Open 268: Raise the White Flag (Game Over)

[Lindisfarne]

Hello all,

I'm working up on a post, just doing some rereads in the meantime. By the way, I apologize if I end up spewing walls of text, it's a habit of mine sometimes.

[Lindisfarne]

This game is pretty disjointed. It's really not easy to get a consistent read, however, I am going to catalogue some of the finer points and my Most Wanted list:

For starters:

Statistically, getting replaced has nothing to do with alignment. Whether you thought he was scum or town, his leave shouldn't change your opinion on him. Any argument made from that is WIFOM at best.

This is fairly true. There are situations it could be a tell (If someone only replaces when they are scum, or only when they are town; and do it fairly often) that type of meta could be useful, but even then it is not good evidence either way. I generally try to take replacing out as Alignment Neutral.

No, I voted Shotty because I literally saw him say "I quit mafia". There was no point in keeping him around when he WAS playing, so now? It felt like the necessary fat to be trimmed.

Just to verify, your reason for voting shotty was because there was no point in keeping him around and he said he quit?

This is erroneous. If you don't think someone is scummy, and you are town, don't vote for them. Think of it this way: I believe player A is a complete idiot. However, through his idiocy, his play is far to obvious and noticeable to be scum, so I'm fairly positive he is a townie. Now, we are all playing a game here, scum wins by obtaining a majority, and town wins by eliminating scum before their majority is lost. There is EVERY reason for me to keep Player A around because it helps town maintain their majority (bear in mind, you said your reason for voting was because there was "no point" in keeping him around). He is a number, a statistic. If I believe him to be town, then in my mind, he is increasing our win chances just by being in the game.

Contrariwise, If I pushed for a vote on him, and he died as town: the end result only helps scum. Town lost another member, their probability of winning decreases. It is anti town to vote someone just because there is no point keeping them around.

In regards to the other point: If someone quits, it is natural for them to be replaced. So you voted him because he didn't really help town...and was going to eventually get replaced? Screwy logic, m8.

I doubt we would see such a reckless hammer from scum.

Are you really trying to argue he's TOWN because he hammered so ridiculously? I think that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard to keep VI scum

in

the game. "He's so scummy he MUST be town!"

1st off: lol at the fact that almost no one said anything about shotty's threat

yesterday

.

Now, as for the shotty, I'm kind of thinking now that he's town. I doubt we would see such a reckless hammer from scum.

Wifom.

Alright folks, there is something incredibly important that needs taught here. That would be

Probability

.The WHOLE game of Mafia is BASED on WIFOM, to some extent. the general mindset, "what would scum do in the situation?" a question we ask constantly constantly throughout the game as townies. We judge based on WIFOM (well, scum does this, or scum does that) and keep a keen eye on inconsistencies in stories and behavior. To just chalk something off as WIFOM without thinking of PROBABILITY is wrong.

Scum, in the majority of the time, try to be low key. You rarely see someone jump out and yell "HI IM SCUM, KILL ME!". Scum want to win, and to do that they need to stay in the game. Shotty's actions were blatant. He gave no extreme reasons behind his actions, and although his actions DID hurt town (being anti-town in hammering a townie), it was not a

scummy

action per se, since its something most scum wouldn't do, especially in the capacity that he pulled it off in.

A

scummy

action is thus: knowing that a townie is going to get lynched, and then backing off the wagon - figuring the townie will get lynched regardless of your vote. The townie will die regardless, and attention is generally shifted from you, to the people who were still riding the wagon. This is scummy.

Point being: Don't just write off something as WIFOM. Something may be WIFOM, but have a high probability of being scummy, anti town, or a town move.

[Lindisfarne]

On to the meat and potatoes:

Yabba's Death

: This move made little sense. Scum naturally make the kill choice that best benefits them. How did they benefit from Yabba? He was and experienced player, sure...but generally, when a townie is lynched, the next day phase has the folks on the lynch squad as the prime suspects. Killing off Yabba narrowed that list down, and seemed like a tactically noobish move from the scum. That said, I believe it can help us:

The most prospective scum

: currently, 3 scum and 6 townies. That is what we are down to. Stefunny was solid in the logic to look at the lynchers. Let's narrow our field of suspects.

Shotty
Yabba
CN
Striker
Bvolgt
Chkflip

That makes 6. Yabba is dead, the scum actually helped us narrow down that one, and naturally I'm taking my name off the list (although I encourage you to make your own list and narrow from the following as you see fit. I will naturally say I am town, but that doesn't disprove I could be scum. Be a free thinker). CN has raised my eyebrows more than a few times this game, but overall he seems to be an intelligent player, and a worthy addition to the game. For the time being, simply for his usefulness in contributions and sparking conversations, I am going to tentatively annul him from the list. This leaves:

(CN*)
Striker
Bvolgt
Chkflip

I am betting ONE of these, at least, are scum. Now we can analyze deeper and see if we can find the one with the highest current likelihood of scumminess.

Striker

-
-A Newer player
-After wolf starts getting votes he jumps in, votes, and says he is either stupid scum, or it's a gambit (what kind of gambit would work from that, btw?). Completely ignores the chance that he is town that chose an unfortunate set of words.
-Read posts 64 and 65. Silver realizes this whole deal is kind of a stretch, and says so. Striker

FOS

silver....for saying it's a bit of a stretch? WTF?

I agree with Cookie about andrew. if werewolf flips scum we pressure andrew and imo silverbullet tomorrow.

