Newbie 1081: Showdown in Newbtown (Game Over, Mafia win)

[Workdawg]

Hello all. I've been catching up. I saw the call for a replacement in the newbie queue and PM'd our glorious mod, then started reading. I at about page 3 right now, so I'm getting there.

I'll give you all a quick intro I suppose in the mean time.

1. What's your Mafia experience?
2. What's your favorite band?
3. What role/alignment do you prefer?
4. Do you find it harder finding scum, or convincing other people that you've found scum (the latter assuming you correctly identified someone as scum)?

1. This is my second game ever... first one was Newbie 1052 where it came down to LYLO with me stuck between two SE players, I picked wrong and town lost
2. I'm really digging Rise Against lately, though my tastes are quite broad. I recently went and saw Crash Anthem (formerly Skywynd) in concert (local band here in MN) and they rock pretty hard too.
3. I was VT in my only other game, so I can't really comment on what I prefer. I think a power role would be pretty cool though, at least having a little bit of insider knowledge (after N1 anyway).
4. If you happen to read 1052 for meta, you'll see that I was TERRIBAD at finding scum I got incorrect reads on everyone, lol. I learned A LOT in that game and I feel like I know what to look for now, but I guess we'll see. When I did find someone I thought was scummy, I managed to make sound arguments for them though, so there is that.

Hmm, what else. I'm usually pretty active. I have a desk job where I tend to get busy in waves. So there will be days when I post multiple times per day, but then days where I only post at night... but I should be able to post at least once a day in most cases.

Also, I tend to post walls, sorry in advance.

[Workdawg]

Haha, I just noticed that while catching up. (Page 5 now)

F'in mosquitos...

Where ya from, Fatso? I'm in a suburb of the cities.

[Workdawg]

Woah.... my head's spinning from reading all that... I'm going to have to reread it to really gather my thoughts together. It's hard keeping who is who straight in the first few pages when I have to read them all at once rather than as they are posted. My initial thoughts are this though...

sarahfish (my slot) - you can thank me for taking over at any time, I accept donations via Paypal if you are so inclined... lol. Her posts were incredibly hard to understand and she didn't help out at much at all. I aim to fix that ASAP!

My initial feelings on Fatso are that he's newb town, through and through. He made the newbie move of "conforming" I guess and giving in to the will of everyone else. He was questioned over it, but I think he held up pretty well. That whole confusion about what post Fatso was referring to, WTFIDONTEVENKNOW.

Zdenek is a player that I'm a bit suspicious of. All of his posts are very "succinct" as he put it. It gives an air of aggression or stuck-up-ness to his posts, I feel. Certainly not a scum-tell by any means, it just kind of rubs me the wrong way.

There rest of my mind is just a giant cluster right now.

A couple closing remarks

UNVOTE:

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy, but ONLY if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-lynch simply because an even number of players is usually a bad place for town to be, IMO.

[Workdawg]

Alright, I've had the chance to reread the thread again and things are a bit more clear now.

A few more thoughts...

I'm not totally sure what to think about startransmission. My initial impression is leaning town for really putting my slot under the pressure that sarahfish deserved. FWIW, I'd be more than happy to address any concerns you still have now that she's gone.

Bulvious seems town to me as well. He's really asking a lot of good questions and seems to be talking to everyone rather than just focusing on one person.

I have to say, my concerns about Zdenek only got worse though. I made some notes while I was rereading this morning and here is roughly what they say.

Post 41 - His very last comment seems a little bit like fearmongering to me. Zd (is it cool if I call you Zd?) is an SE player and maybe he knows better than I do, but I really feel like lynchkings comment there was simply trying to justify what was clearly a pressure vote. I really don't see an SE player honestly considering that a push for a quicklynch.
Post 162 - More fearmongering in accusing h3ll0 of buddying up to Bulvious. They agree on one point and that mean's they are buddying?
Post 171 - He says it's a town tell to call someone town? He "thinks" that Bulvious is town because "This is a town-tell because it's a sacrifice for scum to say that they think that someone is town..." He THINKS Bulvious is town, but he KNOWS that is a town tell? I completely disagree that it's a towntell at all. Someone else already brough this up though.

His arguments with h3ll0.

It's going to sound like I'm mirroring some of what h3ll0 said above I guess, but I started over from the beginning of the thread again and he posted the above after I went to bed last night, so I didn't even read it until just now. Zd seems to consistantly tear down points made against him in a condescnding manner. The obtuse quote above is a perfect example. As an SE player, I would have expected a lot more from him. A well constructed defense, and case for that matter. I don't feel that he has done that. On the other hand, I feel like h3ll0 has done a great job of defending himself from a more aggressive, and seemingly less substantial case.

His gameplay in general

To continue with what I mentioned about Zd before, I feel like he might not have the town's best interests in mind. He makes very short comments about everything and rarely explains himself (only when asked to). As an SE playing for town, I would expect him to try and teach a little bit more. Explain his meanings and what he feels are scumtells and what aren't. I think justifying his statements would only benefit the town, but he has stated that making long posts is "useless at best and anti-town at worst." I can see that being acceptable in a standard game, but not so much in a newbie game, and certainly not when he's an SE and he's supposed to be teaching us something.

His thoughts on startransmission (ST)

I agree with h3ll0 here again. Zd has said a couple of times that ST is "active lurking," and even voted against him because of it, but he doesn't think we'd lynch the IC D1. Because of this, he doesn't bother to post up anything resembling a case? I'm not really sure what the motivation for that is. At least not from a town perspective.

@Zd:

If you think ST is scummy, then why not present a case that indicates that? Between ST (who you previously voted for) and h3ll0 (who you are currently voting for) who do you feel is most scummy? If the former, then why not post your case? If the latter, then what has changed your mind?

[Workdawg]

Oh, I forgot...

VOTE: Zdenek

[Workdawg]

Post 162 - More fearmongering in accusing h3ll0 of buddying up to Bulvious. They agree on one point and that mean's they are buddying?

No, it was the manner of the interaction. Let me walk you through it:
-snip-

Ahh, see... I interpretted it differently. The post in question is 154, quoted here for ease of reference:

I'm not entirely sure anyone has been doing much scum-hunting for some time, though. It's mostly been "Let's lurker lynch" - all fine and good, but that's something for the future.

-Snip-

h3ll0, what do you think of the willingness to push a lurker lynch? Doesn't it seem odd that so many people would want to agree to that when it's usually a 50/50 sort of split in the average game? Normally you get SOME people contesting it - but there's none of that in this game. Could it be that two of the scum are the most ardent in pushing the most useless wagon and keeping that on-topic?

Exactly. This "policy lynch' thing has done nothing but distracted all of us from actual scum-hunting. Especially considering that the lurker lynch policy has already been agreed on earlier when you asked your question on who to hammer.

Alnpka is actively lurking - to me, this is significantly worse than someone who is likely to be replaced.

He has provided no original content. The most he's done is accuse Fatso of backing down and being sensetive - accusations that were parroted from other players in this game. He appears to merely be agreeing with people - a good move for scum. He's not hunting at all either, let us not forget that.

Good catch. I want to see Alnpk's reaction to that.

It looks to me like h3ll0's first comment "Exactly... " is only refering to the top of Bulvious' statement (above the "-snip-"). I don't see h3ll0 actually answering Bulvious' questions there.

The "Good catch" comment is insignificant, IMO.

Workdawg: SE is not a teaching role, and since you disagree with nearly everything that I think, that is probably a good thing.
....

What would you like me to explain?

My only other game here, the SE players did take on a teaching type of role, though I see from the wiki that you are correct.

I guess I wasn't really looking for an explanation for anything specifically, but based on my (incorrect) assumption that an SE was supposed to teach, I would have expected an SE to explain themselves more.

Very well then.

[Workdawg]

IGMEOY

Workdawg, if only because your predecessor completely overlooked several things, completely ignored Fatso here, and your current stance on Fatso doesn't sit well with my gut in correlation. Their open-ended question here also sits uneasy with me as, from my experience, scum are more often to ask "HEY GUIEZ WHO'S SCUM" than town would. Noting the WIFOM response to star's noticing the soft-defense, as well.

As I said, I'm more than happy to face any extra scrutiny you feel is necessary based on sarah's terrible play. I can't really comment on WTF she might have been thinking when she was posting, since I'm not her, but if you want me to speculate, I guess I could do that.

As far as my read on Fatso, my initial read was very newb town. Honestly, he reminded me a little bit of myself in my first game (Newbie 1052), extra concerned about appearances, making some pretty basic mistakes, etc. He still comes off pretty newb to me, though I will say having looked a little bit at his meta (this is his 3rd game) I'm less inclined to say how town he is. I think you have some pretty valid points, so I guess we'll see what he has to say about them.

@Zd

- Sorry, that part must have gotten lost while I was trying to hack apart the quote on your post.

I guess I don't have any specific things in mind. Your posting style this game just rubs me the wrong way and when you come under pressure, you still post short, combative responses. Personally, I would have defended myself differently, but having reviewed the game chkflip posted for your meta, I guess that's just your style, so I'll just have to try and overlook it.

Also, thank you for posting your case against ST. I wish we didn't need to pressure you into posting it though. Information is only helpful to town, so if you've got reasons to be suspicious of someone, you should share them. It does no good to say "ST is suspicious" and leave it at that. What is the purpose? It's my opinion that you should always share your suspicions with the rest of us, for the good of the town.

As an unrelated note, I like your use of the area tags. Sadly, they don't seem to render on IE here at work. I noticed them at home in Firefox and it's nice for breaking up your talking points, I'm stealing it :p

@Bulvious

- I have a couple questions for you.
1. Why didn't you comment on ST's post #244 where he addressed you exclusively?
2. I reviewed your ISO and I barely see any mention of Alnpka. You say that he's actively lurking almost a week ago (#153), but don't mention him again. Is that the extent of "[your] reasons posted before"? I don't disagree necessarily disagree with you. He's asked a few decent questions, but he has been one of the less active players for sure. This smells to me like just jumping on Zd coattails.

(BTW "sheeping" is a term that I've never heard before. I looked on the wiki for it but couldn't find anything there either. Am I correct in assuming that it means to mimick someone else's vote or thoughts? Following them like a sheep? Would it be correct to say Bulvious was sheeping Zd, based on my accusation above?)

