didn't want to put him at L-1

because of

the deadline. You hammered him

in spite of

the deadline. Your initial post showed that you don't like early lynches. Neither do I. Day 1 is important for gathering information for the subsequent days. I'd imagine that's why you were hesitant to put shos at L-1. Your sudden eagerness to lynch tells a different story.

Explanation

A town player who is hesitant to lynch 29 days before the deadline would be hesitant to lynch 28.5 days before the deadline. Scum adopts fake attitudes, which they are more likely to breach.

Point 2: Hopkirk asks for a claim, shos says he is making a post, Hopkirk hammers

Shos- full claim or i hammer.

Well that escalated quickly
VOTE: ABR

That was a false claim, intended to see who takes the bait and jumps on asap. Guess who.

Also if anypne hammers quickly to end the day that might just be a scumclaim too imo. If I ever need to claim, I will - the crumb is already there lol - but

no quickhammers please

Going to shower,

ill be back soon

151-3 are making it worse.
I will give you one last chance: full claim with name and actions in your next post or i will hammer you.

making a post~

Well i can't think of anyone in the show who could be a jester.

Vote shos

Hammer.

(Bolding for emphasis is mine)

[DarkLightA]

The second part you yourself said you just understood.

I said I understood what he was saying. I wasn't saying I thought that he was being honest.

You may well be correct that scum wouldn't do it so obviously. However, I don't see it coming from town either.

[DarkLightA]

There's not too much to say regarding tone. It seems like he starts off quite timid though, and progressively gets more aggressive as his threats increase in severity against Hopkirk. However, 147 stands out to me, seemingly coming out of nowhere.

Also, this post stands out to me now that I understand what he meant by it:

Btw i read the "making a post" shos wrote as "calling me bluff" by saying that was his post and he wasn't going to claim in it.

(From his first post of day 2)

Notably the "btw" is suspicious to me. He's made quite a significant mistake if he's town, and to me it feels like he's trying to downplay the whole event.

[DarkLightA]

You're misrepping me. The mistake is that you didn't let him post his announced post.

[DarkLightA]

I agree he made a mistake, but why is casually mentioning it any worse than going like 'I'm sorry guys, I made a mistake'?

I asked you about the tone of his defence, not about his day 1 play.
I found his defence has been very open and consistent, clearly explaining every question against him in a transparant way. Do you disagree? Do you disagree it's a towntell?

1) I felt like he was trying to sweep it under a rug and act like it was no big deal.
2) I said I felt the tone was timid, then aggressive, like I said. Today, frankly, I think he puts too much emphasis on trying to discredit those of us who have built cases against him rather than countering them, which I do not like. I center much of the case around the hammer situation though, and we clearly disagree on that.

[DarkLightA]

@Dark: Are you getting the feeling people aren't actually reading your responses?

I'm fine with how it is. However, it bothers me with things like this:

Why must changing my opinion on him make me scum? Why can i as town not change my attitude to lynching someone if they become a much greater scumread?

Yeah, you're right. I didn't address why you changing your mind makes you scum.

Spoiler: Answer to the question

Oh, wait... I forgot about these:

The thing is, it's not your attitude to lynch

him

that I'm suspicious of. It's your attitude to lynch

at all

that suddenly changed.

You didn't want to put him at L-1

because of

the deadline. You hammered him

in spite of

the deadline. Your initial post showed that you don't like early lynches. Neither do I. Day 1 is important for gathering information for the subsequent days. I'd imagine that's why you were hesitant to put shos at L-1. Your sudden eagerness to lynch tells a different story.

Neither me, nor any of the others suspicious of Hopkirk that I'm aware of, are voting him

because he hammered

. I, at least, am voting him because of the

way

he hammered. Not because he hammered. Not because shos was town. Because he went from not wanting a L-1 situation because the deadline was far away to hammering in 12 hours.

But you seem to be ignoring the important fact here that he explicitly said he didn't want to put shos at L-1

because there was 19 days left

, and then ended up hammering pretty much immediately. I don't find the hammer itself scummy, but I find the method scummy. Suddenly he was all over that lynch.

is hopkirk getting voted for his hammer?

Yes and no. Not for the hammer itself, but the way he did it.

[DarkLightA]

Are you always this arrogant and persistent, Beck?

[DarkLightA]

Back from V/LA.

In post 927, hiplop wrote:
i kinda think beck is townb but the more he

posts

the more scum he looks.

In post 928, Beck wrote:
The more

sense

I make the scummier I look ? Wtf?

Surely I'm not the only one seeing that Beck is consistently misrepresenting people?

That wasn't me misrepping anyone btw. It's me being confident in myself that I'm making good posts and I'm calling out hiplop trying to discredit me.

See the bolded words. That's where you changed the wording. That's where you misrepped.

[DarkLightA]

VOTE: Hopkirk

Mod: V/LA until 31. august. Sorry about the long absence. If required, you may replace me out. I'd like to stay though.

Beck, you're tunneling like fuck.

[DarkLightA]

Hey, I'm back! I've tried to read up a bit on what's happened while I'm gone.