This is jumping the gun, first of all. Second...scum would know wolf was town, so this would be a moot point. This actually earns a small Townie Point, since this would be utterly pointless to say if Striker was scum (knowing wolf would flip town).

-After the hammer drops, Striker calls out shotty as scummy-scum. Obvious target is obvious.

I didn't vote Shotty cause I wanted to hear from him first. no need to rush another quick lynch.

There was only 1 vote on shotty at the time and there's 6 to lynch. You seriously didn't vote him because you feared a quicklynch?

That speaks for itself.

Both Cookie and Shotty have good questions to answer from Chaotic Neutral. As Shotty is the person who I think is most suspisious right now, I'm tempted to vote him, but that'd leave him at L-1 and I dont think thats a good idea...

Funny, since CN asked YOU a question to. And you chose not to answer.

-In post 173, he finds Bvoigt and CN town. He finds Chk "Scary" yet doesn't give a real alignment indicator behind it.

Chkflip

-
-Check post 72 to affirm he's really not that down with the wolf lynch.
-Post 76 and 77 are interesting: yabba calls him out for not going along with the wagon ("You're making the game regress, chkflip."] and then he stresses what has essentially already been said. chk thinks this is genius and then votes for wolf. Also, this interests me:

You're so clever, Yyabbadude.

1) it looked like a crumb to me, but he may or may not be crumbing
2) i dont know whether werewolf intended to put that crumb there
3) there are NO COPS, so why would scum make a cop crumb???????

+

hes reactions look confused so i guess hes not scum.

- I had an opinion considerably similar to yours, but don't now that it's been reiterated. What's with the jumpy accusation? It's not like I'm lying here.

Because yabba's super argument was so convincing, you decided to forgo caution and logic? Sorry, but it really wasn't that convincing. Also this is interesting:

have you heard of the term sucking up to the ic person who seems pro(YES YABBA i read some of ur newbie games)
here lies oppourtunism ---> first doing the 'oh shit i dont understand' attitude then 'o yea i understand votes*' attitude so it doesnt look like blatant bandwagoning

This was said in regard to chk's response to Yabba. This is what makes the "your so clever" look interesting. Glad you caught this Andrew.
-After posting nothing of importance/not at all, he votes shotty for...being inactive? (post 167)
-Asks Striker who his top scum reads are in post 171.

Bvolgt

-

Even though he wants more people to post, he tries to stop discussion here:

Why are you so insistent on this answer? It doesn't seem like it would provide any reliable indications of silver's alignment.

Asking questions does not "stop discussion". That was a funky vote.

-BV brought up the werwolf breadcrumb not voting on it initially, just throwing it out there. And then:

QFT. I thought it was a coincidence at first, but I think a townie would have read his first two posts and seen the accidental breadcrumb, instead of denying that anything happened.

Hm. So you don't vote until you gauge reactions and people already start voting; even though you apply logic to WHY werewolf did it and WHY it was scummy to you. It seems you were trying to see the reaction before voting.

Out of all the votes, this one feels especially like "Hey, I'll just go along with the popular way of thinking and hope for a quicklynch." My feeling about Shotty's hammer is that he wouldn't have been that blatant.

A vote for Striker here, this is the first time these three start to look at each other. Also, he agrees shotty scum isn't likely, he can't be THAT stupid.

-Chases Striker more in post 132
-Post 159 shows he's finding shotty's actions neutral, and he's digging to find meta on shotty's play (kind of town-esque). He then says CN seems town.

Bvoigt, why does CN come off as town to you?

-Votes himself for some dumb reason.

Well, none of the scum were gullible enough to try to paint this as a scumtell.

What? How is voting yourself a scumtell, and what the hell were you trying to do with that? Makes no sense.

WHAT ALL THIS CRAP MEANS

Striker seems to me to be...playing like a new player. He has done some scummish things, yes. But I see him making the same judgement lapses any new player would. That doesn't mean I view him as town by any means, it just means out of the three main suspects, I'm more willnig to give him the benefit of a doubt.

Bvoight's inital business with wolf is suspect. I dislike how it seemed he threw the cop crumb out there and didn't vote until others did. Also, his vote on himself to catch scum makes...little sense. HOWEVER, he has noticed that shotty's hammer is dumb...but not seemingly a scum play. (This next part you guys can disavow, since it's super-duper subjective) Since I know I am town - hence shotty was town - I could see scum trying to pursue shotty d2. He did not. This is his saving grace in my eyes and puts him in the middleground for scumminess from these three.

Chk is my primary suspect here. He flat out said he doesn't see wolf's alleged breadcrumb as scummy, but when pressured by the experienced dude throwing around some silly logic, he instantly changes. Also, him being scum would actually make some sense out of Yabba's death. He admitted Yabba was clever, and andrew pointed out the appealing to ICs (Normally seen in Newbie games, IC townies normally dont last long against newb scum, who fear their logic and normally NK them relatively quick). This is the only scenario I can see in which Yabba's death BENEFITTED scum (remember, scum try to make the action that will most benefit them), since chk admitted yabba's cleverness, and he did seem quick to switch his point when pressured by yabba. Also, his vote on Shotty was...shoddy (heheh). Voting someone because they are inactive is stupid logic.

So my final list looks like this (In order of most scummiest to least)

1. CHK
2. Bvoigt
3. Striker

That said,

VOTE: CHK

[Lindisfarne]

I had to split my post in two. Apparantly MS doesn't like me trying to cram so many words in one post.