[Workdawg]

You just said that you suspect him, but then you unvoted because you don't think any of the scum are voting him? I doubt he would vote himself. If your's is just a pressure vote, then I guess that's fine.

It's worth noting though that I doubt both scum (assuming you are correct and they aren't already on his wagon) would be dumb enough to jump on together and hammer him as that would make them look SUPER suspicious.

[Workdawg]

@Zd - Let's not skew what I said. The quote you are harping on is from my thoughts on your debate with h3ll0; not overall. Even if you want to throw that out, I still had two other main points and a few specific posts that made me suspicious enough to vote for you.

You have addressed a few of those points, and I was less suspicious of you, but I'm not so sure now considering how willing you are to simply dismiss everything with a single line; "no one has any rational points against me." Are you saying the things brought up are invalid and were not reasons to be suspicious at the time?

@Bulvious
As for the sheeping. Though Zd never voted for aln, he did put together a few argument against him and said "[aln] is looking worse to me." you even referenced Zd's comments in your voting post. I don't think you've really got to specifically follow his vote to simply hop on his logic and be considered a sheep; at least not IMO.

You did mention you thought aln was active lurking yes. I mentioned that. I know you have a reason, I'm wondering what is the "confirmation" you are implying you've got now. That made you sure enough to vote when you weren't before.

Finally, I am posting from my phone right now, and people have already ninjad in on me. I attempted to address some of that, but phone posting is tough. Please excuse my typos as well.

[Workdawg]

I knew I would forget something.

@Bulvious
Its true that there are types of information that are "bad for town," but I think those types are only bad if you don't analyze them properly. Misinformation, by it's very definition, is anti information; lol. If someone is spewing lies, town should catch and lynch them. There's been much talk about lynching a lurker in this game. Why does someone lurk? To avoid having to post and get caught posting misinformation. It seems logical that everyone is encouraged to post all their thoughts, true or not, because it gives the town something to analyze to get a read on them.

A true town player should only be posting genuine thoughts, however misguided, and their actions should speak loudly enough to prove they are town.

[Workdawg]

It's not scummy to pressure someone for giving a poor reason to pressure vote someone else early in the game.

It is not scummy to point out when one player buddies with another.

Two players disagreeing over what constitutes a town-tell is not scummy.

h3ll0 was being obtuse.

All 4 of these are pretty much a difference of opinion/interpretation.
For the first two, I think you are looking for scum intent where there wasn't any. We disagree on this, obviously.
The 3rd, is just some wording I found interesting.
The 4th is just an example of your combative nature.

Note that I never said any of those were scum-tells. Just things I found worth writing down.

No one had presented anything like a case against me, so your claim that I hadn't sufficiently defended myself up to that point against a more substantial case is bizarre and further evidence for that is given by the fact you have failed to point out an instance where I haven't adequately defended my self.

I never said h3ll0 made a case against you, though I guess my choice of words was poor. I simply meant that during your back and forth, which went on for a few days, I felt that h3ll0 made the better arguments and your your side of it was lacking. I might even say that it appeared as though you were grasping for straws trying to make him others look guilty (or innocent in the case of your supposed town-tells).

I didn't actually say that "making long posts is "useless at best and anti-town at worst." I said that "Bulking up a post with unnecessary ramblings is useless at best and anti-town at worst."

That's true, I guess I did misquote you there a little bit, however I meant to convey that you seem to dislike elaborating on your thoughts. I don't think that's rambling.

For what it worth, did explain my st vote, but people have to read the thread and decide for themselves what they think for themselves.

All you said was "Startransmission is scum for active lurking." It took prodding from us to get you to actually post your case.

DMSIS

is on my list of acceptable lynches for today.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym, could you explain that one to me?

@Buvlious

I think we do disagree here. I cannot think of a single instance when information is bad for the town. The huge advantage scum have is that they have all the information. Every piece of information that is revealed in the thread is another piece town can use to sniff out scum. If there is misinformation in the thread, it is their job to sniff it out, and at that point, put pressure on whoever gave out that information. If the town takes misinformation as truth, then that's a mistake on their part, but it doesn't make that information bad.

I have some more thoughts on ST's case against Bulvious, but I've got to run for now.

[Workdawg]

Firstly, I know I promised some thoughts on ST's case against Bulv. I wrote down some notes about the validity of ST's claims in his vote analysis, but they are at home. I will post them later tonight for sure.

@Zd

I disagree that those point are "needless ramblings." They are not definite tells, but they do help establish context and meta for your play, which was relevant to my other points.

As for town tells, I agree.

Your case above actually looks like a case. Bantering back and forth taking little shots here and there makes it hard to follow and easy for things to get lost, especially when you don't explain yourself. You can ask questions, but if it's not obvious what the purpose of the question was, then it's not very helpful to the rest of us (or at least me). Maybe it's just my newbieness.

@Bulv

I don't think there is any real difference between "Some info is bad for town" and "Some info is good for scum."

If something is bad for town, then it is good for scum; and vice versa. I have been giving this some thought, and I can't even really think of an example of "info that is good for scum" that isn't equally good for town. Maybe you can provide an example of what you're trying to get at.

Welcome shotty!

[Workdawg]

If the town finds out who the is cop because he claims and says he's found a scum, the info is probably just about the same on the goodness scale for the remaining scum, as they now know who the cop is. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

I would suggest that's a misplay by town to just straight up claim cop. I'm still new, but normally doesn't the cop want to only claim if there's an EXTREMELY good reason to, to avoid that specific case? As for "scumscale" I'm not sure what that is.

An analysis of Bulvious' votes (as promised):

First to vote for Fatso (Post 14) - For his unwillingness to RVS and being reactive -- ST points out the first, but not the reactivity.
First to vote for h3ll0 (Post 48/49) - For lurking -- ST seems accurate here that Bulv got off Fatso's wagon when it went cold.
Second to vote for Sarahfish (Post 131) - For bad posts, no scumhunting or defense -- ST claims he "rails against SF", but really I can only see a few comments (94) about her. I wouldn't say his vote is unjustified at all, but I wouldn't say he really "railed" her.
First to vote for alnpka (Post 249) - For "reasons he posted earlier, and Zdenek's case" -- This is the only vote I find suspicious, but I've already spoken my mind on that.

My thoughts...

It seems to me that Bulvious just pressures with his vote and when someone stands up to that pressure, he moves to someone else. Overall, I still think his motive is scumhunting. His other posts seem to verify this to me.

Right now, I'm not really sure who our scum is. I intended to do some extra reading tonight, but it's Friday night and Sailor Jerry doesn't seem to want to let me. FWIW, my vote is still on Zd simply because I'm not COMPLETELY convinced he's innocent, and not having my vote on anyone is a waste of my vote.

One thing I have noticed though is that chkflip seems to be really getting on Fatso's case. Most everyone else has said they feel he is newb town, and he's getting back that direction for me again. I don't have a problem with pressuring him at all if you aren't yet convinced, but I have to say that it does seem like chkflip is making it a bit personal. I feel that calling Fatso a retard (or scum... a shitty false dilemma here?) and then a lazy jackass is unacceptable IMO.

This has nothing to do with chkflip's alignment I guess; but come on now... is calling names going to make him slip up?

@Mr Shotty

I am intrigued! I hope it's not based on Sarah's terrible play, but I await your response in any case.

[Workdawg]

@Zd

Sadly, I haven't had enough time to really thoroughly read the most recent cases. I've had a rough couple days at work with my work PC getting a virus, so I haven't been able to keep up quite as well. I have read everything, but not as thoroughly as I'd like to. Last night, as I said, I drank too much to give the cases a fair analysis, and I'm also quite busy the rest of the weekend. I should be able to devote a couple hours to the game tomorrow night though, so I will do my best to present some more thoughts then.

I guess for now I'll give you some of my basic thoughts...
-chkflip's case against Fatso seems, appropriate... as he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet. I still think he's holding up okay and his responses seem genuine to me. I already mentioned the personal attacks...
-bulvious' case agaisnt alnpka. I agree that alnpka has been flying under the radar for most of the game. He posts fairly short posts, but I have to take a closer look a the context of the posts Bulvious to really determine how I feel about it. Assuming Bulvious is correct that aln has only made a handful of useful posts, then taking a closer look at him is definitely warranted.
h3ll0/Zd - You finally put your case against him together, and it makes a lot more sense. Maybe that's just what I'm used to from my last game, but it's a lot easier to follow when it's all in one post, clearly explained. I will definitely take a closer look at this.

I'm not used to the short quips flying back and forth and it's making things a bit more challenging to follow.

[Workdawg]

Fatso, sorry to see you go. Good luck with whatever issue you are having.

Zd wrote

Bulvious, ignoring h3ll0's activity levels, do you think h3ll0 is playing differently in this game?

Actually, yes, I would say so. In the last game, h3ll0 had a case, maintained and pursued that case, althroughout the game. This game... I don't really see that from him. In fact, I can't think (off the top of my head) of a great case he's made this game, or has attempted to make.

I just noticed this little quote from a couple days ago and it seems interesting to me even though no one else has mentioned it. I have to wonder what would make h3ll0 change his playstyle? Can you elaborate on that at all, h3ll0? Was there something specific that didn't work well in your last game that's making you play differently now?

Bulvios' case on alnpka

I'm inclined to agree with Buvlios' analysis here. His post analysis is pretty accurate. Alnpka has been less active than most of us, and his posts usually don't contain any information that really helps. It's his first game though, and I still get a newbie vibe from him, like he doesn't really know how to scumhunt. During the back and forth, alnpka defends himself by quoting posts he's made that contain various questions to people and such. He seems genuine though and I get the impression that he just isn't really sure what he's supposed to be doing.

Zdenek's case on h3ll0

Zdenek's original vote on h3ll0 as due to "buddying" and process of elimination. Reading through their back and forth since then, I noticed that a lot of it is simply bickering of some fairly unimportant things. The semantics of the two questions about lynching a lurker/hammering someone, leaning town vs pro-town, whether scum should call people town or not, etc.

When Zd finally posts his case against h3ll0, his first point looks to be attacking Fatso more than h3ll0. He continues on about how the two questions from before Bulvious felt were redundant, but he answered them differently.