Tool came with a very good post regarding Ree's investigation. It struck me that Beck was so against this post, first saying it was completely useless, and later explaining that it was useless "because nobody knows what ree did or what his results are" (1304). However, this is exactly why Tool did what he did: in an attempt to find out this information. I don't get why Beck is so opposed to the idea of it.

1) Top suspect of town cop.
2) Helped to lynched town cop
3) Helped to lynched VT
4) Unwillingness to provide source of Dark vote
5) Unwillingness to interact
6) Horrible iso

Even now, by voting Beck I earned 3 votes on me.

you have to be mafia with a post like this

Posts like these also strike me as off. Beck is very quick to jump to accusations against the person, rather than the argument. Trying to discredit the person rather than countering the argument is very scummy in my eyes.

It also confuses me that he's been such an opponent of reading into votecounts before, but now he's doing VCA himself. It's like his rules are made to throw out scumreads, but he doesn't stick to them himself.

It's cute that he highlighted himself as town though.

However, he's probably right with it being mylo

VOTE: No Lynch

[DarkLightA]

And why are we not no lynching, oh almightly Beck?

[DarkLightA]

Beck, don't get me wrong, I really really want to lynch you. But there is no other acceptable play in this position but no lynch.

[DarkLightA]

Why, albert, why?

[DarkLightA]

I didn't ask for reads, I want to know why it's better to lynch than to no-lynch.

[DarkLightA]

Who is the doc protect clear, and what makes them confirmed town? I may have missed something here.

Generally, as long as there is no one 100% confirmed town, no lynching is advantageous.

[DarkLightA]

Beck, if you think:
1) you appear town
OR
2) a doctor protecting someone makes them conf-town
...you are sadly mistaken.

[DarkLightA]

You literally made me laugh out loud. That doesn't happen often, so thanks!

[DarkLightA]

Beck, the thing is, as long as there isn't a 100% confirmed town, a no lynch is beneficial as it limits the player pool.

Also, now we need all 5 townies to vote for a lynch, while in lylo we require all 4. The former is a harder task, and it's easier for scum to infiltrate.

[DarkLightA]

It's one of you, hopkirk or cuttlefish. I can agree with that. Sure, he defended you, but there were also posts like this:

if it's not obvious, i think hopkirk is town.

What makes it less of a 100% sell for me is that he didn't reference you D1. You'd think he would if he was so set on you being town, right?

Either way, as long as I'm less than 100% sure, even if it's 99%, I'd prefer to no lynch. The argument of 4 to lynch instead of 5 is invalid, because either way it's all the town having to vote, and it's harder to do that in MyLo than in LyLo.

[DarkLightA]

Lol, watching Beck play is so cute.

The thing is, having a player, even if they're 90% confirmed, in MyLo is less favorable than having everyone but them in LyLo. Town still needs all town players to vote the same, just minus the 90%-conf-town in LyLo.

And I'm not saying you're 90% conf-town.

[DarkLightA]

Depends how obv the most obvtownie is, as well as how active in-thread the obvtownie is.

no obvtownies - no lynch
obvtownie who is super lurking - no lynch

helpful

obvtownie - lynch now

This is what you do I'm Mylo, anyone who says otherwise is scum or dumb

Lol

[DarkLightA]

EBWOP: Note emphasis. "helpful" contrasting thinking nobody is town.

[DarkLightA]

1. It was useless cause it provided no new information, cause nothing could be gained from ree's posts. Logic says if he had a guilty it would have been hopkirk, but he was town. You can assume he got an inno on rob, but you don't know 100%. So we learn nothing new and it looks like filler

2. That wasn't an attack against the person, not how you can fail so bad at reading comprehension. I'm quoting the post and saying the post is SO BAD, it could only come from scum(because it was). An attack against him would be something on the lines of "you are ashore so you must be scum"

3. Show me where I was objecting to using vote counts analysis. Cause I don't believe I have ever done anything of the sort. VCA in mylo/lylo is a very useful tool

4. Of course I highlighted myself as town, just like I would expect you to do the same if you did a VCA. It's things like this that make me think you are scum. That's like vca 101.

I'll address this now.

1. Even if nothing can be gained, at least we get an analysis of why that is (even though that's not the case). And that's helpful. And why is not knowing 100% equal to not being helpful at all? You don't make sense.

2. Lol

3. Multiple times you objected to looking at hammers and such in order to find scum. You said it had failed you in the past. However, it's helpful when you do it yourself, of course.

4. No. What you post in the thread is public property, and you use public information, unless you have something important to share. You are sharing misleading information by making the assumption that you are town in the VCA.

[DarkLightA]

Third - hopkirk was town so I know what I am talking about

[DarkLightA]

Not to mention you're ignoring other possible roles;

roleblockers

, etc.

[DarkLightA]

Not to mention you're ignoring other possible roles;

roleblockers

, etc.

Not ignoring thanks for playing scum

If you read the thread you may realize I'm answering Peregrine's question.

[DarkLightA]

Not to mention you're ignoring other possible roles;

roleblockers

, etc.

Not ignoring thanks for playing scum

If you read the thread you may realize I'm answering Peregrine's question.

