Open 35: Big Love - Game over!

[Guardian]

confirm...

[Guardian]

Lawrencelot, does any of this count? Has the game officially started?

[Guardian]

Eh, I guess we might as well start analyzing things. I'm going to go ahead and say that Adel and NabNab are obviously scumbuddies. Adel, at least, is definitely scum. Adel, I wish you were town, I really do .

Vote: Adel

.


By the way, lovers, if you ever are forced to claim, I'd claim vanilla, or if you decide you must claim lover, don't reveal your partner's name. That way the doc could potentially protect you at night.

[Guardian]

Eh, you may be town. She's scum though.

[Guardian]

Adel is still probably scum. darko has a good chance of being scum too. I like wagons on scummy players.

unvote vote: darko

.

I agree with Jordan and STRONGLY disagree with Zindy about lovers claiming. See my post on what I think -- basically I don't think lovers should claim in pairs, it only helps scum NK them .

[Guardian]

vc #1,

mod

? :love:

[Guardian]

Adel, darko, Sir Tornado as scum, anyone?

Adel for the overeagerness and such and darko for horrible ideas.

If darko is scum, both Adel and Sir Tornado defended him. Classic.

[Guardian]

Post 93

Sir Tornado, this is not exactly a defense, but this is what I meant -- you unvote him and FoS him -- it doesn't make sense to me.

[Guardian]

I said that before you said it. I assumed you would reference me in some way if you were just rehashing what I said. I may have misread you, in this case. .

[Guardian]

you have nothing better to go on than a random vote at this point?

[Guardian]

ah. I jumped the gun I guess .

[Guardian]

Wait, now I'm curious. Why are there 15 sides to the die? I want to know, now .

[Guardian]

ssf, why did you have to post that? That's along the lines of what I was thinking, but I would have loved to see his explanation without being able to explicitly deny that it was something him being scum related.....

[Guardian]

It has nothing to do with keeping secrets and everything to do with not answering questions posed to others.

[Guardian]

Nope. However, we have generated about 15 posts of noise, amidst an already noisy game

[Guardian]

unvote: darko vote: somestrangeflea

"Fleaboy..."

[Guardian]

I find him scummy.

I still want to hear more from darko though, darko is still scummy.

[Guardian]

I call bullshit... =D

[Guardian]

SirT, I don't much like addressing cases on myself when I'm town and not about to be lynched, but if I must...

I agree with Jordan and STRONGLY disagree with Zindy about lovers claiming. See my post on what I think -- basically I don't think lovers should claim in pairs, it only helps scum NK them .

We can even manipulate the situation into one that is better for us by having Lovers that are suspicious of their partners claim instead of just all Lovers, or just one Lover pair at a time,

or only one of the two Lovers

(which gives the Doc a better shot at protecting people). The moment one pair dies, this situation simply becomes a really good one. At that point, there's a 50% chance to lynch the scumbag from the Lovers and a way lower chance to lynch the scumbag from the others.

Post 80. At least read the thread before going on wild claims.

At least mention my name when agreeing with me, so I don't get confused .

Adel, darko, Sir Tornado as scum, anyone?

No.

If you say so.

Adel for the overeagerness and such

"Overeagerness and such."

I see your case is very logical and based on a thorough analysis of Adel's posting.

Yeah, I know, right?

and darko for horrible ideas.

So you're the kind of guy who would lynch newbies suggesting no lynch every single time?

Nah, I'm the kind of guy who would suggest lynching scum going for easy targets, and advocate lynching players linked to them if they turn up scum.

Well, let's see about the case for Sir Tornado next.

...

Well, I see that's a very good one as well.

I don't like Sir T's unvote, IF darko turns up scum. He has been OK besides that.

If darko is scum, both Adel and Sir Tornado defended him. Classic.

Uh-huh. You know what's classic? Your and Nabakov's move onto darko. Once the pressure heaps on darko, you happily jump on him. Especially your move here I find very scummy. Far into the wagon, classic time for scum to jump on.

I look for scum to "jump on" at around 3 or 4, scum do what

isn't

obvious and overthink things a lot, something you can most certainly NOT accuse me of this game .

Post 93

Sir Tornado, this is not exactly a defense, but this is what I meant -- you unvote him and FoS him -- it doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, here we get the amazing case on Tornado. An unvote and a FoS! How suspicious!

Despite your sarcasm, I find an unvote and a FoS highly suspicious, why not keep a vote on someone you find suspicious?

How, exactly, is getting off a wagon that's developing too fast for your liking scummy?

See above.

Jordan answered my points nicely enough, and I've already found someone else to lovingly vote.

Vote: Guardian

I don't feel the love.

His switch onto darko was even scummier than Nab's. His call for darko's blood is pure, unfettered bandwagon.

Lies. I didn't like darko's suggestion, and wanted him pressured.

He also proceeds to call people who have both expressed that they feel the darko-wagon is going too fast scum.

I didn't like Adel's play irrespective of this, but yes on Sir T. Obviously this only would apply if darko is in fact scum.

All in all, Guardian is pushing a darko-wagon very heavily, not only by pushing it himself, but also calling people who don't want to speedlynch him scum, all based on very bad reasoning.

Yeah, I am. I don't like 50 page noise filled days. If I think someone being wagoned is scummy, I'll push it, and try and get results fast. Problem, love?

I've also noted that the people he calls scum, Adel and Tornado, both FoSed or voted Nabakov, which implies a possible link between the two.

Oh nice, and did you also notice how I called NabNab scum? Obvious link there .

<3 Feel the love.

[Guardian]

Yeah, I am. I don't like 50 page noise filled days. If I think someone being wagoned is scummy, I'll push it, and try and get results fast. Problem, love?

Yeah, I have a problem with that. I absolutely find anyone who wants to lynch before page 10 in a game of this size scummy. If we have 50 pages, we have lots of information, and more information is always beneficial to town.

A quick lynch gives less information. Wanting to give less information to town = scummy.

Just *try* reading through day one of a game with 50+ pages. (

Hint

: Mafia 64). It is impossible. If this game goes over about 25 pages I am probably not even going to attempt to re-read today, it is just not worth it. Longer days are better for town,

in theory

. Shorter days are better for town,

in reality

.

I am tempted to quote raj from an ongoing game about how he doesn't like to sit around masturbating in his own words for 20 pages when we can just try and lynch scum in half of that.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but long days

seem

to be better for town, but in my experience they

are not in fact

better for town.

I love how fleaboy qft'd it .

[Guardian]

Eh people constantly find me scummy.

I can't really be bothered to defend myself any further from this wagon, as I don't see any merit behind it.

[Guardian]

Eh people constantly find me scummy.

I can't really be bothered to defend myself any further from this wagon, as I don't see any merit behind it

.

If you are town (which you are implying) why are you just giving up? I would hope if you are town you'd fight like heck so we don't lynch you (Being a townie and not wanting a mislynch) I can't say I'm that happy to see a townie just give up the fight.

Because this happens in way to many of my games and I am getting apathetic.

I'm town. *fight fight fight*. Happy?

[Guardian]

Nope, I am not an idiot -- I have no idea what about my play makes people suspicious of me, but it definitely most logical to assume it is something about my play and not something about everyone else.

However, since I have no idea what is causing it to happen, I don't particularly have much recourse .

[Guardian]

Refuse to fix it? I'd love to fix it, but it seems that I can't. Whatever, honestly, there has been one game so far on this site that I wasn't a suspicion target in, and even in that game I was lynched day two, and I was scum....

I have no pity for you guys if you lynch me, and I have no desire to defend myself.



I am going to keep playing and scumhunting, but I am sick and tired of defending myself from baseless wagons, and I refuse to do so in this game. I am definitely not feeling the love.

[Guardian]

I would love to fix whatever it is that makes me the #1 target day one in almost every game I play in.

That being said, I have no idea at this point why it keeps happening, and I don't have the effort to defend myself

every single game

when the inevitable wagon comes.


Make sense now?

[Guardian]

I'm not being lazy, I'm being difficult.

I think it is quite a stretch to say I am not being active.

[Guardian]

Three more votes to lynch town! Bargain prices, get it quick !

I find Adel's last post opportunistic and scummy. I still want to hear more from darko. SSF is probably town. SirT I don't really know, but if darko is town then not scummy.

unvote vote: Adel

.

[Guardian]

and what are you waiting for?

[Guardian]

Nab, that makes good sense, actually. The first game on the site (I forgot, since it was a long time ago) I played more like, that and got NK n1 since I was "obviously town". I think I may re-read that game for clues.

Really though, day one, looking town or not looking town... it is all just kind of random... like there are no associations to go buy, or such.

This is the second game I've thrown a temper tantrum in... really, though, I am considering just not defending myself anymore. It is so freeing .

[Guardian]

Eh, bored, so why not, even though I don't particularly want to

Up to this point, Guardian has seemed somewhat aggressive. However, it could be his playstyle so far, which is something I don't know.

I don't know what my playstyle is, so no worries.

SirT, I don't much like addressing cases on myself when I'm town and not about to be lynched, but if I must...

Well, that's counterproductive to the town. Sure, you may know that you're town, but how are we supposed to know/believe that?

I generally don't lie about these things.

If there's a case on you, then there was obviously something wrong in your posting. And if it's just scum trying to poke holes in your credibility, then your defense will merely point out their inconsistencies.

I firmly believe that good cases can be made on non scum in day one. When there is no confirmed information, anyone can look scummy.