He mentions that h3ll0 "softly attacked" Fatso. Apparently it's a scum tell to mention something someone did, but not call them scum for it? Doesn't he do that a lot himself? He's only pushed for the lynch on h3ll0, and he's pushing pretty hard for what seems like a weak case.

I'm sorry that it seems like I'm being wishy-washy here, but I'm just really having trouble with the format people use for their posts around here.
Having really given the time to this game again, I'm only more reinforced in my thinking that Zd is scum.

Lastly, Welcome Kard!

[Workdawg]

@Zd

I can find a couple instances of you "softly attacking" people, but ever since I started pestering you to explain yourself, you've done better. But still, if you want to define "softly attacking" as you have, and it's a scum tell, then you've done it as much as anyone else.

Did you intentionally leave off the context of most those quotes? Allow me...

About lynching a lurker (active or not), I tend to agree with this policy,

but ONLY if there isn't a consensus otherwise. If it comes down to it, lynching a lurker is better than a no-lynch simply because an even number of players is usually a bad place for town to be, IMO.

In case you aren't sure what I mean... I mean that if it were to come down to it and there would be the choice between a no-lynch, or a lynch on a lurker; I would choose the lurker. Otherwise it would be better to pick a more scummy player. I also find it interesting that you pick on me specifically for this when it's pretty much the same answer everyone else gave, even though I elaborated on it even more than most other people. FFS, you were even "wishy-washy" on this question...

Personally, I think it could be a good move. We will hopefully hit scum, but no matter what we eliminate someone who the scum won't kill and who we won't be able to get a read on during the game; in both newbie games I've been in so far, town has lost by mislynching a lurker in LYLO.

The second quote from your case against me is me asking Bulvious a question and simply elaborating on why I asked it.

-chkflip's case against Fatso seems, appropriate...

as he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet. I still think he's holding up okay and his responses seem genuine to me. I already mentioned the personal attacks...

You leaving off the rest of that quote sure seems to make it look like a wishy-washy stance, but I think when you read the entire statement it makes it pretty clear where I stand on Fatso.

I'm inclined to agree with Buvlios' analysis here.

His post analysis is pretty accurate. Alnpka has been less active than most of us, and his posts usually don't contain any information that really helps. It's his first game though, and I still get a newbie vibe from him, like he doesn't really know how to scumhunt. During the back and forth, alnpka defends himself by quoting posts he's made that contain various questions to people and such. He seems genuine though and I get the impression that he just isn't really sure what he's supposed to be doing.

Again, the context of the quote makes my intent pretty clear.

Did you intentionally leave off the rest of those quotes in a sad attempt to twist my words into something that looks scummy? I'm sorry you feel like I'm being wishy-washy, but maybe if you actually read my posts a little bit closer you would see that is not the case. I will say this... I'm a bit of an optimist, I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt. So far, I haven't seen any cases that make me think someone is 100% scum. Most of the cases have some good points, but also flaws of their own. A case that has flaws is tainted by that, IMO. Should I ignore the flaws of the case just so I can say "I AGREE WITH CASE XXXX 100%! THEY ARE SCUM!" ? I don't think so, that would be ridiculous.

I also find it interesting that you make a case on me based almost entirely on something that I freely admitted I was doing (being a little bit wishy-washy). You didn't even point out any cases where that was even the case, though. That's the exact wording I used in post 321 to describe my play, but I also did my best to justify it.

[Workdawg]

So you think we should quick-lynch Fatso?
...
Made up statistics and casting a blanket of doubt over other players for no good reason considering how little time has actually passed.
...
Here we see obvious buddying of Bulvious by h3llo.

And those are the ones I found with just a quick skim over your ISO.

The only lynch I would have agreed with at the time MIGHT have been alnpka's, and you leaving off the context of the quotes is BS. The context justifies my comments. If you can't see that, then maybe YOU are being obtuse.

The first I agreed with only conditionally as it's better than a no-lynch for the first day.
The second wasn't even an agreement on the case.
The third one, I felt that the fact that someone was pressuring him seems appropriate, not that I agreed that he was scum.
The fourth one, Bulvious' analysis seems to be accurate to me, but I still feel like alnpka is giving off more of a newb vibe than scum vibe. What's wrong with that?

Again, should I just be blindly following one of these cases just because they were posted? Maybe I should switch my vote around every time someone posts a case. That would be pretty productive.

You are trying to twist my comments into something they are not (scummy). Mudslinging and grapsing at straws again.

[Workdawg]

A couple interesting things over the past few hours.

@Zd

- The only stance I've been wishy-washy on is my stance on you. I've posted before that I thought both Fatso and alnpka were newbie and just making newb moves. Being extra defensive, not really knowing how to scumhunt very well, etc. The reason I wasn't so sure about you is because I was having trouble figuring out for sure if you really are scum, or if it is that I just don't like your style of play and that's making me think so. The more we go back and forth though, the more convinced I become.

@alnpka

- You've chosen a VERY bad time to go v/la, especially considering your already low content and the heat on you. This is very suspicious to me. It's a good thing we got a deadline extension.

@Kard

- I'm curious about why my "bad at scumhunting" claim has given you a feeling that I might be scum. Do you agree with my case against Zd? If you don't believe me, go read up on Newbie 1052 for my meta, lol.

@Bulv

- Obviously my top choice right now is Zd, but if it comes down to it, shotty is my backup option simply because his slot hasn't been around AT ALL. He replaced in last Wednesday, put an ominous post out there claiming his top picks for scum on Friday, and hasn't been back since. Not to mention he replaced banana stickers who posted very little as well. That slot has been vacant the entire game. Sad too, because I was looking forward to playing with him. Seems like an interesting guy from reading other threads around here.

@chkflip

- Your previous vote was on Fatso, but it did seem like you weren't quite sure about him yourself. Do you have another target in mind now or are you still thinking that slot is scum and just giving Kard a chance to change your mind?

[Workdawg]

Of course, shotty shows up right after I say that... -_-

Obviously if he actually starts posting an appears to be town, I wouldn't be as inclined to lynch him as a lurker, because he wouldn't be lurking anymore. The slot itself has been extremely bad, and he's been slow to get in here, but he's still got a chance to prove himself to me.

As for calling my response to the lurker policy a slip, I guess I don't know what to say about that; I stand by my statement. If there is an obvious scum target to lynch, then of course we want to lynch him, but if not then I have no problem lynching a lurker. What sense would it make to lynch a lurker if there was an obv-scum to lynch instead? I'm not trying to appeal to anyone else here, it just makes sense that way. I don't care if anyone here disagrees with me... that logic for the policy in question makes sense to me and that's the way I'd play it. I stand by the lurker vs no-lynch as well (at least on D1).

Any reason why it took you so long to get back us shotty? It's interesting to me that you showed up 10 minutes after I posted a willingness to policy lynch you, and then the first "slip" you point out is my original comments on that very policy.

[Workdawg]

Where is the rest of your case, shotty?

[Workdawg]

To recap what Zd says about me that's ACTUALLY true:
I've taken a wishy-washy stance on HIM (because I didn't want to think he was scum just because his play rubs me the wrong way.)
I haven't been scum hunting that much, except for him. (Though I have prodded at a few others)
I "bulked up" my case against him with things that aren't scum tells (but they DO help establish context for my reads)

To recap what I think of Zd:
Zd has been reluctant to post cases against both h3ll0 and startransmission until getting pressure from us to do so, despite voting for both of them. Maybe HE was trying taking a convenient stance against them, casting a vote and hoping to just claim it's a pressure vote later on if needed.
He has consistently twisted and taken quotes out of context in an attempt to make things that I've said sound scummy when they were not, and those things are pretty much the entirety of his case against me.

[Workdawg]

Hmmm, I responded to Zd's most recent post, 362, but the post seems to have disappeared. Interestingly, Bulvious has almirrored my thoughts, so I'm not going to repost it, but I'll just comment on some highlights.

1. I support lynching a lurker if the choice is a lurker or a no-lynch on D1. Period. I'm sorry if you found this confusing.
2. chkflip's inquiry was appropriate simply because

"he hasn't been subjected to that thorough of a case yet"

(note the direct quote from my post) . I never said I supported lynching him or even that I thought he was scummy; in fact I stuck to my initial read of newb-leaning-town. The meta WAS simply that it's his third game, so I would have expected him to show a little more experience.
3. I had previously commented on Bluvious' case saying that I had not had a chance to read it all in context (post 312). My statements on it (my next post, 321) were a follow-up to that. I agreed that his analysis was generally accurate. Where he said alnpka was posting fluff, it was usually fluff, and vice versa. Again, I never said I thought alnpka was scum. In fact, if you actually read my post, I said I still felt that he was just a newbie not really sure what he should be doing.
4. I asked him why he voted alnpka, since at the time he really hadn't commented about alnpka and he specifically mentioned your case as a reason for his vote. I DID accuse him of sheeping you, but I don't necessarily find that to be a scummy action (did I say it was someplace?).

Are you saying that sheeping is a rock solid scum-tell, Zd?

As for our impending deadline...

My top pick is Zd, for obvious reasons.

For my number two pick, I can go either way.

IF

shotty gets back in here and posts something relevant (even if it's a wall on why I'm scum), I can give him a pass for today... but so far I think he'd be my number two.
- He replaced in last Wednesday, didn't even post up till Thursday night.
- Friday evening he dropped his accusations down and promised his reason

S

Saturday.
- He doesn't get back until Monday (yesterday) at which point he posts ONE reason I am scum and posts barely more than 150 words over the course of 6 posts last night.
It's not Tuesday night, not counting Wednesday since anti announced it pretty late at night, it's now been 6 days and he's still barely contributed anything at all.

Otherwise, I think alnpka would be an acceptable lurker lynch. I'd like to give him a chance since it's his first game (getting lynched D1 for being a newb is a pretty crappy way to go out)... but I'd join that wagon if it meant we avoid a no-lynch.

[Workdawg]

WTF, do you have some sort of timer to automatically put up posts at the exact same time as I do? Weird that it's happened twice in a row... anyway.