[Lindisfarne]

-In striker's section, in the quote about the quick lynch: that was cookie who said the second quote, not striker. My apologies-

[Lindisfarne]

Not giving Striker a free pass. He's in my top 3 suspects list afterall. Bvoigt and stiker have small townie signs, although I think the scum-ness outmasks it (Striker in his comment that makes no sense for scum to say and bvoigt for not pursuing what could have been an easy town lynch in shotty) where as chk has NO townie tells. To sort the record, I find all three scummy. He is just the scummiest.

[Lindisfarne]

Apologies I'm not posting tons, The Fiance is throwing a lot of extra crap on my lap for the holidays. I should even out more after Christmas.

- You do realize that that's what they want you to think, right? Kill the guy that can be directly attributed to someone that isn't scum. NK 101, guy. Seriously. I'll respond further after the holidays, I'm quite busy at the moment.

Dude. Ew.

For the record, yes, that is a textbook WIFOM statement. And not a good one at that. Remember my spiel on Probability? Let's look at the probability of that happening:

Your argument is that scum could have just killed Yabba, to set you up due to that connection in d1? Now, I am the FIRST one to bring up this concept against you: the connection between you and yabba (and admittedly, it's a stretch, but the only one that I can make sense of). You say scum would

want me to think that

[Meaning the connection and the nightkill correlate]. If this is some master plot by the scum, then how come I am the FIRST to bring it up against you? Your logic would only work if I was scum. And even then, you are negating the fact that there are a total of three scum in the game: If this is some masterminded plot to gun after you, I'd think the scum would have pointed this out against you by now. Your logic is weak, man.

Could that potentially indicate more scum off the lynch than on, or would I be off base by making such an assertion?

Potentially is the key word here. In a perfect world, multiple scum were on that lynch: it will make town's job easier to find them. I am personally hoping we find multiple scum were on that lynch, however, for the time being, I'm trying to play with the mindset that there was only one. And trying to find that one, when several people on that lynch are inherently scummy, isn't easy.

I might agree with you since he's a newer player, but I still don't trust this as a town point of his. He could have just as easily be setting himself up to look like town.

I really doubt it. If he was clever enough to purposefully and actively do something like that, I would imagine it to be more...blatant. Hell, the comment we're referring to could possibly even be taken as scummy if someone didn't look too deep into it. It's probability. Judging Striker's intelligence, I doubt this would be some super intelligent ploy to appear town. (No offense intended at all striker).

because ,reading his posts, i inferred that bvoight is more sus then chkflip, yet he goes after chkflip

Dude, please read my posts, I've already pointed out this aspect before and explained.

[Lindisfarne]

picking up prod.

[Lindisfarne]

First, a contradiction:

Why would scum be the first one to bring it up? Wouldn't that make them the obvious scum once I flip town?

I was the first to bring up the little connection between chk and yabba, and with this logic he gives, it makes little sense for me to be scum. However, once I kept hounding him about it:

I just don't feel like posting content to have some scum with more tenure shoot it down because he can write more eloquently than I can.

Wait, I thought scum wouldn't draw attention to that out of some odd paranoid fear? You're weak ass story is falling apart man, and you're getting pissy about it.

BTW, hope you get well soon.

Striker, snake, bvoigt:

Wait...you are already accusing scum buddies when one scum hasn't been gotten. Not only that, but striker votes snake for WHAT reason? That is either some silly ass distancing or a really shoddy vote.

[Lindisfarne]

CHK's staunchest defense is against my weakest argument. I admitted the yabba connection is the only thing that makes sense with yabba's death, and would be in lieu of other reasons if he was scum. However that is the one he defended most against, and his reasons amounted to a paranoid, contradictory conspiracy. That reaction seems very suspect to me.

No lynch seems like a horrid idea right now. The Math:

Currently 9 players - 3 scum and 6 townies.
Tonight 1 townie will die. Giving that a No Lynch occurs this equals 3 scum and 5 townies, 8 players.
TOMORROW, if town does not lynch a scum, and instead lynches ANOTHER townie, there will be 3 scum and 4 townies, 7 players.
At night, another townie will die, and scum will win: 3 scum and 3 townies.

If we No Lynch today, and mislynch tomorrow, town loses.

If we lynch a townie today, we will have 3 scum and 5 townies: during the night another townie will die equating to a 3/4 ratio. This still gives us a lynch tomorrow even if we mislynch today.

One method gives us one lynch to work with and the other gives us two. A No Lynch is a horrid idea at this stage.

[Lindisfarne]

First off, no one vote. Period.

If one townie votes, the three scum could quickly vote in on it and game over. It's a low chance of the timing on that happening in scum's favor but it is still not a risk that should be taken regardless.

woot 2 games day started at once.


lindis, ...
i dont like ur last post. it was like full of mathemathic fluff

One: After the shit position we are in you are happy that the day started on two games at once? Way to have your priorities off the mark.

Two: You don't like...."mathematic fluff"? What? I posted WHY a no lynch was a fail idea and why the math supported it. Beg your pardon, from now on ill just throw shit out there and not back up what I say with anything circumstantial.

CHKFLIP has received a spot on my "People to not play with" list for that shit. Townies should NEVER self vote. Period. End of story. That honestly pisses me off.

-all
Those who didn't vote are being thrown on my town list for the day (unless they do something incredibly scummy) as I refuse to believe that town would fail this bad... (though I guess it's slightly possible...). I'd ask that one of these 4 be the lynch for today (though again feel free to investigate all) Lindisfarne, Chaotic Neutrality, bvoigt, silverbullet999.