Why are you answering a question meant for me?

The question had an objective answer. I answered it factually.

[DarkLightA]

Maybe I should just give up trying to understand what's going on in this game.

Why should we have a massclaim and a lynch, when we can wait a night, allow the slight possibility of a PR to play out, and be in a better position for a massclaim tomorrow, with fewer potential targets, and fewer town to assemble in a correct vote?

[DarkLightA]

Beck is basically antagonizing himself. I prefer to patronize him.

Albert, what is your opinion on no lynching today? You haven't said anything about it, and it's kind of important.

[DarkLightA]

I already said that I don't care about no-lynching.

Vote: DLA

You're referencing 1422 here? Care to elaborate why voting pre-lylo is superior?

[DarkLightA]

Why is no one thinking logically here?

We're better off waiting. There's three no lynch votes now. That's probably not changing. We need all 5 town (assuming normal setup) to vote for a correct player to avoid loss. That means that if a single town player is voting no lynch, it's impossible not to mislynch.

So let's no lynch and take the discussion to LyLo. Ok?

[DarkLightA]

Lol. So now we're either waiting 10 days or mislynching in order to avoid going to the next day where we'll have an advantage.

[DarkLightA]

Who is this person?

[DarkLightA]

Yeah, I like that idea.

[DarkLightA]

ITT Beck forces town to waste a day, and then complains about it.

[DarkLightA]

48 hours is good.

Beck, are you replacing out?

[DarkLightA]

First you admit we'll be better off tomorrow, and then you say losing is the fault of those who no lynch?

[DarkLightA]

First you admit we'll be better off tomorrow, and then you say losing is the fault of those who no lynch?

I never said we would be better off No lynching. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever did I say such a thing.

Sorry, I legitimately thought you said you thought we were marginally better off in LyLo. Was that albert?

[DarkLightA]

Okay, that's enough arguing between you two.

I think we need a massclaim now. If nothing else, it can force scum to pick out the more obvtown as a nightkill.

[DarkLightA]

I was against a massclaim under the impression that we would be better off waiting till LyLo. Now we're in a stalemate, so it's appropriate to have a massclaim in MyLo nevertheless.

[DarkLightA]

As long as I'm not 100% sure that someone is town, I think it's better to progress to LyLo without them than to lynch in MyLo with them. It limits the player pool—even though they may not be probable scum, they are out of the picture totally in LyLo. It's also easier to co-ordinate a lynch in LyLo. This is simply because the lynch we currently need 5 town players to achieve will only need 4 town players tomorrow.

The only disadvantage is the loss of a probably-not-scum player. This is solved by having the most likely night targets share reads before night.

You may not agree, but that's my thoughts about the theory.

Of course

the best situation is if scum break the stalemate, but if that doesn't happen, I think we're better off breaking out of it ourselves than lynching in MyLo.

For now, I'm happy to continue the stalemate though. Let's break the record for the longest game!

VOTE: No lynch

[DarkLightA]

Lol

[DarkLightA]

V/LA until sunday. Sorry, I have to rush off, but please don't vote recklessly and end the game before I come back.

[DarkLightA]

Alright, I'm back. Missed out on the hammering fun, but apart from that it was a fun game.

@Mod: Thanks for the modding. I have nothing to complain about, and that's pretty much the best compliment for a moderator.

I really thought I was dead meat after Day 1. I found the argument of including "ugh" very interesting, and it's a good point that town will think before posting, while scum will have more of a tendency to try to appear to be thinking. I'm glad it blew over though. If you look at the start of Day 2 you'll see me panic like crazy. I had a rushed case against mantis that was complete bullshit too ^.^

I think the town players here were good. The main problem was a failure to assemble on targets. Of course, that's tough with PRs, and there weren't any here, so that didn't exactly help.

@Beck, you've taken enough pounding post-game already, but I second everything said. I think Rob said it best, if a bit harshly:

Honestly, Beck, consider revamping your personality. You are one of the most toxic players I've ever played with.

Listen to others and don't be overconfident, and you'll be much easier to co-operate with both inside and outside mafia. (Oh, and stop reporting people because they disagree with you)

[DarkLightA]

...

I'm pretty lucky to be a sensible fellow at least

[DarkLightA]

That set me in a tailspin of

righteousness

that I couldn't recover from.

?

[DarkLightA]

Beck likes to report.

He reported me for speaking about this game outside the thread in a PM where I said:

If you want to discuss it further you can wait till after Breaking Bad is finished.

[DarkLightA]

...and he's discussed it multiple times in this thread already.

[DarkLightA]

<non-gamerelated post>

Interesting. I may be at fault. Here's the exchange, after I rejected Beck's /in to my game:

Damm why you hold a grudge man?

No grudge, I just sufficiently dislike your personality to not want you in my game. If you want to discuss it further you can wait till after Breaking Bad is finished.

What I meant was that I didn't want to discuss it as the game the rejection was based on was on-going. I was surprised that Beck took it as a scumclaim, because literally all I meant by it was that I didn't want to discuss it while the game was on-going.

How could I have responded better?