Bullet Points Against Dawg

• 1. Bases his reads off of activity
  
• 2. Takes no real stand on anything, as to avoid angering anyone
  
• 3. OMGUS'd me(semi)
  
• 4. Uses IIoA to fill walls
  
• 5. Thinks like sucm
  
• 6. Attacked me for not posting enough, called me scummy for it
  
• 7. Mis-reps
  
• 8. Either-or-Fallacies

1. No, I have not done this. My reads on Zd, Fatso and alnpka are all based on their play. I have not given a read on you or said you were scummy at all. My analysis of your activity was simply to point out that, up until now, you hadn't contributed anything to the game at all. I would rather lynch someone who had contributed nothing than no-lynch and end up with 8 players in the game trying to fight the uphill battle of an even number of players on D2. In your further post (373) you blatantly misrep me by saying that my only to lynch options are lurkers. My first choice is very clear if you've read the thread.

I have commented on a willingness to lynch other people based on activity because, at this point, it seems like a real possibility that we will be faced with either no-lynch or a compromise of some kind; and to say it will never come down to this is wrong. I cannot control 8 other peoples votes. It's not whether there are gameplay-based reasons to vote for a lurker, because as you said, it's unlikely we will have given a good reason to. It's whether lynching a lurker is better than the alternative, which if the alternative is a no-lynch, then I would say a lurker is the better option.

2. The only thing I'm fairly certain of so far is that Zd seems very much like scum to me. Other than that, I support lynching a lurker if it comes down to a choice between that or no-lynch. Show me where I said "xxx is scum because they are not posting.

3. I did not OMGUS you. I said I would be willing to policy lynch you as a lurker before you even posted you case against me, TWICE. You can argue that I'm OMGUSing you because of your one post where you gave your first impressions, but that had nothing to do with it. You posted that on Friday, and then you didn't bother to actually post up your reason (one of many, it seems) until Monday. IIRC, my first post expressing my willingness to lynch you was before you posted that first "scum tell." (thread review confirms this, post 341 vs post 343)

4. I guess I'll address your list of "IIoA quotes" (from your post 373).
The first two are defending myself against Zd. He continuously misinterprets (or mis-represents) things I've said, so I chose to explain what I was talking about rather than just let him, and anyone else, think I'm scum because he misreads my posts.
The third quote is simply me mimicking his "case recap" in post 358. It's in the exact same format as what he posted. Does that make me scum, for copying him, or does it mean he's also scum because he used "IIoA" in his case against me... or is it neither, or both?
What else am I supposed to do when he blatantly misreps me; I can't just let it slide and have him and others believe these terrible misinterpretations. I'm not using "IIoA" to fill my cases, only to defend myself because his entire case against me was misreps.

5. I don't see many mentions of this in your case against me other than the "Where is the rest of your case, shotty?" quote from my post 357. It makes sense that scum would want to make sure they aren't found out this late in the day, but the timing I think will prove that this is not any sort of scum-slip. Just got back and read post 341-357. 341 is a general overview of my thoughts, so a good starting point, Then you posted your "case" against me. I addressed your case and that was pretty much the only thing that had been discussed between the two posts. There wasn't much else to comment on. So I was simply curious what more there was that had convinced you so much that I was scum. Aside from all of that. I was actually trying to get you to actually post some more seeing as your first 7 posts (out of a total of 11 now) had still provided almost no content. With the deadline approaching, I needed more information to get a read on you and decide if you would make a good lurker lynch or not.

6. I did call you out for not posting enough, see above, but I never called you scum for it. Once again, I only said I would support lynching you as a lurker option due to your previous lack of content. You are misreping me...

7. I'll give you the one quote where I asked Zd about his thoughts on sheeping, but that was really more of a passive-aggressive jab than anything. I don't recall mis-representing anyone else, certainly not on purpose... Others have certainly done it more than me. To steal a line from Zd: Quotes or it didn't happen.

8. I addressed this in the first point, if you have more examples of these EO fallacies, please provide them.

Other thoughts

My comments on voting alnpka.

It's true that it's a bad reason to not want to vote for him, but I still get a newb read on him and if it came down to the choice between someone providing ZERO content (shotty, at the time) or someone who was at least trying (alnpka), then I would prefer to lynch the person who hadn't contributed at all. I understand that giving him a chance because he's a newb is a weak reason, but I'm not talking about not lynching him when there is a GOOD reason to, I'm just talking about not lynching him if there's NOT a good reason to and there are better options, IMO.

On the other players lack of posting.

It's true that many other players, chkflip, h3ll0, ST, and even Kard now have been posting less frequently than before, but at least they have all posted content. Up until very recently, shotty had been far-and-away the most unproductive player in this game. FWIW, with shotty's recent activity though, I would not support a lurker lynch against him; despite his tunneling one me. As I've said, I welcome the pressure considering sarahfish's bad start... though I would hope that I have proven that it was the player, not the slot in this case.
Note: Right under the pages buttons in the lower right corner of the page is an "Activity Overview" link... it shows the last time every player has posted in the thread.

Shotty

When you first posted up your suspects, you said reasons (a plural indicates more than one, where I am from), yet you posted a single, weak reason. What happened to the rest of your reasons? I see you posted a nice, pretty colored wall against me, but that's ALL stuff I posted after your original comment. Didn't you have more reasons from before? Maybe my more recent post just supplied you with some extra juicy tidbits?

[Workdawg]

Wow, some interesting stuff going on here since yesterday morning. I was really busy last night so I didn't get a chance to check in.

We are REALLY close to the deadline now, so it's time for people to step up and really increase activity (h3ll0, ST). We don't have a consensus yet and we need everyone on board to make sure we lynch the right person.

@Kard

- It doesn't matter if you are parroting things other people have said. The things you agree with, put them in your own words and tell us why. The things you don't agree with, tell us why you don't also. The way you're playing right now looks very much like you're just trying to fly under the radar and avoid committing to anything.

@chkflip

- Sorry to hear you were sick, bad timing... but at least you're back now. I agree that there isn't a GOOD reason to lynch alnpka today, but his play has been lacking and, like I said, I wouldn't be opposed to lynching him if it comes down to the deadline and we NEED a lynch.

Right now it looks like Zd and alnpka are tied at L-2 a piece. I've always said I thought Zd was our scum, so I'm obviously not going to move my vote right now. I'll try and compile my case against Zd during work if I get the chance and post it up, otherwise tonight for sure.

@MOD: Could we maybe get a mass prod out to try and get everyone in here for our last day of deliberation?
Also, what TIME is our deadline?

[Workdawg]

Right now it looks like Zd and alnpka are tied at L-2 a piece. I've always said I thought Zd was our scum, so I'm obviously not going to move my vote right now. I'll try and compile my case against Zd during work if I get the chance and post it up, otherwise tonight for sure.

There is something about this post that makes me want to

Unvote, Vote Workdawg

. It feels as though you want to sideline the fact that you are the third biggest wagon, if counting the intend to vote.

I'm not really sure how you got to that, I just looked at the votecount and saw that aln and Zd were both at L-2. I guess if you want to mix it up again that's fine. Do you have a case against me this time, or is my comment just making you uneasy? As far as I can tell, you've never voiced suspicion against me before.

[Workdawg]

My case against Zd

He doesn’t like to post cases against people unless he has to. He accuses me (incorrectly) of taking wishy-washy stances, when the entire beginning of the game he did his best to avoid taking a stance on anyone.

ST

His initial vote on ST is for active lurking. He later comments that he doesn’t seem the point in making a case for his vote because we are able to read his ISO ourselves. He’s essentially asking us to do the work for him. A convenient way to place a vote for a scummy action, without actually pointing out that action. Everyone is going to read things differently, and it seems scummy to me to ask everyone else to make his case for him. If I read the case and point out specific things that I find scummy, he can simply hop in and say “That’s exactly what I’m talking about.” He doesn’t have to actually even make a case against someone this way. As opposed to sheeping, I’d call this sheep herding… trying to get others to make a case for him so that he can sheep them but seem like he is leading instead.

h3ll0

His initial vote on h3ll0 is “Partly because of process of elimination.” When he is pressed about what he means by this, he gives the lurkers a pass because they aren’t responding to pressure, so it’s worthless to pressure them. He gives Fatso, Sarah and alnpka newb/newbtown reads. That leaves Bulvious (whom he doesn’t comment on at all), ST and h3ll0. He says that it wouldn’t be “fruitful” to push a lynch on ST because he doesn’t think we’d lynch the IC. Thus, that leaves h3ll0, and again his only comment on h3ll0 is that “he’s scummy to boot.” Interestingly, he doesn’t even really say anything about h3ll0 being scummy other than his supposed “buddying” with Bulvious. That’s the ONLY thing he says about h3ll0 before his vote, and after it they have a disagreement about the lynching questions, he falsely claims h3ll0 misrep’s him about Lynchking (yes, falsely. Zd said he would lean town on Lynchking BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL SCUMSLIP in ISO 10.) h3ll0 also accuses him of Fence-sitting, which he claims is a misrep as well. After this point, they go back and forth a little bit, but there still really isn’t any case here. Just many disagreements about various things.

Me

So his first two suspects he’s been reluctant to post his case on, and then he hops on me. As we’ve been going back and forth for the past days, my thoughts on this are all over the thread. He starts off claiming that I’m just trying to “get my foot in the door on lynches” (despite the fact that I’ve only ever voted for him) He’s straight up misquoted me to make things I’ve said look scummy when they were not. When I called him out on this, he claims he left parts off of the quote to show I agreed with the lynches.

So he ADMITS to misquoting me (ISO 23) to show that I said something I did not say. He claims he did this because leaving the quotes intact makes me appear wishy-washy, which he then claims is the main reason I’m scum. So, wait… what he’s said then is that he misquoted me to show that I agreed with the lynches, and that IF he had quoted me properly it would make me appear MORE like scum because that shows that I’m wishy-washy.

WAT?

So what’s the motivation to misquote if quoting me directly makes me seem more scummy? There is none, unless… he was back pedaling because I called him out on the misquotes and he’s trying to justify it. He failed miserably.

Even after I point out how he has misrepresented me in EVERYTHING he pointed out, he still sticks to his guns… it’s almost like he’s not even reading my replies. FFS, after I disputed it all, he simply went back to the same four quotes he started with and tried to explain AGAIN why they were scummy. This time he used the entire quote at least though. He continues to misconstrue my quotes even though I already clarified what I said.

I refuted Shotty’s case against me and he has nothing to say about that other than he still thinks I’m “sooo scummy”?