Nah, I'm the kind of guy who would suggest lynching scum going for easy targets, and advocate lynching players linked to them if they turn up scum.

Town links to scum, town links to town, scum links to town and scum links to scum. Those are too many possibilities to allow such an oversimplified version to dictate the lynch following a lynch scum.

I am not sure I follow you here, or that you understood me. ??

Despite your sarcasm, I find an unvote and a FoS highly suspicious, why not keep a vote on someone you find suspicious?

As he said it: precisely because he considered Darko suspicious, he wanted to hear more from him (especially since he seems to have fallen off the face of the earth) before letting a speedlynch follow its course.

OK.

Yeah, I am. I don't like 50 page noise filled days. If I think someone being wagoned is scummy, I'll push it, and try and get results fast. Problem, love?

Is a townie lynch still considered a result? Generally and theoretically speaking.

A townie lynch is a result. I don't understand why you're asking this. A scum lynch is a better result, but a townie lynch is a result.

Player other than Darko I'm seeing as most scummy right now is Guardian. Zindaras' reaons aside, I'm getting seriously scummy vibes from his vocal opposition to long days. Long days are always good for the town in theory and practice, and the effect doesn't really diminish over time. The more time we have to draw connections, make cases, and look for slipups, the better. And if you're too much of a lazy bastard to read D1, I'll do it for everybody. My vote stays with Darko for previously mentioned pressure reasons, but I'll make a nice fat FOS: Guardian

I may be nitpicking, but this looks to me like you're trying to follow the general opinion (which is now versus Guardian) yet without providing the same reason and without voting.

Interesting analysis ^

Guardian, I see your vote is on flea right now. Why do you want him to hang?

I unvoted seconds before you posted. I thought he was suspicious because of his actions immediately preceding me voting him....

....

[Guardian]

Two things worth noting:
1) xyzzy just posted elsewhere on the site. I really wonder what is up with that.
2) A lot of you need to unvote me and go find scum. .

[Guardian]

I get really bad vibes from Nab Nab recently. For the record.

I find darko's post town like.

[Guardian]

Hi all.

I must say I made some bad first steps in this game -- I was having a rather bad day yesterday -- other games going badly, irl issues, and lack of sleep all contributed. I can't say I fault the town for finding me scummy/a bad player; I see how my actions piled onto themselves and made me look like scum.

My frustration stems from that when I am townie I don't try and look townie... and carelessness such as that exhibited yesterday winds up making me look scummy. As scum, I do try and look townie, and generally people are not very suspicions of me. It is rather ironic and frustrating at the same time.

That being said, I will try and set my best foot forward from here on out.


Upon re-read, I think that the game up to this point is at least 50% noise. There were two easy bandwagons, both on me and darko, and the ghost wagon on Nab. The ebbs and flows of these very easy wagons are interesting to analyze.

From my point of view,

Adel

does in fact come off looking scummy -- she has not had more than a few content-rich posts of her 13, and two of them were commenting on the easy wagons on me and NabNab. I find that suspicious, especially when Adel is usually good for much better than that. I would

vote

Adel at this point, but my vote appears to already be on her.

I wonder about NabNab's radical switch re: me, and though I appreciate it I wonder what caused his 180 degree turnaround. I also wonder about Zindaras -- by far the most active poster so far -- being active and scum hunting is admirable, but leading the town is a bit suspicious.

In addition, it is worth noting that several players have not contributed much yet, notably HonaryHitchhiker and xyzzy. I think we would be remiss in not focusing any suspicion upon the lurkers -- with a game as noise filled as this one and moving at such a rapid rate, it would be easy for scum to stay in the shadows. There is a reason that lurking is a scum tactic.

[Guardian]

I would

vote

Adel at this point, but my vote

appears

to already be on her.

Um, you didn't know where your vote was?

I knew exactly where my vote was after reread -- it was a figure of speech .

[Guardian]

So you stated it like that just for rhetorical effect?

Yes.

[Guardian]

....I do know of two games where Guardian was scum. I would expect either of those players to try to lynch me or NK me if they are scum. Guardian has NK'd me before.

Note that you have never played a game with me prior to this one in which I have been town.

Would you expect me, as town, to not try and lynch you if I found you scummy? I don't like how you are subtly painting it that my being suspicious of you is a scumtell...

[Guardian]

Num, there is one more as scum where I bussed all my parters and was overconfident and got NKd N1 by one of the many vigs... There is another as town where I was the perfect lil townie and got NKd n1. There is another as town where... I made a foolish misjudgment, and my replacement was lynched D1.

My meta excuse is somewhat valid, but I blame my play more on frustration rather than that I always play like that. If you feel a burning, deep desire to dig into my mafia past... feel free to, but I don't see how it is going to help much -- and don't expect me to enjoy the trip.

Nab -- no reads/leads on anyone after the re-read?

[Guardian]

This is going to be a post of responses, with a summary of who I find most scummy at the end. While I feel that people are still making a few spammy noise-fill posts, the signal:noise ratio is getting better in this game...

One thing I will say before delving in, is that I disapprove of people listing every player in the game and commenting on them. I am taking a page out of MeMe's book here -- she made this argument in a game where I was scum and she was town -- and I agree with her that it is

not

pro-town to draw attention to those you find to be highly pro-town.

By pointing out a player to be strongly pro town or definitely pro town, all you do is paint a target on the backs of them for the scum. Onto my responses:

---

GUARDIAN
- zindaras accuses him: "His call for darko's blood is pure, unfettered bandwagon." To this, Guardian responds:
"Lies. I didn't like darko's suggestion, and wanted him pressured."
That's not what he'd been saying so far:
"I like wagons on scummy players. unvote vote: darko."
"darko is still scummy."

I don't see an inconsistency there. I try and use my votes to focus attention on players and show that I am suspicious of them. "Call for darko's blood" was not an accurate representation of my sentiments.

To me, pressure is one thing, bandwagon is another.

I don't understand how.

-Guardian has some really ... hmm... revolutionary ideas about the gameplay and such, ideas which tend to be proved as anti-town.

Specifically?

All in all, I tend to believe that Guardian really has some issues with his playstyle and it being accepted by other players.

I had irl and out of game issues on that day. This will probably come back to "haunt me" all game, but that is what happened. And in advance -- yes, obviously I am backtracking. Saying that my playstyle in general caused this was only a half truth.

I see inconsistencies, I see vote hopping, I don't actually see any solid material.

I agree -- however, you didn't seem to take my post 316 into account in this analysis -- right?

In conclusion, if/when Guardian comes up scum, I think we should take a long, hard look at NabNab.

FoS: NabNab

You attacked me earlier in this post for "setting up" Sir Tornado vis a vis darko -- I said that if darko came up scum, Sir T deserved a looking over. You said this was scummy, and that town can defend scum too:

- he says at one point: "I don't like Sir T's unvote, IF darko turns up scum."
What if darko turns up town? That looks like a way of setting up the next lynch. Or what if SirT is town backing up scum? It's definitely not unheard of. Your statements are incomplete and could go both ways.

It seems you are doing the same thing you just called me scummy for -- setting up NabNab for lynch if I am lynched and turn up scum (which I won't ftr). Would NabNab not be scummy if I turned up town? How is this statement at yours at all different from the statement of mine you attacked me for -- are you not being hypocritical//scummy here?


Sidenote: playstyle wise, props to Sacred for not listing everyone in the game, and instead only listing her suspects.

---

I think Guardian is playing in a manner to make it hard to metagame him- he recycles similar arguments, and is very hard to get a scum tell on when he is scum. I think he often lets himself seem a little scummy on purpose.

Do you have any basis for this, whatsoever, other than pure speculation? Can you cite any game where I have acted scummy to make it hard to get a read on me? I would be quite interested to see it, because as far as I know I have never done so.

Also, Adel, if you could respond to my 331...

---

The ones I'm suspicious of atm are Guardian (for obvious reasons)

Please elaborate. Do you have anything original or insightful to share? Are the obvious reasons that others are suspicious of me (and that right now it is "easy" to be suspicious of me and not draw attention to yourself)?

--

Anyway, here's a "

Generic List of What I Think of Everyone!™

"

As much as I disagree with these lists, I think there is some good content here...

Zindaras - I find it hard to imagine a Scum being as upbeat as this guy! Good analyses of posts, etc. Would be surprised if he turned up scum.

I have no imaginative issues here. SSF's analysis seems honest enough though.

Xdaamno - Doesn't seem to go overboard on content-filled posts. Only real "big" post from him, Is here. Is it just me, or does:

Guardian: Eh, not too sure. It dosen't stretch my imagination for guardian to be scum, so I'll just reserve a 'I told you so'.

...seem like it's trying to nudge suspicion, without trying to be seen as having any?

Now that is juicy. Has Xdaamno responded?

JordanA24 - Majority of posts are incredibly short. Quite reclusive. Seems to be posting general points without actually getting "in" the discussion.

And going the easy route.

NabakovNabakov - NNs sudden switch from "If you're getting pegged as scum in your games that means you're a bad player" which seemed quite aggressive, to teaching Guardian how to be the perfect townie bothered me a little.

Me too, it seemed off, as it did with ryan. I mean, I really appreciate the empathy, but it seems off.

Guardian - I didn't like his "giving up" phase, but I can see why someone would. And I didn't like the "short days

are

better for town" phase either, simply because, well... it's not really true, is it?

Does anyone think that days in excess of 25 pages are good for town?

Because we are headed there. I think extremely long days are bad for town, based on simple practicality.