Uh no, we don't have the freedom to be narrowminded. The whole problem I have is this: "I'd ask that one of these 4 be the lynch for today" It doesn't sit well with me. This could very well be our last damn day, it's time for EVERYONE to be scrutinized. I plan on reviewing every post from everyone. Your point is endorsing the focus on 4 people (although normally I would agree with your statement, we are in no position to have tunnel vision).

Bvoigt and CN were the two I was thinking of after the flip.

First off: cool name
Secondly: Why? Reason's please? We really don't have very much to analyze from you from d2, so the more verbose you are the better.

Anyway, I still think Snake is scum, and probably rekirtS.

Again: why? reasons rule here folks!

However, I'm wondering why the scum killed Stefunny. I certainly didn't have a strong town read on her, and it didn't seem like she was heavily accusing anyone.

Scum kill the ones whose deaths benefit them the most. I didn't have a strong ANYTHING read on her, honestly she was kind of fading to the back of my mind. But she wasn't heavily accusing people, as you said. Only bit I can gather is they killed someone who wouldn't help give us anything to work with.

there's some instances where a self hammer as town is beneficial, I did it once as the day really would have ended in a no lynch..

That is virtually the ONLY reason, and even then it is debatable if it is a GOOD reason or not (I honestly think NO).

the post 'dont self hammer as town' is redundant?

No, its the sign of someone pissed off. Any townie should be, since it essentially put us in LYLO. He could have at least TRIED to fight it. I'm surprised you arn't phased by it honestly.

nk random speculation. FRAMING???

What?

also, im liking a lindis + bvoight scumteam.
lindis just says ' dude i already answered the question' but i say 'the answer aint good enough'

First: you lynch a scum first before you start pairing teams, seriously how many mafia games have you played?

Second: I gave my reasons why bvoigt was slightly less scummy than chk in post 194. you say its contradictory, then theres back and forth and finally I say I already answered the question. Also, you never say "the answer aint good enough" as you quoted yourself.

CN:

I like how you pointed that out, the highlighting is interesting. I hadn't noticed Snake/cookie wasn't voting either time.

@EVERYONE

Who finds CN and myself at the top of your scumlists. Im not meaning "everyone on yesterday's lynch", but us two in particular?

Also, apologies if I'm being a bit of an ass. This game is playing out like shit. The setup is interesting, and I think we have a good bout of players, but it's too high of a likelihood for scum to win. It needs either 12 players, or an investigative town role (hell, even a one shot cop is better than nothing).

[Lindisfarne]

ugh, sorry I've been kind of predisposed folks, one of the gals at work quit and we are all trying to pick up the slack left behind (I'm actually heading out to work as a type this).

I like the concept of using FOS's as votes. IT shows our intent without being able to lead to a rushed lynch.

Mod

, can you keep track of our FOS's as if they were votes, without the concept of them counting as votes do? I think it would be greatly helpful and appreciated.

If this is allowed, we should only have one FOS allowed for each person, much like the vote.

The main thing I find necessary to comment on is thus:

Well you're on everybodies scumlist so either your town and the scum pushing to end it or your scum buddies are already bussing you out, I'm not sure which.

The above was in regards to bvoigt. Although I do have comments in regards to add about his votes that I find suspect (im hoping to get a free moment tonight at work to post more) striker's comment is what bothers me. Yes, many people are on the suspicious list at the moment. I'm sure that everyone has a nice list of suspects. But why bvoigt? Think of it, in this situation, where scum needs ONE MORE TOWNIE LYNCH TO WIN, why would scum out one of their own so easily? With so many gunning for him, it seems natural that scum would be pushing this. If so, why would they bus one of their own at this stage, in such a good position? That seems outrageously suspect to me.

Also, I like you CN. I find you pretty logical and a good addition to this game. However, I want to use a quote directed to townies after a game I had won as scum:

But you all should have paid more attention to his signature, and especially to the fact that he was alive at endgame at all!"

Ignore the first part, it's the second that is pertinent. I generally have a reason for all of my funky questions. You and I are fairly logical talkers in this game, which makes us a natural enemy to scum. In the game mr flay spoke of above, I did the same I am doing now: I tried to be as logical as possible. Yet I was scum, of course. NO ONE ASKED WHY I WAS ALIVE AT ENDGAME. If someone is intelligent and a clever scum hunter, they are a natural target for a NK. Now, neither of us are dead yet. Hence why I asked who finds us at the top of the scum list: given that scum MAY use the argument that we could be lynched in the day time instead of wasting an NK on us, since we were on the last two lynches. However, this doesn't seem to be the case. That is leading me to dwell on Mr. Flay's point, if someone is so helpful and a good, logical member, why on earth are they lasting this long? I hope I am just being paranoid, but it's a feeling I can't quite shake.

[Lindisfarne]

snake

What the fuck are you doing?

[Lindisfarne]

FoS only. We established this.

^ This
Just chill out, no one has any reasons at all to be throwing votes around at this stage.

[Lindisfarne]

And why does it make you more suspicious of those two, rekirts?

To get the ball rolling again on some discussion: you said earlier, CN, that you disagree with roughly half of what I say. Can you enlighten me with what you disagree with? Some good old fashioned debating might help bring life back to this game (it's dragging considerably)

[Lindisfarne]

This ISO business has a tendency to make people lazy. Use quotes that was said and your thoughts on them individually.