(RANDOM CONJECTURE FOLLOWS)
Zd’s vote is a bit suspicious to me as well. He did say that he would do it, but I think it’s a bit premature to be hopping around. IMO, he saw that I also defended myself well against shotty’s case and decided it wasn’t going to work pushing for a mislynch against me today. I think he felt like if he had shotty on his side they could make it work, but when he saw that fail, he realized he’d better get in on alnpka while the getting is good. I wonder if Zd and shotty are our scumteam. They seem to have similar styles in that they both like to post as little information as possible and misrepresent things I’ve said to make me look like scum.

Final thoughts

Like I said before, we really need others to step up here. If we haven’t heard from you in a while, get your ass in here and chime in on our top wagons. Both pros and cons.
If I’m counting correctly, that’s both me and Zd at L-2 currently. (and chkflip said he thought I might be scum also, since h3ll0 wants to count “intent to vote” also, which would put me at L-1)

[Workdawg]

WORKDAWG IS L-1

I'm unsure if a Workdawg claim would make a difference at this point. If he's a powerrole, he's more than likely dead N1.

Are you changing your vote then? If so, what are your reasons for voting me?

[Workdawg]

Aside from the odd coincidence with Kade, I think you're town.

I'm not willing to hammer you; just wanted to let everyone know what's what and give my opinion.

What? lol... now you've just got me even more confused. Are you voting for me or not... obviously anti doesn't think so, and he's the one who counts.

[Workdawg]

What is your opinion on Zd?

[Workdawg]

@alnpka

- Stop making excuses and post up. We are running out of time and you are hiding.

@Zd

Startrans is scum because of his inactivity near the deadline, and should be lynched tomorrow.

Do you think a complete lack of posting so far as we near the deadline is worse than alnpka's two one-liners?

I never asked anyone to do anything for me. I knew i could provide details, but I didn't see the point since it was so fucking obvious, and I did point out the action. Everyone is going to read things differently, and it seems scummy to me to ask everyone else to make his case for him.

Your ISO 11 you tell alnpka "You can go look at his ISO and judge for yourself."

The first sentencce is stupid speculation, since I never did that, and saying someone is active lurking is making a case. Cases don't have to be walls of text.

That's because no one took the bait, I know I certainly wasn't going to build your case for you.

Yes I did.
...
I think that he's town because early on he agreed that you were probably town. This is a town-tell because it's a sacrifice for scum to say that they think that someone is town; it means that it will be harder for them to push their lynch.

I was specifically referring to the post in which you outlined your "process of elimination."

Saying that you are leaning town on someone is absolutely different from saying they are pro-town. If you don't see that, you shouldn't be playing.

Saying that you feel ANY bit town about someone because of a scum-slip doesn't make any sense, and that was the point of h3ll0 (and me) mentioning it.

PEdit: I see ST has ninja'd in above me, alas I have to run. I haven't even read his post yet as I don't have time...

[Workdawg]

Catching up again...

chkflip

- I have no idea where he's at. He said I was L-1, but I'm not. He said he thought I might be a scumpair with Kard, but he think's I'm town? *boggles* Can you get in here and clear this up?

ST

- I look forward to the rest of your insight. I admit that, at first, my case against Zd was pretty weak... I acknowledged that already... but I think the fact that he's been pushing so hard for my lynch despite everything he's said being a misrep of me has made it MUCH more solid. I can't think of a town reason to pretty much make up a case against me.

Shotty

- I still find it interesting that after I refuted his entire case, he says nothing else against me.

h3ll0

- Still waiting for some insight into his vote on me, but it's only been 12 hours.

[Workdawg]

@Shotty - I said that I would support a policy lynch against you because your slot has lurked 95% of the game, and even after you replaced in you hadn't posted in almost a week. I never said you were scum as a result of that. Further lies.

[Workdawg]

EBWOP: I see that I didn't say that directly, but if you didn't realize that's what I meant from my post, then... I don't even know what to say to you.

[Workdawg]

Also (sorry for triple posting now):

Obviously my top choice right now is Zd, but if it comes down to it, shotty is my backup option simply because his slot hasn't been around AT ALL. He replaced in last Wednesday, put an ominous post out there claiming his top picks for scum on Friday, and hasn't been back since. Not to mention he replaced banana stickers who posted very little as well. That slot has been vacant the entire game. Sad too, because I was looking forward to playing with him. Seems like an interesting guy from reading other threads around here.

See how I already said my reason for choosing you was because of your former lurker status.

Seriously... Of all the crap in your case against me, you pick that one thing to pick on... and it's yet another case of completely misrepping me.

[Workdawg]

Yet you didn't want to lynch people based off of activity or lack there of? O RLY?!?!?!
NO! LIES AND MORE LIES!
I have caught you in your own web, now please die.
Some one lynch this guy.

Are you seriously Fucking kidding me right now? This is the last response I will give you until you can prove you have any ability to comprehend what you are reading without twisting it into something it is not.

1. I said I support lynching a lurker ONLY if it means avoiding a no-lynch today.
1a. I never said I WANTED to lynch anyone based on their activity (notice how my vote has remained on the person I think is scum, I never switched to a lurker... I've been holding out hope it wouldn't come to that).
2. I named you as one of the people I would support a policy lurker lynch on if you didn't pick up your activity.
2a. I already said because of your increased activity I would no longer support a policy lynch against you.
3. I never said you were scum because of your activity.

[Workdawg]

Wow, right about 5 hours to deadline and it's still dead in here. Has been all day.

I would also like to hear what alnpka has to say about those questions.

[Workdawg]

ST is the only one not voting, and he's promised a case soon. F5 F5 F5

[Workdawg]

Oh dang... I didn't realize the deadline was east coast time. I guess that's that then. Way to keep us moving Kard... a no lynch would have been nothing but trouble for us. Even number on D2 with two scum left = DO NOT WANT.

I think ST's case against h3ll0 is logical and I will go back and review the context during our upcoming night phase.

Before we go, I have one comment to make (and imagine, it's against shotty).

WD and Zd actually would make sense as a scum team... obvious distancing, bussing and well they both look scummy...... If in 2 hours no one has changed their vote I will hammer.

Really? You think I subbed in and immediately started bussing my partner for no reason, halfway into the day when there was almost no pressure on him? IF I were his scum partner, don't you think I would have joined his side against h3ll0 and tried to make something out of their bickering rather than rally against him when neither of their cases were very strong? I hardly think pushing for his lynch the past TEN DAYS is a realistic to be accusing me of bussing.

[Workdawg]

Well... that was unexpected. Why would he have been making up a case against me and pushing it so hard? Crap. I guess I should apologize to the rest of the town for getting that wrong; sorry about that. I thought for sure he was scum and it just doesn't make sense to me.

@h3ll0

- I guess I can sort of see that, but it's pretty fishy to me. It certainly was a convenient time to try and jump on my wagon. That said... ST's case against you was accurate (clarification for shotty: the things he said were true, NOT that I necessarily think you are scum), but as he pointed out himself, the case was really weak.

[Workdawg]

This post is just in direct response to various posts so far today. I will post up another with my thoughts on the lynch, NK and others after this.

shotty

Congrats workdawg you made your self look more scummy! Also

if you really thought he was town

then you wouldn't need to appologize. More votes please.

Do you mean to say "scum" here? Are you projecting what a scum would think onto me? IF I were scum, then I suppose I would have to think "if I thought he was town"... but I'm not.

Clearly I really thought he was scum, and I pushed hard to get him lynched. Obviously I was mistaken and I feel like his lynch is my fault because I provided many reasons to lynch him. I made a mistake and am apologizing for it... simple as that.

alnpka

Coming on strong D2... where was this the last day? In any case... I understand school, and I didn't realize that the deadline would have been early in the morning for you... though I suppose it makes since as it seems like you are German.

To answer your question, I had already refuted his points a couple of times and I didn't feel like typing it all up again, or wasting a wall post simply quoting myself. The post I was responding to was simply a summary of his case against me, so I gave a summary of my thoughts in regards to it.

Bulvious

I don't care that Zd was pushing for a lynch on me, but the fact that he did it with NO sound arguments is what I thought was scummy. I refuted every single point he brought against me and it came down to him either misunderstanding what I wrote or trying to twist it to make it look scummy. I cannot think of a single town reason to MAKE UP a case against someone. If he had dropped his case after I disproved it, that would have been one thing, but he didn't. He kept on going to the last second.

I've welcomed cases against me because I have nothing to hide, but that does NOT mean that I will roll over and give up if someone throws a pile of crap at me and calls it a case.

As for the last part of your comments towards me, I'm not sure what you are talking about I guess. Me "agreeing with his PoV" and something being fishy. Can you elaborate on what you were talking about?

[Workdawg]

@Bulvious

Ahh, you only quoted part of my comments, not the part in re h3ll0, so that's why I was confused.

Here are the other thought's I've got:

This is pure conjecture... talking about the lynch and NK is really just a brain dump as it's HIGHLY subject to WIFOM trickery and whatnot... but I think it's worth mentioning some things anyway.

The Lynch/Hammer

Lynching the cop D1 is obviously about as bad as it gets. The hammer by Kard, is curious at best. I *think* he was just waiting until the last possible second to do it to make sure Zd had a chance to claim, or to make sure we got a lynch in instead of a no-lynch with 4 votes against one player. I think both of those are pretty town plays, but at the same time, it'd take a pretty dumb scum to jump on the bandwagon at the end and NOT wait as long as possible.

The NK

I think it's curious at best that h3ll0 got the vote from ST, and then ST died. I think ST had probably been doing some of the best scumhunting, despite his infrequent posting, and as the IC would be a natural target for pretty much any scum. Considering that an SE player got lynched as well, the only "experienced player" we've got left on our side is shotty. He's tunneling me so hard he's probably halfway to China already, so really he's not doing us any good either. He's literally not commented on anyone else's play.

@h3ll0

Do you have anything to say in regards to ST's case against you?

@Kard

What is it about Bulvious that makes you think he is the strongest player in the game? You had a theory that he is scum from before N1, but it's based on the fact that he survived N1? I think it does sound like a flawed reason. I'd like to hear more about this though.

@chkflip

It's been a while, what are your thoughts about the latest events?
I've reviewed you ISO and I'm curious what your thoughts are on your suspicions of a "Work/Kard" scumteam? I'm still not sure what "the odd coincidence" was that you were referring to earlier.
First you say we seem like a viable scumpair, then you make the interesting "WORKDAWG IS L-1" statement, and then you say I'm town? It's just not adding up for me.