---

Horribly scummy? I was asked different questions and I responded. If Guardian is a townie, why would we want to get rid of him because he's playing incorrectly?

This feels really pro-town, as contrasted with:

I thought/think that Guardian was a townie that was picked on unfairly and than had a couple scum jump on his bandwagon. He had 4 or 5 votes pretty quick before it slowed down.

I thought you weren't sure but wanted to give me a chance? Like NabNab... now I am town?

If his train of play continues I don't have a problem placing a vote on him but for now he reads to me as a frustrated townie who was hit by quite a few accusations and never had a chance to recover.

This is interesting to me... lynch the role, not the player, correct? If you thought/think I am town, why are you willing to vote me?

He's stayed consistent in admitting he has been picked on in other games and lynched unfairly

To an extent. This game, in the beginning, I played like a twat though, and I am admitting that was an abberation.

Ryan, a response to some of these quotes would be great.

---

I think the by-player format is quite good, as I used last time:

I hate this format, as I think drawing a NK to those you find townlike is a bad idea. Nevertheless, there is good stuff to comment on here, too.

Jordan: Quite suspiscious, to me... Seems to hide out of the limelight quite often, jumps in with certain points which don't always seem correct, and just seems incredibly consistent with scum. Unfortunatly, there's not anything solid I can pin this on, so it's not worth pushing any further at the moment, I think (Though I would like to hear a by-player analysis).

I agree here.

ryan: Frustrated newbie, again? Leaning towards scum on this guy. Many of his posts give off very strong vibes (Though, the problem is, they alternate between scum, newb and town).

I agree here, too.

flea: I'm be very surprised if flea was scum, because I haven't noticed any scum tells so far.

This is what I'm talking about.

Anyone who can give me a good reason for posting this, please do so.

If flea falls under attack, defend him. If not, then WHY?

---

I'm starting to wonder if ryan and Guardian are lovers. I agree with ST (we're in a game together with ryan at the moment), ryan's behavior regarding Guardian is uncharacteristic. He seems to be defending him while trying to seem like he isn't defending him.

Ryan's behavior is interesting, indeed.

Since player-by-players seem to be in favor today, I'll put in my 2 cents.

GAH! Behold the power of groupthink.

Guardian: Scummy

Since my post analyzing Guardian, he has claimed he was having a bad day, retracting his playstyle claim. This puts the pressure on him to shape up. If he does indeed act better, I may consider retracting my vote. But until then, he's still on the top of my list.

I ask you, as I asked ryan -- are you playing to lynch bad players, or lynch bad roles?

---

I'm starting to wonder if ryan and Guardian are lovers. I agree with ST (we're in a game together with ryan at the moment), ryan's behavior regarding Guardian is uncharacteristic. He seems to be defending him while trying to seem like he isn't defending him.

When you post tonight I hope you will explain why you would say something so horribly scummy! I think you are good enough of a player that I question whether are capable of making that kind of slip when you are scum, but I think it is prudent to

unvote vote:Numenorean7

for now. You think that both ryan and Guardian are scummy, and you think they could be lovers together.

He thinks they could be. I kind of see where you are coming from on finding Numenorean7 scummy, but his suspicions show that he does NOT know the setup of the game (a town tell) and not that he knows the setup of the game (a scum tell).

I agree with these evaluations.

Now,

that

is quite odd to me. You find Numenorean7 scummy, yet you agree with all of his evaluations of the other players in the game? That is quite a contradiction Adel; I find it hard to believe that you think that your top suspect also nailed his evaluations of the other players.

---

Oh god no, another player list. Why does everyone think that listing your neutral/likely town candidates is good? I think listing your main suspects is good. Someone try to convince me/explain.

-JordanA24
Hops on the darko bandwagon in 62, and after having his random vote on NabakovNabakov, gives no reasons to jump on darko. Trying to further a bandwagon here? Very possible. Tries to clarify his vote in 74 but basically uses the “if you don’t random vote you aren’t town” argument, which isn’t always true. Random voting is great for getting discussions going but also can start bandwagons on players way too early. Tries to explain to darko the positives of random voting. I don’t like 272, if Guardian is scum and I defended him that doesn’t mean I’m automatically scum, it’s called a mistake, I guess I should follow your game more closely and if you vote somebody who ends up town I should automatically watch you closer? I mean that is the reasoning you gave. 344 talks on pickemgenius’s posts having no content even after a rather lengthy game review where comments were consistently made, not sure if you hadn’t read that post or why you’d say that.

I agree with the setting ryan up thing here.

-xyzzy
299 throws suspicion on Sarcastro but I don’t believe you had a vote on him and not much evidence on WHY you think he’s scummy.

That is an interesting catch, ryan! Xyzzy, I look foreward to your return and do hope you address this.

-Numenorean7
171 is the first real post I’ve seen from him (not great) Jumps on the Guardian bandwagon per a Zindaras post (I’d rather hear your own opinions though)

Agree. People who jump on bandwagons without at least summarizing why they find people suspicious tend to be scum more than people who explain their votes if asked.

244 is a good one for Guardian as it shows who’s voted him and why, nicely put together and we’ll see if Guardian fixes these scum tells OR if he’s just scum and we found him WAY too easily.

I owe this post a re-read and possibly re-adressing.

368 is VERY weird indeed. Says Guardian and I are lovers BUT fingers us both scum? Uh, can you say slip up? Lovers win when the TOWN wins my friend

Hm, and I was finding this analysis so townlike too -- Ryan, not all lovers win with the town. Also, I already pointed out why I don't like how people are fingering Numenorean7 for this.

-Guardian

You go on to talk about me, but you don't explicitly say what you currently think about my alignment, as you do with most other players. What

do

you currently think about me?

Vote Adel

We are in a game together currently, and her style is the same there as it is here. Lots of questions, lots of asking to get the popular decision (so not to look bad) overly cautious, Fishing for roles. Soon we'll see her get into her numbers that it takes to lynch and probabilities and other info to look busy but not really be, just a distraction. I find her to be our scummiest player right now.

That is a really odd conclusion for me, as it doesn't really jive with your pbpa of her or of the other players, some of whom it seemed you found scummier than her.

-Adel
Post 59 saying “well this is all still fun and not real voting” was strange as there was enough information to definitely get the game going. Being in a game with Adel before she is very cautious when she’s scum, looks like caution already in this game. Post 92 drops a vote on NabakovNabakov and than says it’s NOT for his actions, uh……than why vote? Hops on the Guardian bandwagon in 195. Post 209 asks Zindaras and Sacred a strange question on how many games they’ve played with eachother, what are you digging for here Adel, OH you think one is scum…….how did that question help you solve that? I dislike 302 for obvious reasons, THAN restates it in 309 and throws my name in (probably because I called her on it not being necessary for her to state what she did on Sarcastro) 314 votes me just because (no real reasons)

Care to explain?

---

Anyway, Player-by-Player (This took about 2 hours, so if I miss out about 4-5 pages, then it's not my fault.):

Does

anyone

agree

with me that these are a bad idea? Anyone?

Guardian: I find his refusal to defend himself very noteworthy, that didn't look right at all.

I also found Post 246 interesting:

Two things worth noting:
1) xyzzy just posted elsewhere on the site. I really wonder what is up with that.
2) A lot of you need to unvote me and go find scum.

Trying to divert attention much? And telling the town to unvote him and "go find scum", his defense was rather minimal as well.

I also don't agree with him about short days. 50+ pages for Day 1 is ridiculous, but it's also a very rare occurence, and is definatly not evidence that all long days are bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of this seems to be original content.

Nabakov: Upon reread, is actually appearing protown to me. There are very few things that catch my eye as scum tells, also. I also find her defense (Post 333) quite convincing as well.

And yet you saw it unfit to comment on my defense post, Jordan?

Ryan: A couple of things stick out for me here:

Strong FoS: darko

Why not vote? This is another common scumtell.

I would vote Adel at this point, but my vote appears to already be on her.

Um, you didn't know where your vote was?

Wow, way to misinterpret/misrepresent Guardian there. You either read that very poorly, or you're deliberatly making an already suspicious player seem even scummier. MAJOR SCUM TELL.

This, and your later one sentence response in the following pages, makes me think you are very scummy Jordan. You didn't bother to go back and read what actually happened, and I found ryan's suspicion AND his response very reasonable.

Sarcastro: The scummiest so far, I'll do this step by step:

So should we just vote out xyzzy just to make it easy on everyone?

I don't even know how to describe how terrible and rather scummy that idea is.

Vote: Darko

Darko's post was quite obviously a joke.

And Sarcastro's wasn't?

I have trouble believing that you're all incredibly dense scum, so I suppose it's likely that some or all of you are even-more-incredibly dense townies. If you are, please shape up right now and stop trying to lynch Xyzzy for such a mindboggling bad reason.

This looks like he's attempting to become a sort of "town leader" with this post (while still using bad logic).

You think lynching xyzzy was good logic?

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

FoS: Adel and Numenorean

I'm feeling lazy right now, so I'll justify these later. For now, I think people should stop talking about when the lovers should claim, etc. Why does it matter right now? We can address it when we get to the point where people think the lovers should claim. I'm pretty sure nobody's advocating that they claim right now, so we can drop it.

Oh dear oh dear, this is poor, poor posting, first of all you vote someone in the middle of a bandwagon against them WHILE SAYING YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED BECAUSE YOU "FEEL LAZY". And second, you try and stifle some very on-topic conversation by saying "it's not relevant right now", which I don't think really matters, speculation doesn't hurt at all.