And striker: most everyone. I'm leaning that snake is town, In this setup I don't see scum trying to bus one of their own at this point, and there is a good deal of snake hate. That much consensus is bizarre, especially since exactly half of you are scum.

I'm off for a bit after tomorrow morning, so im going to reevaluate posts and plop up my findings. I might end up going in a new direction. Logic is saying to stick with my original assumptions, but my gut is telling me otherwise.

[Lindisfarne]

MOD

CN hasn't posted in 3 days in this game, and yet, he is posting actively in other areas on the site on a daily basis.

Life's distractions are understandable, but that is deliberate lurking.

Also, silverbullet is getting close to needing a prod...again -sigh-

Whoops! Sorry about that. I spaced out and forgot to check activity today. Thanks for the reminder. Chaotic Neutrality is getting prodded now; silverbullet999 will be force-replaced if he doesn't post in ~13 hours.

[Lindisfarne]

Mod

If we get a replacement, the day deadline will be extended, correct?

Correct, since it's close to deadline.

[Lindisfarne]

Well, in all honesty, I can understand where you are coming from there CN.

I have an Idea. There is a way we can end this game without anyone losing. We can all vote...for a draw.

If everyone votes to coexist peacefully, the game will be considered a draw, so let us all vote on it. There is nothing stopping scum from just sitting back and being quiet while time runs out, and they can win that way, so I see this as the best opportunity for town. Our chances of nailing a win for town are small and there are too many variables that are off (Honestly, I'm beginning to completely second guess myself, and would have probably voted someone not scummy at all just on the sheer principle).

Townies will see this as our best chance, while scum will be forced to go along, or else it will blow their cover. I think this is the best situation for town.

VOTE: DRAW

[Lindisfarne]

How is a draw the same as a no lynch? A draw ends the game, your logic dictates that it would just end the day phase. That makes limited sense.

My apologies Mod, but I'm going to quote one small thing from a PM between us (I know it's normally a no-no, but I feel it is necessary so we are all on the same page).

This is from the Mod in regards to the conditions of a Draw: "I will issue a draw only if neither side can meet their win condition,

or

if both sides agree to peacefully coexist and end the game."

The second part is the clincher for us. The mod can't really issue a draw just because scum are deliberately lurking/not inputting and running time out, so something must be done. Naturally, scum will NOT want to vote for a draw. However, in order to keep up their town facade, they must. No intelligent townie will go against a Draw, since we are statistically in a VERY high probability of losing.

In a nutshell: If anyone does NOT vote for a draw, I will vote for them then and there, and then preen over the game and analyze each individual post they have made on why they would be scum. No townie will disagree a Draw is our best way out of this, only scum.

[Lindisfarne]

Easy, there will be 4 DRAW votes and 3 NO DRAW ones. Why would scum, who can win by literally doing nothing, go for a draw now?

[Lindisfarne]

Logic dictates either CN, Bvoigt, or Striker should go down. I don't see Bvoigts arguments, CN's super lurking bothers me (and his suspicion list was incorrect), and striker has played either bad town or bad scum this game.

HOWEVER. Following logic has lead me to a slump, so I channeled the essence of me from when I was scum last (newbie 681) to try to get better scum insight.

Newbie 681 had me as scum with a newb scum partner. During N0, I told her I planned to gun for her the whole game, in the off chance that, if she died, I would look exceedingly townie. I stayed off the first lynch (which was a townie) because it was fairly obvious he would die. I was on the second lynch because it was my partner. The fact of the matter is, I did things that were illogical for scum (not trying to kill a townie, gunning after my partner) yet in the end, it paid off and I was hailed for excellent scum play.

Now, this is an example of how scum can do things that may be going against their credo (killing town, working together) and yet ultimately leads to them still winning. Bvoigt, and CN would be the more obvious choices with striker in a close third. But that would be thinking logically, and assuming that scum would be playing in a certain stereotypical way.

There is nothing to say the scum ISNT just sitting back, purposefully staying off the town lynches and letting us kill ourselves. They may have 3 members, but it only takes 2 dead for them to lose. I would assume scum would play more CONSERVATIVELY in that regard, which would indeed support my hypothesis.

Snake, Andrew, and theman.

I am analyzing your past posts with the mentality of cautious scum. Chances are I will vote one of you three.

[Lindisfarne]

Andrew

I'll be honest, I don't know if it's your posting style or what, but you irk me at times. That said here's the beef:

Andrew was not down with the werewolf lynch, but gave the solid reasoning that:

i dont think werewolf555 scum would be so stupid to not realise that?
this wagon stinks of oppurtunistism

^That is solid. You stay off the wagon but you do provide logic as to why it doesn't really make sense. Now it

could

be that he is trying to stay off the lynch, knowing those who are on board will be incriminated with the blood of a townie on their hands, BUT: He rides Shotty most of the game. Now, subjective, but I know my alignment. Why would scum pass up on an easy town lynch for a harder to lynch townie? Kinda counterproductive. Now the argument can be said that only I KNOW I am town, then consider the following: If I AM scum...andrew was gunning after me most of the early game. As I said before, scum would play conservatively. Unless he is scum trying to bus his own buddy (being me in this scenario) then regardless, he is quite town.