[Workdawg]

How do people feel about shotty? I'm really torn on what to think about him. On one hand, he seems to know what to look for when he's scumhunting and I think he definitely brings good insight, but on the other hand, he's done NOTHING but tunnel on me the entire time and hasn't actually brought up any valid points. I don't get a scum vibe from him, but at the same time, I don't understand why he's tunneling on me so hard with a bunch of misleading points. Does this rub anyone else the wrong way? I haven't really seen anyone else comment on his play other than me...

I would really like to get some insight from him on someone other than me.

[Workdawg]

EBWOP: Or at least some valid points against me, if he insists on remaining glued to me.

[Workdawg]

I'm just trying to analyze things from as many sides as I can rather than being just seeing EVERYTHING as a scummy action. That was one of the things I was criticized on in my last game (interpreting everything as a scummy action, pretty much convincing myself an action is scummy when maybe it's not). So I guess that could look like being wishy-washy. Is it better to really analyze things and post my thoughts or to not do that? Like I said, mislynching Zd has only made me feel like I need to analyze more.

[Workdawg]

@chkflip

First of all, sorry for the unfortunate events occuring (sick and then getting kicked out).

I have to say though that your recent actions are coming off a bit scummy to me for a couple of reasons.

1. Your WTF stance on me and Kard. You said you'll reply to this, so I'll just wait for that.
2. Your "Zd is town stance." I find this mildly suspicious simply because the only time you ever mentioned him was in your first analysis post where you cite his meta as justification for a town read. Yet you are willing to join his wagon at a critical time simply because he was flip-flopping his vote? Then you end up not being around for last 36 hours of the day to compound the suspicion. I don't want to kick you while you're down, so to speak, but it seems quite convenient that you got in on the middle of the wagon with a fairly weak reason and then weren't around. A weak "town read" on someone, a weak reason to vote, and then some convenient absence.
3.

...
My next post will also have some death analysis because I think it'll help us now that

we lynched our power role

D1.

It's a mild slip, but it sure sounds to me like you KNOW that the cop is our only power role in this game. There could still be a doc around, unless you happen to know there isn't...

[Workdawg]

VOTE: chkflip

[Workdawg]

Wow, barely any activity over the weekend. I suppose a holiday does that though... but there's barely been really anything this entire day so far. A lot of people have been providing very little new content since N1, which is quite unhelpful.

[Workdawg]

The words you type are extremely important in this game. If scum isn't careful what they type, then they slip up and reveal something they shouldn't have, which is why it's called a scum slip. You just said you didn't mistype, and your justification for that is that in your experience the F11 setup with both power roles is "least likely to happen"? Basic statistics has to disagree with you, which makes that an incredibly weak argument.

I called it a "mild slip", which I meant to indicate that it might be something, and it might be nothing. I have to say that you seem to be pretty defensive about it, which doesn't bode well, IMO.

Also, OMGUS or what? Lots of promises, not a lot of content.

[Workdawg]

I guess we won't know for sure until you post, I hope it's better than shotty's. You are starting to sound a lot like him.

[Workdawg]

I can't make more of a case against the person I think is scum unless they post.

lol... I've been thinking the same thing for the past week.

That said, I think alnpka just put chkflip at L-1... which I'm not really comfortable with.

I still want to hear what he's got to say about ANYTHING, but I'm not ready to have the day end short.

UNVOTE: chkflip

[Workdawg]

It's pointless to wait around and see if chkflip comes back in time to defend himself, so I'm moving on...

Shotty

What has he done for town so far? He comes in and posts up his case against me and that's it. After I refuted that, all he's done is drop little comments here and there about things I've said that are "scummy" if you misinterpret them. He hasn't commented at all on anyone else other than to say "alnpka is semi scummy."

I know post-by-post analysis isn't that helpful, but let's look at this (every post where shotty even MENTIONS another player's play):
1.

Fatso, alnpka

or

me

are scum, probably alnpka and me. Says he has "reason

s

(see post 8 for some follow up on this)
2. Mentions one "slip" from a post of

mine

. (One reason)
3. Votes for

me

.
4. Clarifies his point against

me

.
6. Defends his point against

me

.
7. Some jab at

me

.
8. FINALLY posts his case against

me

. (It's filled with recent posts... so while he claimed to have multiple reasons for voting for me originally, he never actually posted more than one.)
9. Another shot at

me

.
10. Defends his case against

me

.
11.

alnpka

is semi-scummy, but

I

am "sooooo scummy!"
12. Guesses that

chkflip

will put me at L-1 (which he doesn't) and asks

me

to claim (while I'm at L-2)
13. Calls

me

out for "calling him scum".
14. Accuses

me

of "lying about my stance on lynching lurkers".
15. Says

me

and

Zd

would make a good scum team. (A convenient stance to take when Zd is about to get lynched. If Zd flipped scum, he'd have a nice segue into a vote on me. He also says the Zd "look

scummy" here, though as you can see he's never even MENTIONED Zd at all up until now.)
17. votes for

me

18. Says

I

"made myself look more scummy"
20. Accuses

me

of making WIFOM about the NK and lynch. (I did speculate a little bit, but only because Bulvious brought it up, and I prefaced the entire thing by saying that it's purely conjecture. That's not a defense, but sharing my thoughts on those topics is hardly scummy. Bulvious, and Kard a little bit, had commented on those topics but he didn't call them out.)
21. Thinks "we are blowing this

chkflip

thing out of proportion."
24. Quotes

me

but replaces my name with "mafia" (... subtle)
26. States he is willing to vote

chkflip

if we get to the deadline, or he doesn't post more.

So that's:
1 post he mentions Fatso/Kard
2 posts he mentions alnpka
3 posts mentions chkflip
1 post he mentions Zd (to claim a scum team with me right before Zd gets lynched)
and...

18

out of 27 posts he mentions me. 2/3 of his posts mention me, and he only mentions ANY other player less than 1/3 of the time. He's got some serious tunneling issues. But that's not really a big deal.

There are two scum left, why are you tunneling on me and not bothering to scumhunt "my partner"? I know this is a bit hypocritical since I haven't really either, but chkflip has managed to check in fairly regularly, and given his situation IRL, I've tried giving him slack. He hasn't responded to the accusations against him. I'm bored of it now, so I'm moving on. I made plenty of posts prior to your big case against me, and plenty after but he still has little-to-nothing on me.

In addition:

He said he had reasons, which implies more than one, to call me scum in his 2nd post. He only posted one (though in that very post he refers to "the rest of his case" that "will come later". He posted his case but it was filled with fresh content. When I asked him to elaborate on the previous "reasons" he ignored it... he simply called me scum for even asking about it. Deflecting the fact that he doesn't actually have a case against me? I asked about it again in post 378, but he seems to have ignored that completely; instead focusing on the things I say he can twist to sound scummy. If he's so convinced I'm scum, shouldn't he be posting up ALL his evidence... why does he still refuse to post the reasons he said he had; unless they never existed.

He asks me to claim when I'm at L-2... but when Zd actually makes it to L-1 he doesn't bother to ask for a claim. Instead he throws out some random speculation that maybe Zd and I are the scumteam? As evidenced above, he never once mentioned Zd's play or any suspicions of him. Then all the sudden Zd and I are the scum team? If it turns out I'm right and Zd does flip scum, he's got his foot further in the door against me. Though it's worth noting that he accuses me of bussing Zd... for 10 days... when I led the wagon against him. I guess that's possible, but it'd be the worst bus in the history of mafia probably.

His recently flipy-flopy on chkflip and related. He comments that we are blowing it out of proportion, but then he says he'd hammer chkflip if he doesn't post more. Didn't he chastise me for saying that I'd be willing to lynch a lurker?

No need for apologizing, but for the record it will never come down to that unless you are scum. Because a lurker will give you no reason to vote them other than lurking, which is not a lynchable offense.

And since they are lurking you will have to have some read on someone else during the day, as will everyone else. So since everyone has some sort of a read, and reason to vote someone other than the lurker it is not one or the other.

EITHER OR FALLACIES ARE SCUMMY!!!

The part I made bigger above is even more relevant now that we are into D2 and have even more information to go on.

Note: this is the second time that a wagon has reached L-1 and he has all of the sudden decided that he would vote for that person. As mentioned above, when Zd was at L-1, he came out of no where with the "Workdawg/Zd scumteam". Now alnpka put chkflip at L-1 and all of the sudden shotty is willing to hammer him if his play doesn't pick up. It's might suspicious if you ask me.

I guess you can't be wishy-washy if you don't post any thoughts on any player but me.

VOTE: shotty

[Workdawg]

And another typical response from shotty... another post with zero content.

Not sure what's the point of you saying this if you think "that's not really a big deal".

I just meant that the analysis is not a "big deal" in my overall case against him. The other points that I brought up are the ones that are most important, IMO.

[Workdawg]

So, let me get this straight...

You vote for me, then when you have time to post something up, it's about how Kard's slot is scummy rather than how I'm scummy?

[Workdawg]

I must have missed the part where you "brought something against me." Is it the that Fatso/Kard has given me a null/town read, and I felt the same about him? Cause you should probably lump Bulvious and startransmission into the scum-team as well if that's the case.

You've had the chance to post twice and you still can't post any actual reasons that I am scum NOR have you responded to the case brought against you. So what's going on?

As for who my top suspects are right now... I think it's pretty clear based on my last handful of posts. I've raised cases against both you and shotty, and neither of you has bothered to reply with any sort of real defense against them.

[Workdawg]

Welcome thunderwielder!

[Workdawg]

Just out of curiousity, thunder, what's your experience with mafia?

[Workdawg]

thunder

Thanks for catching up and posting your thoughts thunder, however I think a lot of your reads are a bit misguided.

alnpka's wording is a bit off at time, but I've never had a problem understanding him either. His initial post on D2 made me pretty interested to see if he was going to pick up his game today, but so far he hasn't really. Reviewing his last few posts in ISO and taking into consideration the near completely lack of content posted over the past week, though, I don't know if I'd say he's lurking so much as just not finding anything else interesting enough to really post about. I know I've had that problem. In any case, a language barrier, whether it exists or not, shouldn't excuse mediocre play. If he was more interesting things, even if we can't quite understand it all, it'd be better than not posting as much.