Eh, I think Sarcastro tends to be lazy and his scumhunting is not superb...

The scuminess... it's burning... my eyes...

Why is Guardian not dead yet? This game has far too many posts and far too few lynches.

I'm sad that you're scum, Nabakov. You're one of my favourite newbies.

Guardian, Nabakov, Adel, Pickem? No way it's that easy. But which one of them could possibly not be scum?

Your confidence makes me more uneasy about you, usually only scum are this confident since they are only ones that truly know for sure.

Eh, he usually acts like this. I'm not finding Sarcastro scummy right now, just terribly wrong. Sarcastro is easy to attack... but I'm not feeling it.

I would like Sarcastro to, you know, try and give reasons for his suspicions, though.

By the way, I want to note that I hate how I am letting myself on the line here -- Sarcastro can keep calling me scummy, and if I ever find him to be scummy later in the game, people are going to be all "OMG, you found him townlike, now scummy? Obv OMGUS." which is very bad logic. Oh well, such is life...

---

Post 379 of Sacred's I find suspicious, because of what

isn't

there. She is addressing NabNab's 375, point by point, and doesn't address this:

Yes, I admit to playing poorly/scummily. To deny it would be stupid, it's right there in the thread.

Sacred addresses the point right above and below this but not this. Why, Sacred?

---

I thought/think that Guardian was a townie that was picked on unfairly and than had a couple scum jump on his bandwagon. He had 4 or 5 votes pretty quick before it slowed down. If his train of play continues I don't have a problem placing a vote on him but for now he reads to me as a frustrated townie who was hit by quite a few accusations and never had a chance to recover. He's stayed consistent in admitting he has been picked on in other games and lynched unfairly

This is not what you said in your first post. In your first post, the only thing you do is point out that he

could

be town. You literally say "if he's town" and "if he is just a frustrated townie". Which says absolutely nothing. As we say here, if my auntie had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.

You don't say that he is town, you simply suggest it two, three times and leave it at that.

qft

I'm giving the guy a chance, why are you so quick to dismiss him as a townie?

I see you've decided to go and wildly misrepresent my posts as well.

Hmm. Well, you

are

voting me Zindaras. You think I'm town?

So should we just vote out xyzzy just to make it easy on everyone?

I don't even know how to describe how terrible and rather scummy that idea is.

Vote: Darko

Darko's post was quite obviously a joke.

Woah. That's not the vibe I got from your Post 62, nor your consecutive explainings.

Indeed.

Sacred is probably one of the better, if not one of the best, players in this game.

Also, I love her dearly and like saying things like that to her. What can I say? Every man has his vice.

This doesn't make her town -- does it?.

I said both of you seemed "savier" because I saw you both as fairly experienced players who would know better to link blatantly in the thread if your roles were actually linked. I'm not labeling you as scum or lovers. The fact that you two

do

have a significant meta-game relationship nullifies any findings.

Hate to burst your bubble, but Sacred's kind of a newbie (well, I guess everybody's a newbie compared to me >.>). She does a mighty fine job at hiding that fact, though.

A newbie, and a damn good newbie, eh?

Yes, I admit to playing poorly/scummily. To deny it would be stupid, it's right there in the thread.

I don't really like woe-is-me, especially at this early stage of the game.

Would you rather that he just never admitted it? Also, you haven't addressed my "woe-is-me" post. Do you think I should just have ignored my poor play earlier in the game?

Also, I find it somewhat interesting that you address this after Sacred missed it.

As for following a lead in the other cases, I'd agree with you had I not given reasons for my opinions, based on a re-read of the entire thread.
However, considering that the players are divised into 2-3 sides when it comes to those particular matters, I find it hard to consider my opinion lead by someone else. Can the same thing be said about all players who have the same opinions as I do? Are we all being lead by Zindaras?

Of course you are, you pitiful fools. They will suspect nothing, and then, Boom! Like a mouse trap I shall wrap my claws around the throats of the town and I shall extinguish all life! No one expects the Feline Inquisition!

Woops, did I just say that out loud?

You asked me earlier why leading the town is scummy. That's why.

---

The relationship between Zindie (girlie avatar) and Sacred (whose name I have trouble spelling) doesn't undermine my opinion of their townieness. If NabNab was playing as townie as Zindie, I would follow his lead and not have a problem with his leadership. I think allowing a natural leader who seems townie lead the group is a good thing.

Ok, I agree up to a point here. A leader who stifles other opinions is bad, or who everyone follows without question is bad, but leading in and of itself is not terribly bad.

That being said, I usually don't try and lead in games unless I have a really good vibe on who is scum -- leading the whole town astray is a bad thing.

I have a high opinion of the value of leadership, and that even scum-led leadership is better than none at all.

Scum leading the town is horrible. I cannot believe you think scum led leadership is better than none at all.

I was a NCO in the military, which may give me an unusual perspective on this.

Quite unusual...

ryan just made a good, long post, that I will have to review carefully when I have time. One immediate thing that I think I should point out is that I do

not

have a consistent playstyle. I haven't since my third game, or so. I have made it a point not to. I think it will allow me to improve faster as a player to experiment with different approaches to the game. I play chess with very different playstyles as well, especially since some of my opponents started to prepare against me by studying my games. It is always awesome when your opponent expects you to follow an aggressive line of the Sicilian, and you transpose into a time-sensitive defensive posture instead (here's looking at you Guardian, Sir Tornado, and the rest of Team Mafia Scum).

Hm, your playstyle here seems familiar to me .

---

He still knew his vote was on Adel though, didn't he.

He had to admit to knowing it and that his comment was "rhetorical effect" It wasn't a misrepresentation it was not having enough info to accurately make an assesment

I think Guardian's statement and the clarification it required is a null-tell. I think it was sloppy writing that may appear insincere, but is totally excusable.

I think you are misinterpreting ryan there -- I did at first. I think a few more words and some punctuation could have helped him out a lot.

He had to admit to knowing it and that his comment was "rhetorical effect"

for me to know that

. It wasn't a misrepresentation

on my part

it

me

was not having enough info to accurately make an assesment.

---
***
###
***
----


Wooh! Two hours later and I'm finished... but it was quite fun! Anyone who I asked for a response, I would appreciate one -- I put a bit of time and thought into this and I'd like to get some discussion going.

As for who I think is scummy after all that: My two top suspects are:

Jordan

: Jordan has been quite lurkish, hasn't contributed much original content, and has been quite happy to join the easy wagons. Jordan, you've earned my vote.

Unvote: Adel, Vote: JordanA24

. I'd definitely like to hear his response to the above that concerns him.

Adel

: I still find Adel suspicious for her inconsistencies, but I feel better about Jordan at this time. I'd like to see Adel address the questions I asked her, and my comments on her, particularly.

I don't feel as strongly about these players but:

ryan

: I am not sure on this one, but his actions re: me seemed more suspicious than NabNabs; he has made some good points and some bad ones. I want to hear more from him, including him addressing his posts.

Sacred

: I didn't like her inconsistency, and I think she is a good player, and I am getting bad vibes.

---And after this point,these players are just here because I want them to address specific things. They are still listed in most suspicious to least suspicious, however.

Numerean7

: I'd like you to address the question I asked you.

NabNab

: Not as bad as ryan, but I don't understand his flop on me. Nothing specific to address, just in general, I'd like to hear more about your actions re: me.

Xdaamno

: Not that suspicious of this one, his name is definitely here just to get his attention. Please respond to the question I asked "has Xdaamno responded to this yet?" above. .

Lastly, I'd remind everyone that we should not forget the lurkers. There are about five players who have definitely lurked so far, and as far as I know they could contain the four scum. We should not be too hasty with so many players not having meaningfully contributed yet.

Darko I didn't include in that, as he has started to contribute stuff, a bit of it has been incorrect though, and to be honest I didn't appreciate his snippy comment re: me.

And it is finally over...

[Guardian]

I think that you and NabNab have a high enough opinion of me to try to get me killed if you are scum.

I knew you were the vig in that other game that we shouldn't talk about too much, but highly advocated

not

killing you because you were leading the town in all the wrong directions. I NK'd you in that other game that we can talk about because I thought you were in the other scumgroup.

...I love you and your posting style, though !

My mislynch would be a scum tell on both of you if you advocated for it.

There are several problems with that statement, and they have been brought up previously... .

[Guardian]

I feel that I did you and the broader Mafia Scum community a disservice by being rude and far less than welcoming to you. Take my word for it, most other players here are better than that.

Yeah. God Adel, you are such a bitch.




tee-hee.


Darko, in seriousness, I ditto everything Adel said, most people

are

much nicer, and I hope you stick around. ;D.

One thing that bugs me though, is how you are both offended by other people's actions and still maintain a very condescending tone re: me, even when I've said that

that

bugs me .

Game related responses will come later, for those who are wondering...

[Guardian]

Does anyone think that days in excess of 25 pages are good for town? Because we are headed there. I think extremely long days are bad for town, based on simple practicality

Lastly, I'd remind everyone that we should not forget the lurkers. There are about five players who have definitely lurked so far, and as far as I know they could contain the four scum. We should not be too hasty with so many players not having meaningfully contributed yet.

I agree with the second one of the statements I have quoted, but does anyone else find them to be out of sync and contradictory with each other?