He uses some kinda paranoid logic for awhile, but tosses the FOS concept in, which I honestly think was a solid Idea. He's also been quite active today, where as I would think scum would more likely lurk. He came up with the 17% chance of winning for town with random lynches, which is actually pretty spot on, I don't see scum trying to figure up town's win percentage. And of course he tossed in the fact that scum were just saying draw but PMing no draw. Obvious point, but one I dont see scum bringing up on their own.

Basically, Andrew Irks me...but I highly doubt he is scum.

Snake

Against the CHK lynch and asked about a no lynch possiblity. Thats a red flag to me, There were some valid points on CHK, even though he was town, and NOTHING stood out to him to even question. The No Lynch idea was horrible, and anyone with decent experience likely could have done the math on their own. He was off both Lynches that were town. The first one Truly was a horrid lynch, but the second I still think had weight, even after the funky defense chk gave.

When pressured by Bvoigt for not voting, he quickly FOS'd, voted, then unvoted him. He misinterpreted the Draw vote and what it does, when, once again, someone with even a decent amount of experience would have gotten what it would mean. Scum, of course, wouldn't want a draw so his apprehension towards it would make sense if he was scum.

He holds back with the Draw until he hears from equinox if it will work. Whats the deal? Even if he says "No" it's not like it would have hurt town, it just means that it wouldn''t work. Would appear like cautious scum wanting to see how the situation is panning out.

OK so what it now looks like is that we have the scum agreeing to a draw in thread and are probably sitting back and wating for the day to end with a no vote. Suggestions?

Once again, truth.

I've seen several things that are scummy here, but a few that rings possibly town.

silverbullet

said the cop claim was a stretch: but backed up his story with a point from a past game (which he provided).

He provides very little after that, but votes CHK and says

VOTE: chkflip
His giving up and frustration just seems like an annoyed giving up at having a role with higher responsibility (scum) and blowing it. I'm a bit more confident with this wagon vs the stupid ass wagon that day 1 ended with. If he ends up flipping town... scum has got to be on this wagon...

He automatically lumped himself in with the scummy suspects if chk was town. Now, if silver was scum, I doubt he'd vote, and essentially lump himself in with the next days suspects like that.

He says, after the lynch, that one of the lynchers should be voted the next day. This is narrowminded, but normally true: just not the BEST course of action in this case. What bothers me is he says he'd be happy if one of them are voted, and lumps himself in with it. Although its admirable, if he was town, he would NOT want that: town wants the town to win. If he was town he wouldn't want to be lynched. That could either be piss poor wording as town, or an appeal to honesty as scum. I've done the latter before, and it works.
He didn't find me scummy (honestly, the only reason I can figure scum didn't kill me was to try and incriminate me today, and I saw little of that) which was surprising: even though he said he'd be happy if I was lynched.

I'd ask that one of these 4 be the lynch for today (though again feel free to investigate all)

Lindisfarne

, Chaotic Neutrality, bvoigt, silverbullet999.

I don't... well not you...

Those two posts were two days apart. One day he is down with me being lynched, then shortly after he says im not high on his scum list. Contradictory.

AAAAAAAAAAAAND then he vanishes. However, after researching, He hasn't voted on the site after his disappearance, making it seem more...legit, for lack of a better word.

TL;DR

Wow, All in all, im surprised. Theres some scummy bits from everyone, but besides snake not finding anything votably suspicious d2, nothing stands out majorly that rings as scumish. Looking over it all, im thinking maybe im just barking up a tree here.

[Lindisfarne]

I'm going to nap for a bit (just got off work not long ago). When I get up, I'm going to preen over CN. I haven't looked deep enough into him this game. Some things have raised my eyebrows on him in the past, but maybe I dismissed them too quickly. I'll post my findings later tonight/this afternoon.

I want to see activity up everyone. We all can agree scum would lurk at this point in the game. I want to see lots of input from all of you.

[Lindisfarne]

He's never voted for anyone who wasn't later confirmed town, he admitted that he should be a suspect and he was on both bandwagons.

Uhhh, take a look at MY posts. I've done the SAME thing. Why would CN be, in your eyes, more likely to be scum than myself?

you never once listed me as a scum candidate until just now, when I stopped posting.

Oh yeah?

CN has raised my eyebrows more than a few times this game

I had you in my top 4 suspects in my third post. I DID chose to focus on the other three, since I found they had more obviously scummy actions, and had a higher probability to be scum at the time, but I still found you suspicious early on. Then, in a later post about 10 days ago:

. You and I are fairly logical talkers in this game, which makes us a natural enemy to scum.

This was just a part of a long winded rant. I said that you and I are pretty logical talkers, and natural enemies for scum, and we would both be good NK targets. However, neither of us are dead. I then went on to say no one found us overly suspicious (since I asked who found the two of us at the top of their scum lists), meaning it isn't a ploy to have one of us get lynched since we were on both wagons. Why would scum let two people, who are good logical players, live through NKs, while not applying pressure for them to be lynched? Makes no sense.

I didn't just now start to say you are suspicious: I've pointed out since the beginning that, although I think you're fairly logical, you are still a possible suspect.

scum, who can win by literally doing nothing

That's not true and you know it. If the scum became dormant, they'd lose their influence over the game. Scum need influence over the game to flourish and prevent themselves from getting lynched.

It IS true! Look at how many games the scum have lurked throughout and WON! I'm sure EVERYONE can give you stories of it happening, because it isn't a rare occurrence. Regardless, we have only a few days left: What more influence do they need to acquire? The game is already pretty much in shambles. This is the perfect chance for scum to sit back, and let the town pretty much fall apart. This is an exceptionally weak argument CN, most anyone could dispute it. I'm surprised, you normally have better points than this.