It looks to me like your case against Bulvious can be summed up with "you think alnpka is scum" and "star was right, maybe you are wagon jumping" Neither of which is a significant scum-tell IMO. Even if Bulvious is wagon hopping A LOT, I don't think that'd be enough to put him in my list of candidates.

Your case against h3ll0 is that you have a gut feeling about him. I can't really hold that against you because I've been there... but can you provide some examples of posts that have rubbed you the wrong way, and why? It's easy to just pick a player and say you have a "gut feeling" about them, but that means nothing without any reasoning.

You also mention ST's death during N1 in your case against Bulvious and h3ll0. I don't mind the speculation, but of course it does not strengthen the case at all since there's no way to tie either of them to the kill.

About chkflip, I agree that his play has been severely lacking lately. Your speculation on replacements, etc, is kind of ridiculous though.

----

Honestly, I feel like all your cases are really weak. You don't point out any specific things that indicate scum intent and you do a lot of speculation based on the NK and replacing which are pretty much irrelevant. (again I don't really mind the NK stuff, because it's worth giving a thought to, but the replacement thing stuff is pretty worthless IMO).

But it's at least sparked some conversation.

Deadline is in a week, and if play continues like it has been for the past couple, we are running out of time quickly.
Where do people stand on the current wagons (chkflip, shotty, and myself... in the order posted by our glorious mod).

I think it's pretty obvious that I'd be happy to see either of them lynched. I've posted my cases on both chkflip and shotty, and neither of them has bothered to reply with any significant defense. In fact, in reviewing the past week or so, I'm starting to think they might be a scumpair. (I know hunting in pairs is a moonshot when we don't have confirmation on either of them, but I noticed a few interesting things)

chkflip and shotty over the past week

I call chkflip out for his slip regarding power roles and shotty's only thought on this is "... we are blowing this Chkflip thing out of proportion" (post 477). chkflip's defense is that it's "disgusting" that we called him out for the slip. He doesn't even defend himself other than by presenting a gambler's fallacy trying to justify his comment because "...two PRs is somehow least likely to happen" (post 485).

Once chkflip reaches L-1 (and I unvote to try and prevent scum from getting the chance to hammer him), shotty, all of the sudden, says he's willing to vote him if the deadline hits (2 weeks away, post 497) or he doesn't start posting. As I mentioned in my case against shotty, he's not voiced any suspicion on chkflip up until now. A real quick turn from "we are blowing this out of proportion" to "I would vote for him", and it smells a lot like bussing to me. He's been all but silent since.

chkflip has been checking in pretty regularly but still hasn't managed to reply to the things brought against him nor post his case against me. In his only real post on my "scumminess" (505), he talks more about Fatso/Kard/thunder.

It's curious that they are also voting together now. I wonder if an analysis of the votes thus far would reveal anything. I'll have to take a look and post it up later. That's what I've got so far.

[Workdawg]

chkflip's case

Your first three points are based almost entirely on your assumption that Fatso/Kard/thunder is scum.

1. Star's last read on me was "leaning town"... I hardly think he was suspicious of me, especially since he voted for h3ll0 at the end of the day when he could have put me at L-1 and left someone else to choose between me and Zd. As for "tunneling the cop," that's a ridiculous way to try and twist things to make me look scum. I tunneled on Zd, yes, but even if I were scum, I had no way of knowing he was cop.
2. For my interactions with Kard, I think you're also stretching. Post 1, I asked him to clarify his reasoning. Post 2 I downright disagree with your statement that his hammer had "little to no town motiviation." I 100% agree with what he did and would have done the same thing if I were in his place. He saved us from having an even number of players left entering D2. It's unfortunate that the lynchee was town, and more so the cop, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
3. I already clarified the "discrepancy" you point out here. I agree that he should have been pressured, but he held up well IMO. And you were a jerk for calling him a retard. Lazy jackass is at least SOMEWHAT acceptable. As for repeating myself, that's not really the case either. Zd asked me why I hadn't comment more thoroughly on the other cases that had been presented between your first and second quotes. When I posted the first I hadn't had a chance to really read everything in context... the second is my response having done so.
4. I have nothing to say about this since you didn't present any specific examples. The only thing that comes to mind is when I recapped my cases against you and shotty, but that was simply because no one had really responded to either.
5. I've stated many times that I welcome any pressure that you want to throw at me. If you think I'm trying to deflect by that statement, then tell me why. Bulvious seems to have been satisfied by my reply.
6.1. I don't care who you want us to look into... I just find it curious that you vote for me and then your post asks people to look at Kard and me. You added me to that post like it was some sort of sub-thought.
6.2. Wat, I don't even... I guess you have something against wall posts, or something.
6.3. Whatever. I presented cases against both of you... are you going to refute any of my points? I even presented my case against you (and voted for you) before you raised any suspicions against me. If anything, it's you who is OMGUSing. As for shotty, you can't honestly tell me you think his blatant ignorance of EVERYONE besides me doesn't seem scummy.

[Workdawg]

Crap, looks like I lost some stuff... that was in reply to chkflip's case against me... i'll get to the posts after that later.

[Workdawg]

@thunder

The speculation based on replacements is not related to their gameplay AT ALL. There should be SOME evidence out there that you can use to try and make up your mind that doesn't rely on this. Aside from that, it's just as possible for someone to prefer playing town to mafia, which would make your argument that scum would be less likely to replace out invalid.

@alnpka

Sorry to see you go, best of luck.

[Workdawg]

Wow, lots of new activity, that's good!
Welcome seeker, please try and catch up ASAP, the deadline is approaching fast as others have pointed out. If you can read the entire thread and try to give us your thoughts on who the scum are, that would be great. I know it's rough subbing in. I had a hell of a time getting things straight and I only had a few pages to read. It's critical that you get your bearings though as just jumping on the latest wagon is pretty unhelpful.

First of all - I promised to give some analysis of chkflip's / shotty's voting. Sadly, there was pretty much nothing there.
Shotty has only ever voted twice, both times for me.
chkflip has 4 times: ST (a wagon he started: post 232), Fatso (second on wagon wl alnpka: post 247), Zd (3rd on wagon w/ alnpka and I: post 388), me (second on the wagon w/ shotty: post 486)

So, they never vote together.

However, I'm not really sure I'd say chkflip is wagon hopping. I agree that he has been rather, cryptic (?) with his accusations... (the whole Me and Kard thing, his stance on Zd from D1), but he hasn't been really throwing his vote THAT much.
h3ll0 on the other hand does seem to like to vote a lot.

h3ll0's votes

Post 17: First on Lynchking
Post 70: First on Sarahfish
Post 226: First on Zd
Post 286: Second on Bulvious (with ST)
Post 288: Second on Fatso (with chkflip)
Post 392: Second on Workdawg (with shotty)
Post 474: Second on chkflip (with Workdawg)

I think the only suspicious vote h3ll0 has made though is the one against me. He flipped his vote when the deadline was approaching with a very weak reason, as others have mentioned (including thunder above).

That's the second most to Fatso/Kard/thunder (11)... but Fatso managed to vote 5 times in the first 75 posts. Fatso was also 8 of the 11 votes, and I think we can all agree that he used it to try and pressure people a lot early game.

Thunder's case

First of all, to link to a post, click on the post number and it will redirect your browser right to that post. Then copy the URL and make a link with it. Proper usage of the tags is {url=http://URL}TEXT{/url}... only with the proper brackets.

I think you have a couple interesting points here. His wagon hopping is interesting... and that led me to the info above. I'm not totally convinced there is anything to that, though.

Another thing is your quote from 324. I agree that his response to the question (about his playstyle) was inadequate and it does seem like he might have been trying to dodge the question. I didn't really notice it the first time around I guess. Going back over the context, I also get the feeling that chkflip's unvote was fairly obvious. He seemed to be both toning it down on Fatso (post 270 seems like some coaching more than keeping up the case) as well as maybe unvoting because of the replacement.

I don't really feel it's a damning case, but I am interested in h3ll0's responses. I still think shotty is more likely scum, though, so I am going to stand by my current vote for now.

[Workdawg]

Unless I'm miscounting here, I think shotty is still TECHNICALLY at L-2. chkflip's vote, while in tags, is not properly tagged. By the letter of the law around here, I don't think his vote technically counts, but

maybe our glorious mod can clarify.

As the vote is not properly tagged it does not count. By the official vote count, shotty is at L-2.

About chkflip. I'm not convinced he is scum either. Without the "scum slip" comment about power roles I probably would not have bothered to make a case against him, but I felt with that and his recently play it was worth making a case and putting a little pressure on him to see how he reacted. His OMGUS reaction was interesting (whether he wants to admit it was or not, it certainly looks like it).

And we have shotty continuing to post nothing relevant at all. On D2 he's literally posted NOTHING relevant at all. Since my case against him, he's posted 3 more times and he hasn't responded to ANYONE's questions for him or my case at all.
He said before that "[he] can't do much with the scum not posting" (ISO 28), but I've posted TEN TIMES since his post previous that one (ISO 27)... and only 3 of them were shotty-style, no-relevant-content posts. I've posted plenty of content for him to twist into scumtells, but he's still active lurking his way through D2. He's been even less helpful than alnpka today (before he replaced out).

I've already posed this question, but what is the town motivation for NOT answering questions and defending yourself? And continuing to active lurker when the deadline is less than a week away.

I cannot think of a single reason he would be playing like this if he was town.

[Workdawg]

L-1 means "Lynch - 1" which means he only needs one more vote to get lynched...

He's now officially there if he wasn't before...

[Workdawg]

LOL

Shotty is L-1 and NOW he decides he will post a defense LATER? Come on. I have no problem with you giving him some more time, as lynching before the deadline only steals information from us... but it seems like every time he posts he looks more like scum to me.

@Thunder

I think your analysis is excellent for your first game. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in someone's meta. I think the stuff you bring up about shotty's scum meta doesn't seem THAT significant since it's fairly obvious scum tactics, but I do think it's worth mentioning anyway.

Also, I literally LOL'd at this quote:

...I'd even say more Saturday afternoon, in case, by some magnificent light, he manages to type more than four sentences of yelling and obscurities...

[Workdawg]

+1 bulvious.