This isn't an attack on Guardian, but I would like him to clarify which of the above statements he supports. Does he now understand (after re-reading his own second comment which I have quoted here) why having less days is bad for the town?

I support both statements.

Really short days are bad for town, as there is nothing to go back and analyze. However, I think really long days are bad too, because they are very annoying to re-read and the more annoying it is to re-read the less likely people will actually do it -- and people not re-reading is very bad for town.

However, we do need the lurkers to contribute before we can get anywhere near comfortably ending the day, and that may take some time.

In sum, the statements do have conflicting interests and results, but I believe there is definitely a happy medium and I do not think that supporting one should preclude supporting the other.

[Guardian]

SirT, what are your thoughts on Jordan? Please make a longish post and address my and other people's attacks on him and his responses.

[Guardian]

SirT, you have failed miserably to provide us with any sort of pbpa on Jordan -- you have not even posted a paragraph about your thoughts on him -- all I am getting is that he is the most "Neutral" of all the players for you.

I see a strong link between SirT and Jordan. SirT has never said anything definitive about Jordan, and Jordan has never said

anything

about SirT. Both have addressed each other, but never anything meaningful or indicative of their opinion of the other's alignment. Then, I find Jordan suspicious and I lay out a case, SirT promises to post some thoughts on Jordan and never does, and what we get from him in the end is a "neutral" feeling about Jordan.

I would like very much for

people to comment on the above

and not ignore it . I think I am on to something.

Expect another more comprehensive//less focused post from me later....

[Guardian]

The people I think who are protown:

1) Zindaras
2) Sacred
3) Sarcasto

I also note how Sir T is making friends with (arguably//acknowledged, at least) the three best players in the game.

[Guardian]

for now on, talking about relationships between living players is a HUGE scumtell

unvote vote: Adel

[Guardian]

Eh, I guess I owe some explanation... but honestly, how are we supposed to find scum if we disregard

relationships between players

. That is the entirety of mafia.

Jordan was #1 you were #2. Now you are pretty much equal.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, Guardian
pickemgenius (1): Erg0
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (3): Numenorean7, Sarcastro, Sacred
somestrangeflea (1): pickemgenius
Numenorean7 (1): Adel
Sarcastro (1): JordanA24

Not voting (8 ): Xdaamno, xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[Guardian]

how are we supposed to find scum if we disregard

relationships between players

. That is the entirety of mafia.

Don't ignore relationships, just don't talk about them.

Adel

, to me, this is like saying "don't ignore cases on players, just don't make them." All cases in mafia are due to players interactions with each other and opinions about other players and their actions that correspond to these opinions.

I highly disagree that talking about these interactions is a bad idea, as it is

one of our best ways...

as it is pretty much

the only

way of hunting scum.

[Guardian]

I highly disagree that talking about these interactions is a bad idea, as it is

one of our best ways...

as it is pretty much

the only

way of hunting scum.

On day 1? Oh, really? You must be reading an entirely different set of games than I am.

Well, that's BS, because except for your next example (which includes lovers) there is never a good reason not to make such speculation. So there is no "set of games" that player association speculation MIGHT, theoretically, be bad in. Only this one.

This is what I am afraid of happening:

I find some evidence that Sam, Pete, and Dave are scum together based on their interaction. I present my evidence, and other players agree that Dave looks especially scummy. We lynch Dave. Dave turns up Town.

Katie and Sarah actually are scum, they didn't see the relationship between Sam and Pete until I pointed it out. They NK Sam, and his lover Pete dies as well.

My case against Sam, Pete and Dave could expose the lovers even if we didn't lynch Dave

This is what I (and Xdaamo apparently) are afraid of happening:

Alice finds evidence that Kaite and Sarah are scum (and they are), because they treat each other oddly. So does Sam. Pete and Dave have missed this interaction.

Alice and Sam say that Katie and Sarah are scummy, but because of dictator Adel don't say why. Pete and Dave are highly confused, and find Alice and Sam scummy for this baseless attack. The town lynch Alice, and Dave gets nightkilled, and Sam *still* can't explain the next day why he finds Katie and Sarah to be scummy

Adel, your system totally breaks town town communication. Suppressing town communication is a horrible idea and scummy.

The fact that there are lovers in this game means that there may be bad consequences of pointing out these interactions, but lovers have just about an equal shot of being scum as townies do, and once one lover pair of townies die, the chances of a lover being scum goes way up. So the benefits of, you know, communication, highly outweigh the rewards.

Our case against someone is never convincing if it depends upon the relationship between players, unless one of the members of the relationship is dead scum.

Just wondering then -- what DOES make a convincing case on day one? What is evidence of being scummy on day one? Also, if you please, may we talk about relationships between players tomorrow if we don't today and mislynch because of it? Or does the fact that there are no dead scum mean that we should continue to not present cases.

[Guardian]

I believe Jordan needs to post a defense.

I agree. I'm happy to see this wagon gaining traction -- in fact, since Adel and Jordan are really about equally scummy to me, I think I would like to give Jordan some extra incentive to post that defense.

unvote: Adel vote: JordanA24

[Guardian]

Hey. I am (re-)reading through the thread between my long post and the end of the thread, and addressing anything that is there (or anything that isn't there) that is of interest.

Before I start, I'll say that from reading the thread as it progressed my main suspects are JordanA24, Adel, and Sir Tornado in that order. I will see if I still feel the same way at the end.

---

Adel, you still need to address my post 394. I want you to take a definitive/final stance on this.

---

...I agree that saying who you think is a little pro-town is a possible mistake unless you are trying to derail a wagon by defending that player, and even then it is proably more pro-town to attack the attackers than it is to defend the defender.

That is a very reasonable position.

@Adel & everyone else who addressed this: I

still

think that a doc hitting right is low probability in so large a game, and that giving the scum ideas about who is most protown is a bad idea.

...I was just pointing out that your playstyle is not to be as townie as possible.

My playstyle changes from game to game. See my wiki, and read the first day of Generic Western Mafia. I was so pro-town, that even when I had to replace out I got NK'd. I don't think you have a meta-read on me at all, and I think you are misinterpreting my early actions -- they were, as I said, pure frustration, not strategy.

I'm starting to wonder if ryan and Guardian are lovers. I agree with ST (we're in a game together with ryan at the moment), ryan's behavior regarding Guardian is uncharacteristic. He seems to be defending him while trying to seem like he isn't defending him.

When you post tonight I hope you will explain why you would say something so horribly scummy! I think you are good enough of a player that I question whether are capable of making that kind of slip when you are scum, but I think it is prudent to

unvote vote:Numenorean7

for now. You think that both ryan and Guardian are scummy, and you think they could be lovers together.

He thinks they could be. I kind of see where you are coming from on finding Numenorean7 scummy, but his suspicions show that he does NOT know the setup of the game (a town tell) and not that he knows the setup of the game (a scum tell).

This is an Open game. We all know the setup. I see Num7's post as a big blunder by scum or an idiot newbie mistake, and I

know

Num7 is not an idiot newbie. 1/6*100=16.7 so 16.7% of lovers are scum while 3/13*100=23.1 or 23.1% of non-lovers are scum. Identifying potential lovers aids scum in a huge way, since NKing or lynching lovers is a big goal of their's. If he was something like 90% sure that ryan and Guardian were lovers and one of them was scum, then I would love to see that analysis in thread. That was not the case, so I am advocating Num7's lynch.

By not knowing the setup, I mean not knowing who is lovers with who, not that he can't read the opening post. Whatever, I have no definitive read on Num, so continue to pursue this if you find it useful.

I agree with these evaluations.

Now,

that

is quite odd to me. You find Numenorean7 scummy, yet you agree with all of his evaluations of the other players in the game? That is quite a contradiction Adel; I find it hard to believe that you think that your top suspect also nailed his evaluations of the other players.

Why? Scum typically do offer accurate (based upon actions in game) assessments of players. It helps that they know everyone's alignment, so when a mislynch occurs they can say "I told you so" and it sets up the basis for a legitimate looking bus if it is called for later.

OK, that makes sense. It is still odd to me that you agree with it so wholeheartedly, when he is your top one or two suspect. Scum have an incentive to lie.

Your defense of Sarcastro doesn't seem at all scummy to me, but I would like for you to expand on it since I respect your judgment but I am not convinced by your case.

Eh, per my theory that you don't want obvious townies out there, I will continue it if he comes under attack, but right now I see no reason to.

--Adel then writes about how being a leader helps out and how Zindie hasn't been bad yet -- which I agree with.

I have a high opinion of the value of leadership, and that even scum-led leadership is better than none at all.

Scum leading the town is horrible. I cannot believe you think scum led leadership is better than none at all.

A framework for communal success is a predictable result of successful leadership. I've had leaders who were incompetent and I've had leaders who were evil bastards, and I'll take the evil bastard over the incompetent any day. A leader who is scum trying to lead the town astray will almost always make a fatal, possibly game-breaking mistake- in my humble opinion.

I still find this extremely misguided/scummy.

I still find Adel suspicious for her inconsistencies, but I feel better about Jordan at this time. I'd like to see Adel address the questions I asked her, and my comments on her, particularly.

Is there anything I missed? I hope we have the same alignment and can work together here. I believe in the value of teamwork just as much as I value leadership.

Obvious buddying up?

Adel wants me to think she is town, and wants to be friends...

Lastly, I'd remind everyone that we should not forget the lurkers. There are about five players who have definitely lurked so far, and as far as I know they could contain the four scum. We should not be too hasty with so many players not having meaningfully contributed yet.