@Mod: I'm requesting replacement. Something's come up in my personal life.

What. What? Ok everyone, check this out!

CN's last post in THIS game was at

12:47

He then makes a post in another game at

12:55

Here's where it gets good: he then requests a replacement in this game at

12:57

.

Two

Minutes. You mean to tell me, that in the span of two minutes, something comes up that causes you to have to quit a game that is in LYLO? I call bullshit.

[Lindisfarne]

CN:

CHK chases silverbullet, because he didn't really give an answer when CHK asked how silver usually approaches D1. Then, cookie hounds chk, stating:

Why are you so insistent on this answer? It doesn't seem like it would provide any reliable indications of silver's alignment.

First of all, it can be: if someone says they play conservatively, for instance, and then that day they throw out votes willie nilly, it is a contradiction in their statement. however, CN brofists cookie and FOS's chk just for wanting an answer.

Cookie beat me to the punch. Er, I'm late to the party. FoS: chkflip

Eh? Its a pretty ok question, and silver's original answer was funky. Why FOS someone for wanting to know a question that has some pertinence to the game?

CN then votes for yabba for voting silver, and then swings over and votes werewolf when he realizes there is no cop in the setup.

In CN's first five posts of the game, he either Votes or FOS's three people who are proven town

I can see where theman was going with his points, that's pretty nuts.

CN concludes there is only a minute chance wolf's post isn't a crumb. Awesome analysis, given that just a few hours prior you had to have someone point out that there wasn't a cop in the setup.

He then FOS's Andrew because Andrew wouldn't...join the wagon? Wut?

why do you seem so insistent on staying off his wagon? Strong FoS

As far as d1 goes, CN spreads a lot of votes/FOS's around (not even counting his first random vote) and pressures people for asking good questions, and not jumping on a stupid wagon. Hmmm...

[Lindisfarne]

Sorry for multiple posts, folks: I get errors if I try to put it all in as one. This should be the last one.

CN:

"Shotty gave a warning, sure. That doesn't mean his hammer wasn't scummy. He made 3 posts before hammering; the first declared V/LA and willingness to hammer, the second simply said wolf is scummy, and the third was a second warning of the upcoming hammer. That gives

nothing

. No contribution to town, no reasoning, just a willingness to ride the biggest bandwagon. Even if that

is

his meta, we can't simply ignore every scummy thing he says and dismiss it as meta.

VOTE:

drmyshottyizsik

*

*Vote subject to change later tonight when I get around to re-reading day 1

OK class: logic 101. When you analyze an argument you have to assess it's

Truth Value

. Let's analyze this, shall we?
He gives a PLETHORA of reasons as to why shotty can be scum, he lists every thing he did (they were all scummy) and then disavowed his meta, saying we cannot ignore it all.

Now: CN wants to disavow shotty's meta, reasoning being that it all cannot be ignored (given that he pulled a lot of scummy actions). Now, to disavow the meta to help hold up an argument, must mean that shotty is superscummy to CN, and must be stopped: afterall, without the meta protecting him, essentially shotty is scum who wont help town, wont listen to reason and jump on bandwagons.

We can all attest these things are superbad

. HOWEVER:

CN THEN goes to say

*Vote subject to change later tonight when I get around to re-reading day 1

Truth value goes down the hole. CN made it sound like (remember, we are ditching the meta, which means shotty's actions can only be scummy) shotty is a near danger to humanity, let alone the game. If CN really felt that way: ok, fine, all the power to him. However, he then says he's going to reread and might change his vote? It means he himself didn't fully believe in what he was saying. He just busted in, threw down a vote and tossed up his lean-to reasoning (bear in mind, he didn't even reread the first day yet before plopping down his vote). This doesn't sit well with me.

Also, he starts to snap at cookie for defending shotty:

I doubt we would see such a reckless hammer from scum.

Are you really trying to argue he's TOWN because he hammered so ridiculously? I think that's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard to keep VI scum in the game. "He's so scummy he MUST be town!"

Calm down buddy. That actually IS a valid argument. Scum tries to blend in to the game, not jump out. Hell, my first newbie game, 661, I hammered someone I defended all of d1. I then said "I wont give my reasons on it". I was a cop in that game and was afraid people were catching on to it, since I made a mistake in soft claiming. Sure enough, I lived through the night, and the next day, the guy who jumped me for my scummy hammer was scum himself. We won on d2. This is a valid argument, but one of several examples where CN pressures people for not going his way.

He then unvotes and votes Stefunny (Also proven town).
When I join in, him and I have some back and forth, and he makes the point to say "I disagree with half" of my arguments. yet never really clarifies on it.

NOW Here's a clincher:
I made my case on CHK. Barring an earlier vote on CHK in d1 that was, honestly, bullshit; CN left the dude alone. Now he votes him. and tosses up a paragraph on why CHK is a good scum choice in ISO 19. Odd, didn't he disagree with "roughly half" of what I say? Why is he so confident in a vote when I was the one pursuing him, especially if he isn't down with half of my points. His actions contradict his words.