Shotty has given a description of IIoA in his case against me.
ISO, at least my interpretation of it, is to read someone's posts in isolation. At the bottom of the forums, right below the quick reply stuff, is a "display posts by user" dropdown list. You can select a user and only their posts will show up. So when I refer to "ISO 4" of someone, it's the post #4 in that selection.

[Workdawg]

Geeze. This is bad news. I'm inclined to agree with the above that it's highly likely scum was in on that lynch. I'll have to go back and reread the end of the last day. I was so sure shotty was scum that I wasn't really paying that much attention to the end. I guess he just stopped caring about us.

[Workdawg]

I've had a look over the end of D2 and here are some thoughts.

First of all, the fact that Bulvious was 1/4 the wagon and was the NK seems really strange to me. I agree with chkflip and thunder, it would be a terrible play (or REALLY risky gambit) on the scums part. Not only to be on the same wagon going into LYLO, but then to also NK someone else on the same wagon.

That said, I don't think chkflip ever replied to the questions brought against him before... I'd like to see that. (Post 471)

I checked out chkflip's voting pattern again now that D2 is over. (Ignoring RVS)

Post 232 he votes for ST (

chkflip

)
Post 247 he votes for Fatso (alnpka,

chkflip

)
Post 388 he votes for Zdenek (Workdawg, alnpka,

chkflip

)
Post 486 he votes for Workdawg (shotty,

chkflip

)
Post 553 he votes for shotty (Workdawg, seeker,

chkflip

)

I have to say, I find it a bit interesting. He's only ever once been first on someone's wagon... and he's also been third on both of the lynch wagons.

[Workdawg]

-snip-
Workdawg sure is trying to go for the easy mislynch, amirite?

LOL. Way to deflect and not address the case against you AGAIN. Were you just hoping I'd forget and you could slide under the radar? That seems pretty scummy to me. If I'm pushing for a "mislynch" then tell me why; so far you haven't.

@thunder

I actually hadn't really even looked at it from the "who wasn't on Bulvious' wagon" approach, but I think you have an excellent point. If there was only one scum on shotty's wagon, then there's also one scum who's not. Based on that logic, there is one scum in {chkflip, me, seeker} and one scum in {h3ll0, thunder}. Right now, I'd put my money on chkflip and h3ll0 based on that... However, as chkflip said, hunting in scumpairs isn't going to help until we actually know who scum is. We need to thoroughly analyze everyone and decide on ONE person who is scum for today. Once we've got that figured out we can start on who is the scum buddy.

My previous vote analysis

Sorry it was so short before, I was pretty tired and wanted to get some info out there. What his voting pattern says to me is that he's trying to avoid being an instigator (being the first to vote for someone) because that tends to draw more attention. He has also been in on both lynches right near the end. Scum usually want to be getting on the wagon in the middle because it makes them look more innocent if a mislynch occurs. They can try to hide under the idea that others have also voted and they weren't totally convinced. Both the first and last votes are usually subjected to extra scrutiny, which is something scum want to avoid.

[Workdawg]

chkflip - scum

Wagon hopping without any good reason. Even when he makes a case against someone he doesn't seem sure of himself. There are some things he does that seem town motivated, but the things that seem less deliberate seem contrary. What I mean by this is, he made sure to tell everyone not to vote since scum could quick lynch and win if someone does vote (a town thing), but his play over the past few weeks his wagon hopping, voting, and lack of content at critical times sways me a little bit more towards scum.

h3ll0 - slightly scum

Extremely low content lately and he does seem to be fairly uninterested in the game. I agree with thunder in that his (self proclaimed) "posting style" is a bit of a concern. He hasn't been replying well to the things brought against him and he chalked it up to "posting style." I tend to disagree that. He's essentially dodging the questions, and that doesn't sit well with me.

seeker69 - null

We've had two complete newbs in this slot, and I know that I made more than my share of mistakes in my first game. I think it's extra rough that all the experienced players are gone now too. I haven't really noticed anything clearly scummy from this slot, but there is absolutely a lack of helpful content. It's definitely worth keeping an eye on him, but right now I think there are more scummy players worth looking at.

thunder - town

He's providing lots of content and has done more scumhunting than the rest of us since he replaced in. I haven't noticed anything at all that would lead me to think he's scum.

[Workdawg]

woah... are you trying to end the game early?

You are the one who originally pointed out that if a town player votes, it'd be very easy for the other two scum to jump on and get a mislynch to win.

That's very suspicious to me. Let's hope they aren't watching this too closely.

[Workdawg]

The only way I can see that being a safe move at all is if he's scum, so he KNOWS the game can't end... so I guess bussing makes sense... but even then he's revealing himself.

[Workdawg]

This is the second time you've done something completely "untown" and both times you claim it's to "reaction fish." I didn't hate it the first time you did it, but IF you are town, you just risked losing the game to possibly get some information?

It seems to me like you're just using "reaction fishing" as a coverup for making stupid plays to me.

[Workdawg]

So, because I pointed out that you made a giant mistake, I am scum? lolplz

[Workdawg]

Straw manning is grasping at the smallest facts and stretching them out in importance for your own gain. The entire second sentence is IIoA and, in his own opinion three posts above that, scum

have

to lie in:

chkflip - scum

h3ll0 - slightly scum

seeker69 - null

Which would make ending the game impossible if scum actually lies in myself, h3ll0, and possibly seeker. WD, you reacted that way because you're scum.

You're right, it would be impossible for the game to end if you were scum. Unless you're scum and two newbs pile on the wagon because they don't realize what's going on for some reason or any of a number of ridiculous other scenarios.

Also, I think you are scum, yes... but so far I've been wrong twice. Until we see a flip, I will never be 100% convinced of anyone's guilt; that would be ignorant. If you are town, then you made a stupid play to try and "catch" someone. If you are scum, you knew there'd be a much less likely chance of your gambit causing the game to end; which would be much more likely if you ask me.

[Workdawg]

EBWOP: Your scum buddy could also decide to buss you after your silly gambit as well, meaning we'd only need one newb to pile on your wagon.

[Workdawg]

@chkflip

Why did you pick h3ll0 for your vote above?

[Workdawg]

Assuming the above is also in response to why you chose to vote for h3ll0 in your little gambit...

Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to place your vote on someone that is generally believed to be town? IF h3ll0 really is scum, there's no way that the scum could organized a quick lynch against themselves, or would even try to. I suppose it's possible that his scum buddy would jump on the wagon hoping to get one more vote, but even then that would be a pretty terrible play considering everyone else seems to already realize that voting is dangerous in the current state of the game.

Also, you accuse me of trying to earn "town points" by "jumping on" your vote. This is a newbie game and I just wanted to make sure no one made any silly mistakes. Should I have let one of the less experienced players (seeker maybe) cast a vote as well and put us in real danger of ending the game?

You are the one who originally advised everyone to withhold their vote, was that "just for town points" as well?

[Workdawg]

If my vote were placed on someone who everyone has a considerate townread on (thunder for examples sake) then your reaction would've been considerably more viable and understandable; however, I chose someone we both have a scumread on because the reaction given is more genuine. It gives me a better read on who you actually are. And when you go from "h3ll0 is slightly scummy" to "YOU ENDING THE GAME EARLY!?" is a far stretch more than "I'm keeping my options open" as you've stated that response to be.

My gambit relied partially on the fact that everyone has such a big scumread on h3ll0, yes, which is also why I find your argument that I'm trying to end the game early to be so outlandish.

The point of the gambit was never to reach lynch, nor was it to even gather a second vote onto h3ll0. You're missing the point - so yes, to you that gambit was pointless; however, I'll reiterate as much as I need to.

I ask for full read posts. All comply.
thunderweilder thinks h3ll0 is scum.
You think h3ll0 is scum.
Seeker thinks h3ll0 is scum.
I vote h3ll0.
You go against your scumread for town cred.

Just because we all tend to agree that h3ll0 is scummy doesn't mean I want the day to end early. Even if I was 95% sure he was scum I would have reacted the same way. Ending the day early ONLY helps scum. The longer we have to banter back and forth, the more information we have to find the scum. Don't forget that if someone had jumped on the wagon and lynched h3ll0, we'd still be looking for his partner.

At that point, the scum-team would have

had

to lie in yourself, thunder, and seeker for scum to come in and quickhammer. In your own opinion, that outcome is completely ridiculous and couldn't happen; therefore, by your own word, you've contradicted yourself all in the name of getting more town cred.

Once again, this is a newb game. Anything can happen.

What if YOU are scum and you see that we are all suspicious of h3ll0, but you know he is innocent. You put a vote out against him and see if you can't bait one of the town players into voting with you. Then whoever your scumbuddy is sweeps in for the hammer to win.

Thankfully, it seems that everyone else in the game knows better than to throw their votes around at this point. I still think it was a dumb risk that could be easily have town or scum intentions.

Moving on to your next rebuttal, a less experienced player placing the second vote? Again, you must only be talking about yourself, thunder, or seeker in that scenario as h3ll0 obviously isn't going to vote for themself. That would leave yourself and thunder to hammer and I certainly doubt either of you would do that

if you were town

; however, I don't think you both are. As a matter of fact I pretty much

know

you're not both scum as my gambit would've ended the game.

Again, this is assuming YOU are town.

...
Do you feel my "MYLO, AWESOME" response was generated for town points?

That's pretty much what I got out of it.

[Workdawg]

And... we are dieing out again.

Looks like seeker is just over 3 days without activity now. H3ll0 and chkflip are both around 2 days also.

[Workdawg]

lol... I'm most certainly here, but nothing is going on.

[Workdawg]

I guess at this point I'd prefer votes for either h3ll0 or seeker.

The more I reread the more I can see chkflip just being fairly consistent, and while I don't really agree with his gambits and whatnot, his defense of them seems generally sound. I still don't really agree with how "I'm scum" because of my reactions, but whatever.

[Workdawg]

VOTE: h3ll0

[Workdawg]

lol... I'm pretty sure 3 votes is all we needed... FOR VICTORY

[Workdawg]

I'm fine with showing the QT, as long as seeker is.

[Workdawg]

Scum QT: http://www.quicktopic.com/46/H/FdNr42fp5vN

GG All. I flipped out when shotty first came in and had us pegged... but thankfully he started flaking out before he was able to really get me.