QFT I propose that we call them all out by name every five posts or so, especially since I can't think of their names off of the top of my head, and I think all of us should be able to.

Current Lurkers are:

YogurtBandit
xyzzy
Honary Hitchhiker
Fernando
Erg0

Step it up guys.

As a final word, I think the player by player list of impressions makes it much easier for scum to blend in, and to know

which

opinions are safe to have, and makes network analysis much harder for true scumhunters. They should stop. Now.

Props to Guardian for pointing out the groupthink that was going on.

Eh. Maybe -- they are a record of people's thoughts on everyone, though, if people turn up scum. Buddying up again, Adel?

---

Num then makes post 397, which I find very unremarkable in terms of being helpful.

I see buddying up to Zindie, I see a pbpa that doesn't convince me, I see him congratulating me for my great post and then posting a list of every player (who he hasn't posted a list of yet) and analyzing them, and I see more buddying up to Zindie...

---

Jordan's post in which he votes me is pretty hilarious.

When did Darko even say he was joking? If he did, I missed it, because it still doesn't seem like a joke to me. If it is a joke (which makes little sense, as it wasn't funny), how exactly was it obvious?

Nothing bad above. Seems logical.

Please don't call my posting bad. It's not. It's perfectly fine. If you don't like the fact that I'm generally lazy and unhelpful day one in these sorts of large games, that's just too bad for you. I can you give you a long explanation if you'd like, but suffice it to say that I'd be happy to lynch any of the four people I mentioned before, as well as, now, you.

The unfortunate thing about playing with so many newbies, especially when so many of them simply aren't very good, is that too many people are going to say stupid, opportunistic things that look so scummy. Going after me for my posts is extraordinarily opportunistic, because my posts aren't actually all that scummy if you bother to

think

about them. Things like "over-confidence" seem like great reasons to lynch people until you actually stop and realise that

they're not goddamn scumtells

, especially on someone like me. I always act confident, I'm frequently lazy early in games this large, and I'm not especially concerned with making cases.

Certainly true....

Now normally, I would just see someone going after what looks like an easy lynch in me but is actually not, conclude that they're scum, and get them lynched. In this sort of game, however, full of newbies, I have no way of knowing whether you're scum or just a newbie who hasn't bother to

think

about what you're doing.

I'll give you all a hint -

don't just look for strange play

. Think about what mistakes

you

might make as scum and that you've seen others make in the past, not what random things instinctively look bad.

Yeah, still making sense.

And no, Guardian, my scumhunting skills are perfectly fine. I'm willing to bet that at least two of the five people I've called out so far are scum. Would you care to check your PM and confirm?

This part gets you in trouble with me. Firstly, don't say your scumhunting skills are "fine" if you don't feel strongly about the results -- as you said you didn't later. Also, your rhetorical question bugs me, it is useless and just... useless. Eh, you're not looking scummy though.

I'm not even sure for whom I should be voting right now. I wish a had a pentuple-dayvig.

Again, this is useless... but probably not scummy... I actually did chuckle. I think you are misguided in being so lazy day one. I think the town can improve its chances of not finding scum by not being lazy.

---

Guardian: In answer to your question: Yes. Lynch the role, not the player. I'm starting to believe you, especially after that last post. I personally have no problem with player-by-player analysis: scum can decide who to kill without our help.

Numenorean7 and ryan

-- you have both responded the same to the above.

Now answer me this question: if I started going back to one line posts and not detailed and arduous explanations of what I was thinking, would you go back to trying to lynch me? Explain why or why not.

---

Guardian: I find his refusal to defend himself very noteworthy, that didn't look right at all.

I also found Post 246 interesting:

Two things worth noting:
1) xyzzy just posted elsewhere on the site. I really wonder what is up with that.
2) A lot of you need to unvote me and go find scum.

Trying to divert attention much? And telling the town to unvote him and "go find scum", his defense was rather minimal as well.

I also don't agree with him about short days. 50+ pages for Day 1 is ridiculous, but it's also a very rare occurence, and is definatly not evidence that all long days are bad.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of this seems to be original content.

You definatly wrote it.

This is a non-response -- I mean this: were you not rehashing arguments other players had made against me, rather than coming up with any original insight?

Nabakov: Upon reread, is actually appearing protown to me. There are very few things that catch my eye as scum tells, also. I also find her defense (Post 333) quite convincing as well.

And yet you saw it unfit to comment on my defense post, Jordan?

I thought I did, oh well. I found your defense minimal and not at all convincing.

"Oh well" is not satisfactory, to me. If you found it non-convincing, explain why. If you can't explain why, I have issues.

Ryan: A couple of things stick out for me here:

Strong FoS: darko

Why not vote? This is another common scumtell.

I would vote Adel at this point, but my vote appears to already be on her.

Um, you didn't know where your vote was?

Wow, way to misinterpret/misrepresent Guardian there. You either read that very poorly, or you're deliberatly making an already suspicious player seem even scummier. MAJOR SCUM TELL.

This, and your later one sentence response in the following pages, makes me think you are very scummy Jordan. You didn't bother to go back and read what actually happened, and I found ryan's suspicion AND his response very reasonable.

I read each players posts individually and sometimes looked at the thread at points I fond interesting, but didn't here, in hindsight, I probably should have.

Ya think? This kind of "laziness" as opposed to that exhibited by Sarcastro, is

definitely

scummy.

Sarcastro: The scummiest so far, I'll do this step by step:

So should we just vote out xyzzy just to make it easy on everyone?

I don't even know how to describe how terrible and rather scummy that idea is.

Vote: Darko

Darko's post was quite obviously a joke.

And Sarcastro's wasn't?

It didn't look too much like a joke to me, and especially with the post I highlighted afterwards.

That's fair.

I have trouble believing that you're all incredibly dense scum, so I suppose it's likely that some or all of you are even-more-incredibly dense townies. If you are, please shape up right now and stop trying to lynch Xyzzy for such a mindboggling bad reason.

This looks like he's attempting to become a sort of "town leader" with this post (while still using bad logic).

You think lynching xyzzy was good logic?

Obviously not if I think Darko's post on it was a joke. When I said bad logic, I meant calling a joke a "mindbogglingly bad reason".

Clarify. You think that trying to lynch darko for his joke was bad? I am very confused.

Unvote, Vote: Guardian

FoS: Adel and Numenorean

I'm feeling lazy right now, so I'll justify these later. For now, I think people should stop talking about when the lovers should claim, etc. Why does it matter right now? We can address it when we get to the point where people think the lovers should claim. I'm pretty sure nobody's advocating that they claim right now, so we can drop it.

Oh dear oh dear, this is poor, poor posting, first of all you vote someone in the middle of a bandwagon against them WHILE SAYING YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED BECAUSE YOU "FEEL LAZY". And second, you try and stifle some very on-topic conversation by saying "it's not relevant right now", which I don't think really matters, speculation doesn't hurt at all.

Eh, I think Sarcastro tends to be lazy and his scumhunting is not superb...

Well, he should try not being lazy, lazy people do not benefit the town at all, and only serve to look suspicious.

Hip - hip -

hooray

hypocrisy!

The scuminess... it's burning... my eyes...

Why is Guardian not dead yet? This game has far too many posts and far too few lynches.

I'm sad that you're scum, Nabakov. You're one of my favourite newbies.

Guardian, Nabakov, Adel, Pickem? No way it's that easy. But which one of them could possibly not be scum?

Your confidence makes me more uneasy about you, usually only scum are this confident since they are only ones that truly know for sure.

Eh, he usually acts like this. I'm not finding Sarcastro scummy right now, just terribly wrong. Sarcastro is easy to attack... but I'm not feeling it.

See my point above on lazy people only serving to look suspicious. Though in this case with the other points about him, he's my best suspect.

The hypocrisy burns my eyes.... I called you out for being lazy on two different actions in response to the same post where you call Sarcastro scummy for... laziness. And I believe that both examples of you being lazy are much scummier than Sarcastro's...

---

One thing I will say before delving in, is that I disapprove of people listing every player in the game and commenting on them. I am taking a page out of MeMe's book here -- she made this argument in a game where I was scum and she was town -- and I agree with her that it is

not

pro-town to draw attention to those you find to be highly pro-town.

I disagree with you on this thing. By listing people or forcing people to list other people, you make them post opinions on people, to say whether they're scum or not. Mafia doesn't like having to be solid on people, it means they have less flexibility. For example, if Player A, who is scum, says Player B is pro-town, then he can not say Player B is scum later when Player B is getting votes unless Player A gives good reasoning, and even then he's going to get flak for it.

This does make sense. Dead men tell tales, through their lists. I will ponder this.

By pointing out a player to be strongly pro town or definitely pro town, all you do is paint a target on the backs of them for the scum.

A townie dies every night. They aren't going to kill themselves if we don't say anything, you know. And, at a certain point, people saying someone is pro-town actually positively effects their chances of survival, since the Mafia has a Doc to be afraid of.

Again, reasonable reasons.

Does anyone think that days in excess of 25 pages are good for town?

Because we are headed there. I think extremely long days are bad for town, based on simple practicality.

Yes, I do think that days in excess of 25 pages are good for the town.

I disagree... I am going to want to shoot myself re-reading this game, and I know that some players aren't going to bother. Mini games used to often be less than 15 pages long -- for the whole game. Maybe that wasn't optimal either, but with days this long it just becomes impractical.

Hmm. Well, you

are

voting me Zindaras. You think I'm town?