And now we are onto D3:

Right now my top suspect is bvoigt. He's the third person on each lynch, and not only that, but both times as a follower, not a case maker. It really seems to me as if he is riding the coat tails of the bigger speakers whenever they are wrong. In fact the only reason he stopped making his weak case on Cookie/Snake is to unvote and vote with the wagon. I'd like to point out that Snake and Bv have been tunneling each other all game, without actually stepping up to the plate and nailing a case, and without seriously chasing each other down. Snake has refused a strong read on anyone all game. Not to get too far ahead of myself, but I believe Bv and Snake are scumbuddies.

First off, he is a copy cat. I had CHK as my first suspect, and he voted him. My second suspect on the list was Bvoigt, who is CN's prime suspect. Whatever happened to disagreeing with roughly half of my points? I find it ironic he says not to narrow down the list to just people on the wagon, and one of his prime reasons on bvoigt was his voting positions on the wagons. Contradictory. HE then goes so far as to say snake and bvoigt are scumbuddies...for tunneling each other the whole game? Bear in mind, the only negativity he had towards snake/cookie was snapping at him in d2 in for cookie not being down with a shotty vote. Where did this come from?

I'm pretty sure Lind is town, as (1) scum don't normally spend that much time making cases on townies and (2) he lead the lynch, quite boldly, something that scum wouldn't do, because naturally that puts pressure on them the next day. He's the only person I trust as town

WHOA THERE! He trusts me because I lead the charge against CHK? And scum wouldn't do that? What about shotty? You went off about how it was ridiculous to think shotty was town for hammering, you yelled at cookie for thinking scum wouldn't be so bold, yet you buddy up with me for being bold; when you would have condemned my predecessor for it? BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLSHIIIIIIIIIIT.

At this stage he mentions possible scumteams and throws andrew and striker into the blender. What? Where does that come from? Here is something interesting for all of you:

Me

Bvoigt

Striker
Andrew

Yabba

Snake

Wolf

Silver

Stefunny

CHK

The bold are people CN has either Voted, FOS'd or had big suspicion of throughout the game. Interesting. Now he throws striker and andrew into the mix as possible scum partners with bvoigt? Where does that come from, he hasn't had anything scummy from those two all game! I call BS.

He eventually peters out, going 3 days without posting. His logic is silly. He is afraid to lose...and afraid to push for anyone in the chance he may lead town to lose. He is aware we only have 5 days left (at the time) and yet he was content to sit back and let the game fizzle, costing town the win REGARDLESS? I can understand the feeling of being on the losing team, but at least I try to be productive. He sounds sympathetic to town, yet his actions state the opposite.

He says he will respond to what points of mine he disagrees with, but NEVER does. Then he's gone.

-Poof-

CN bemoaned losing, but never thought to replace out until one guy voted him, and another was going to preen over his posts. I think he was on a personal losing streak, but was sticking with this game since his faction would have won. Now that people are looking into him though, his personal confidence has been somewhat broken and he isn't taking a chance to make a mistake and die. We have little time left, but CN is my most comfortable subject.

Vote: Chaotic Neutrality

[Lindisfarne]

You obviously didn't read my posts did you? Oh, wait...

*glances at my list of CN's voting/suspicions record*

Well that makes sense.

[Lindisfarne]

Snake. Why are you voting CN. You've given no reason. I'm all for lynching him, but I'm bothered someone would vote him without reason. It's the equivalent to me of just posting a vote and nothing else.

Unvote

[Lindisfarne]

Jesus Christ, andrew, you did pretty much the same thing snake did. Great. My reads are all over the place.

Nacho, I want to systematically go through and point out the logical fallacies behind defending another person's points on the sole basis you know the alignment (which in itself is a fallacy in a game like this) but

we have two days left

, and the time wasted would just take me away from scumhunting. For the time being, I will suffice to say that you turn the majority of the points into the realm of subjectivity; or that you have a different view on events than mine. At it's base, the arguments will just end in a draw where we will just have to agree to disagree.

Andrew and Pliskin: What are your views of each other based on the current events (and andrew, try to be precise. No offense, but your posts are normally lacking in precision)

[Lindisfarne]

I'm bothered that Nacho hasn't posted in this game in over 48 hours, and yet he is VERY active in his other games...

[Lindisfarne]

Goddammit! I'm totally blaming this on snake: if you hadn't tossed up a vote with no reason, nacho could be dead!

Nah, im just joking: good game all.

I totally called the CN/nacho deal. I have to say, nacho actually was smart to try and defend his predecessor's actions. No matter how the argument would have gone, neither me nor him would have been able to drift from the realm of subjectivity. I likely could have argued about probability of all of those specific actions occurring with a townie, but most of the players in this game seemed anti-math, lol.

Striker I'm not surprised about being scum: Andrew, I am. Good game.

As far as game balance goes, I think it would have been best with 12 players. Power roles give an incredible amount of power to the townies and losing them upsets the balance. Not just losing the role itself, but the fear scum can have of who may have what possible role. Scum coming into this game knowing no one can investigate them is an added boon to them all on it's own. Also, an additional townie would have given town another, better option on d3 if they mislynched twice: a vote for a no lynch.More strategic opportunities would have been helpful.

That said, I enjoyed the game overall. And honestly, I agree with your decision on handling the Draw aspect, Mod. As a townie, I wanted to win no matter what, but I would be inwardly berating you if you allowed it to pan out in game: since scum would be pressured to No Vote. It would have been a really dirty trick.

Also, I have a tendency to act downright manic at times. I find it gets people to back the hell off. And Striker, why did you hope to get me?

[Lindisfarne]

Also, I gotta know:

Why did you kill yabba

?

[Lindisfarne]

oops nevermind, I read scumchat :p