I think you're scummy. Scum? Maybe, maybe not. You're one of my major suspects. I'm watching you very closely.

Again, fair enough .

As far as the vote goes, you are in no danger of a speedlynch and I don't like having my vote on noone just because "I don't think anyone is 100% scum". I hate people who reason like that, you almost never get to lynches that way.

I

am

going to

Unvote

though, as I'll be gone until Sunday and that's a pretty large window to speedlynch in.

Again, reasonable .

Would you rather that he just never admitted it?

"Sorry guys, I was just playing badly" is quite a horrible defense. There's no way it can be taken at face value. Whenever I see woe-is-me, I see someone who is trying pretty badly to get off the subject without an argument, and that's something I find quite scummy.

Well, what do you suggest that Nab -- or better yet what do you suggest that I, Guardian, should have done? I got frustrated. I made lots of posts that could be seen as scummy. There was no good in game reason for my posting like that -- it was frustration with how my games were going in general, and a tense day in real life. What do you expect me to do in addressing those posts other than explaining the reasons for them?

The "I'm always scummy" argument I most certainly didn't like. See Jelly's wiki:

# Jelly's Top 5 Least Favorite "Don't Lynch Me!" Arguments:
* 4.) "But I'm

always

scummy."

When I make wrong decisions, I try to explain my thought process, I try to explain why I did what I did, even though it was bad. Just saying "Yeah, it was sucky play, I'm sorry" really doesn't cut it. It just looks like redirecting to me.

Considering my paragraph above, what do you think I should have done instead? Or should do? I have explained it to the best of my ability -- should I have just ignored it?

You asked me earlier why leading the town is scummy. That's why.

No, it's not. That particular bit of post was in jest, but it still had a point. Either I'm town and I'm leading the town for its own good, or I'm scum and I'm leading the town for my own good. All in all, it says nothing. Null tell. The only arguable thing is that I tend to lead the town more as town than as scum.

I have issues with this response. You made a long joke about how you have us all fooled etc etc. We have no way of knowing your alignment. It may not be pro-town. Leading the town is scummy, because the town is basically risking the game on your alignment. You agree scum leadership is bad -- why should the town follow you when we have no idea of your alignment?

Now I am the one who is guilty of poor writing. I think that you and NabNab have a high enough opinion of me to try to get me killed if you are scum. My mislynch would be a scum tell on both of you if you advocated for it. I think the inverse is true as well. Since we have talked about it in-thread I do not think me getting NK'd would be much of a tell.

Woah, again. You're really blatantly trying to get them to not find you suspicious here. I really don't like this post.

I agree with this, and have said so.

[hmmm, I think this is another slight misunderstanding, and is probably my fault. As I see it there are two basic schools of thought. One says that a player should always try to be as pro-town as possible regardless of alignment, and the other says that it is better to be unclear in every game as to avoid that great big target from being on your back when you are town. I think I agree with the first school, even though I am experimenting (possibly in this game) with playing in accordance with the second school. I meant to identify you as a player who believes in the second school. I'm not accusing you of acting scummy for metagame purposes (although I can totally see why I gave that impression) I was just pointing out that your playstyle is not to be as townie as possible.

The second school is a school of folly and badness. Who cares about having a target on your back?

A townie dies every night

. Playing worse than you can to prevent you from being hit is a selfish and bad strategy. You're better off playing well, catching a scumbag D1 and then dying than playing badly and surviving to endgame and get lynched there because you've been playing badly.

If I even catch someone

thinking

about using the second school, they're in deep trouble.

Disagree there. Both are very legitimate styles of play -- MeMe, among others, employs the second.

As a final word, I think the player by player list of impressions makes it much easier for scum to blend in, and to know

which

opinions are safe to have

As long as I'm around, there are no safe opinions to be had. >.>

Adel actually makes a good point here. Another "point" to stopping this complete player lists. I don't like how your complete response to this post is to say, in effect, "eh, don't worry, I'm here so it's OK." Again, you are asking us to trust you implicitly when we as of yet have no good reason to do so.

and makes network analysis much harder for true scumhunters. They should stop. Now.

Network analysis is a horribly flawed way to catch scum on the first few days. Networking doesn't become relevant until there is actual dead scum.

True...

Props to Guardian for pointing out the groupthink that was going on.

Yet you participated in the player-analysis-happiness just as much as the others.

Hmm... I was thinking I'd be agreeing with you that Adel was buddying up -- but here you attack for a completely different reason. What is it with you and not allowing players to acknowledge mistakes and reconsider things? I find this misguided/scummy.

I put quite a bit into this game before it even started, beyond designing it with Zindie I also sent out a PM inviting almost every good player from my previous games to join it. Some of them required arm-twisting. I do not want a frustrated new player ruining my baby.

You're silly. I like you.

qft . <3 Adel.

---

368 is VERY weird indeed. Says Guardian and I are lovers BUT fingers us both scum? Uh, can you say slip up? Lovers win when the TOWN wins my friend

Hm, and I was finding this analysis so townlike too -- Ryan, not all lovers win with the town. Also, I already pointed out why I don't like how people are fingering Numenorean7 for this.

Lovers x5

You and _ are lovers. When your lover is killed, you will not be able to bear it, and you will die together with him/her. You are allowed to talk to your lover during the night.

You win when every member of the mafia is dead, including the treacherous lover

.

This is why I found it scummy.

Ah yes --

let me address this (read, those who are interested)

, now that you've presented it clearly again -- to me it is not a scum tell, because Num can find us both scummy and maybe think we are both lovers, too -- townies don't know which roles are which, and he can explore two alternate possibilities without being scummy. He can also think we are both scummy, and that we are lovers and therefore one of us is very likely to be treacherous.

Like I said earlier, though, I have no definitive read on this one so feel free to pursue this.

---

Xdaamno's 445 was a very reasonable response.

---

Sarcastro's attack on JordanA24 in 449 was very reasonable.

However...

Suffice it to say that I don't enjoy day ones, and I feel that we're better off just lynching anyone decently scummy and getting on with the game. Some people may revel in making gigantic posts in which they argue and speculate about totally inane things like who's played with whom before and when the lovers should claim and worthless percentages, but I'm just not interested. I enjoy finding scum and killing them, and there is far too little of that on the first day of a large game like this one.

Again, I think you are misguided in being this lazy day 1. Help us out.

Guess what, Nabakov? I don't care. Lynch whomever you want today, as long as it's not me, Zindaras or Tornado. It really doesn't matter to me.

Why not Tornado??

I really hope that Zindy isn't scum. If he is, he's going to absolutely crush you guys.

HMM! Why do you say "you guys" instead of "us"?? I actually want you to address this throughly Sarcastro - I

really

don't like your diction there.

---

Jordan's response to Sarcastro in 463 was reasonable. I am not convinced though.

Maybe two pro-town players are yelling at each other. Maybe not. I don't like the hypocrisy on laziness still. Your laziness was a different type Jordan, but it was just as bad, if not worse.

---

Sacred's 468 was a reasonable response to me. I still have some disagreements, but I feel some of the issues there are irrelevant/are becoming irrelevant, so no desire to go through that post at this time.

I still am not sure of Sacred's alignment. Putting it down as surely town seems like a mistake to me.

---

Adel still needs to respond to my 511. Adel, get to it.

---

The people I think who are protown:

1) Zindaras
2) Sacred
3) Sarcasto

I also note how Sir T is making friends with (arguably//acknowledged, at least) the three best players in the game.

All right. Let us take a small straw vote: Raise your hand if you don't think Zindaras is pro-town.

*Also raises hand*. I don't know his alignment. I am not sure of it, and have no strong feeling either way. Do

you

know his alignment?

I think Sarcasto is pro-town because his play style is making sense to me.

Agreed...

And, I think Sacred has played a very clean game so far and has, for me looked very pro town.

Unsure here.


Sir Tornado, this does nothing to change that if you are scum, you just went out of your way to say that three of the best players in the game are very likely to be town.

---

*Raises Hand* but only out of needed optimism. If Zindy is scum with the capability to look so damn pro-town

and

get the town to follow him, then we're pretty much screwed. Since I'd like to think we're not screwed, I will think he's pro-town.

That is bad logic. Because of that, we should look at him with more scrutiny, not less.

I don't get Guardian's case, seems like detoured OMGUS.

Hmm. "Detoured OMGUS"? My case on Sir Tornado has nothing to do with him thinking I am scummy. More on this next:

---

SirT, you have failed miserably to provide us with any sort of pbpa on Jordan -- you have not even posted a paragraph about your thoughts on him -- all I am getting is that he is the most "Neutral" of all the players for you.

I see a strong link between SirT and Jordan. SirT has never said anything definitive about Jordan, and Jordan has never said

anything

about SirT. Both have addressed each other, but never anything meaningful or indicative of their opinion of the other's alignment. Then, I find Jordan suspicious and I lay out a case, SirT promises to post some thoughts on Jordan and never does, and what we get from him in the end is a "neutral" feeling about Jordan.

I would like very much for

people to comment on the above

and not ignore it . I think I am on to something.

Expect another more comprehensive//less focused post from me later....

You asked me to put my view on Jordan, I have put him in moderately scummy/neutral category.

I have already said that I am not good at doing lengthy player analysis.

(This is my cue to say that my PBPA and analysis of JordanA24 is not quite complete because I have been a bit lazy today)

Guardian: A detailed analysis on Jordan coming ASAP.

First, he said he would have a pbpa coming quickly. Then, he says that it is coming, but not quite complete.

Then, he says he had no intention of making such a pbpa and it is not his style. He must obviously have lied about the analysis being "not quite complete" --

he never had any intention of doing one

. He also makes some vague thing about how he said that he is not good about doing lengthy player analysis and that it is not his style --

that strikes me as extremely odd as you promised me you would do one

and then said one was nearly complete.

Sir Tornado is obviously lying about this

. He may not be scum, but he was obviously, obviously lying.

STRONG FOS: Sir Tornado

.

---

Sir Tornado is notably dismissive of my link between him and Jordan in post 533.

---

I liked some parts of Num's 537. Some parts of it I didn't like. I'd like to see Jordan address all of it.

---

I don't have a problem with Xdaamo's numbers post as many people do... I agree with his stance -- he didn't express himself well, but I don't see why everyone felt the need to quote it and jump on it.

Looking at who does easy, seemingly pro-town things, like jump onto Xdaamno here, is definitely worth looking back at if the player in question, in this case Xdaamno, is town.

---

Note how everyone and their brother was calling me silly for wanting a shorter day, and now, here on page 23, everyone is suddenly worriedly speculating about how fast and long this day is going..............

---

Practically everyone who I wanted a response from on my earlier longish post responded adequately. I appreciate that, and would love (haha, pun) it if people did the same here.

As for conclusions I can draw...

Adel, Jordan, and Sir T

all have some things to address. Explain yourselves well, my vote may go elsewhere.

Fail to do so, and my vote will likely go to you. In order of most scummy to least:

Jordan

, I'd like you to defend yourself in a quote-respond style to Num's pbpa of you. Also if you could respond to my attack here, that would be excellent.

Sir T

, explain why you lied.

Adel

and I had some disagreements, and she seemed to have "dropped" them, and I don't want or like this...

Also, I would love all of you to concisely, and in one post, explain who your top suspects are and your reasons for this.

---

I caution strongly against assuming Zindie is town. If he is, that is great for us. But if he is not and we assume that he is, that really really sucks. So be wary.

Sadly, I personally will not be willing to end the day until we get contributions from the lurkers... Again, for all I know all 4 scum are among the 5 lurkers.

FoS: all lurkers not on V/LA

, especially

YB and Erg0

, who are posting but not posting content.

Num

, your posts are very hit-or miss in terms of being useful. This is slightly suspicious. Hit more, miss less.

PEG

, you are not quite lurking, but you need to take definite stances on stuff and search for scum.

mFoS: PEG

. Until he does so.

Sarcastro

, I find/found you townlike, but there are some things you said that I found disturbing -- please do be sure to address them.

I think my final stance on lists of all players and your opinions of them is that it still seems like a bad idea to do them. Convince me why they are good, or stop doing them, or face my wrath D:.

[Guardian]

Guardian you use too many damn words. Weren't you the one talking about wanting to keep the page count down earlier?

Short, spam-posts put the page count up. My 566 was just *one* post. Less posts with more content I find highly preferable to more posts with less content.

here are the questions from your 511
1. what DOES make a convincing case on day one?
A player that hasn't claimed a role, and is not the village idiot, and dropped more convincing scumtells than the other players.

Define scumtells. I am not trying to be cute, go ahead, what are scumtells that might make up a good day one case.

2. What is evidence of being scummy on day one?
Lies, subliminal slips like mixing up pronouns, accidental disclosure of information. Being unlucky.
On day 1 I use a series of hunches and guesses in an attempt to model the interaction of other players. Currently I'm interested in provoking reactions and assuming that scum would react in one way and town would react in a different way. I'll be much better at this once I have more experience.

I find the above ineffective when not coupled with watching how the players interact with each other.

3.Also, if you please, may we talk about relationships between players tomorrow if we don't today and mislynch because of it?
You're trying to be cute here right? Phail.

Nope, I wasn't. I was trying to make a point, which may have been lost on you...

I'm saying that we need a body before we should start talking about relationships, and it should only be the relationship between the dead players and the living.

I think not mentioning relationships between

living

players will hurt us finding scum. As such, I find it unlikely there will be dead scum to talk about relationships of/with/whatever. So I think your system has a real problem in that it is self defeating and that unless we get lucky, we will

never

have any useful relationships to comment on.

And I only recommend following that course until the percentage chance of any given lover being scum is

higher

than the percentage chance of any given non-lover being scum.

The percentages are so close right now that their difference is insignificant. Surely you realize this?

In one of your posts you pointed out that the percentages are nearly the same, but I think
that the difference between 20% and 25% is great enough that we should change policy because of it.

I really, really don't. You disagree that most scumtells come from relationships between players?

4.Or does the fact that there are no dead scum mean that we should continue to not present cases.
Not cute at all. Present whatever case you want.

Ok, so I have your permission, now? .

If you or anyone else types out speculation on the relationships between players, especially on day 1, I will consider it a tell.

Do you see why this is a bad idea yet...? Even if you don't I know that I at least will completely disregard your read that commenting on player interactions is a scum tell. You really are not willing to give in here?

I think that you and NabNab have a high enough opinion of me to try to get me killed if you are scum.

I knew you were the vig in that other game that we shouldn't talk about too much, but highly advocated

not

killing you because you were leading the town in all the wrong directions. I NK'd you in that other game that we can talk about because I thought you were in the other scumgroup.

...I love you and your posting style, though !

My mislynch would be a scum tell on both of you if you advocated for it.

There are several problems with that statement, and they have been brought up previously... .

what do you want me to say? I don't see a sincere question here?

I want you to back down from your statement that if I push for your lynch and you are town then that is a high scum tell on me. Or, to say that you don't back down, and explain why.

[Guardian]

That is a very satisfactory response Sir T... Blah.

[Guardian]

I took "not quite complete" to mean that it was nearly complete. I didn't realize you were making something of a joke when you said "not quite complete", though now that makes sense.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (1): ryan
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (1): Sacred
somestrangeflea (1): pickemgenius
Numenorean7 (1): Adel
Sarcastro (2): JordanA24, Xdaamno
JordanA24 (3): Sarcastro, Numenorean7, Guardian

Not voting (8 ): xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras, Erg0

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[Guardian]

The people I think who are protown:

1) Zindaras
2) Sacred
3) Sarcasto

I also note how Sir T is making friends with (arguably//acknowledged, at least) the three best players in the game.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue I'm scum. I think pretty much the same goes for Sacred (asides from some small things) and I think people are about 50/50 on Sarcastro, which means that this argument could be made about 50% of this game.

Note to self

: Check post for hypocrisy (Guardian having same opinion) and check other people's opinions of this trio.

Bad argument, Guardian.

Oh? First off, there is no hypocrisy, I have no read on you Zindaras and pretty much ditto on Sacred. Secondly, you three *are* likely the best players in the game. It's awfully convenient that he finds all three of you -- and only all three of you -- to be definitely/likely pro-town.

@Flea: Good line of thinking, but I don't think a scumgroup containing players like Zindy and Sarc would be careless enough to constantly put their buddies on their pro-town lists.

@Guardian: Another good line of thinking, but in addition to Sarc's doubts, remember that in a game with 19 players (some of whom have yet to contribute at all) there are tons of relationships to examine. The pattern of contact between two specific players can be a scumtells in certain situations, but keep in mind that there are quite a few other relationships in the game that probably fall under the same parameters.

If there is something wrong with their line of thinking, how can they be good? Buddying-vibe from this.

Hm. Yeah, good point.

I disagree... I am going to want to shoot myself re-reading this game, and I know that some players aren't going to bother. Mini games used to often be less than 15 pages long -- for the whole game. Maybe that wasn't optimal either, but with days this long it just becomes impractical.

Ah, but that is mostly a personal issue.

It becomes more of a game wide issue if other people completely decide not to re-read...

Well, what do you suggest that Nab -- or better yet what do you suggest that I, Guardian, should have done? I got frustrated. I made lots of posts that could be seen as scummy. There was no good in game reason for my posting like that -- it was frustration with how my games were going in general, and a tense day in real life. What do you expect me to do in addressing those posts other than explaining the reasons for them?

This defense reduces the entire argument to belief. We find people to be scum based on their posting style, based on their behaviour, based on their arguments. How can we seriously analyze play when behaviour can retroactively be excused by saying you made a mistake? If arguments lead to trust, then it is folly to trust that the bad arguments are mistakes...it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't really understand how this jibes with:

Considering my paragraph above, what do you think I should have done instead? Or should do? I have explained it to the best of my ability -- should I have just ignored it?

I think "It was a mistake" is just simply not an argument. You have to be able to sufficiently explain your mindset at that point in the game.

That, since I believe I have done so.

Mea culpa,

in itself

, is not an argument. It is an explanation. An explanation that cannot possibly be taken at face value.

OK, that is true.

In my opinion, doing a mea culpa infers that you're completely conceding the point, except that you don't wish to accept the consequences of the concession, which makes it quite scummy.

But that contrasts with the above -- neither me nor NabNab did a mea culpa by itself -- we both explained why we made the mistakes we did. It seems like you are on both sides of the fence on this -- at the very least you are being quite unclear.

I have issues with this response. You made a long joke about how you have us all fooled etc etc.

That's what I do.

Scum joke more than town, and I have no idea of your playing style so I am not sure I can take at face value "that's what I do".

We have no way of knowing your alignment. It may not be pro-town. Leading the town is scummy, because the town is basically risking the game on your alignment.

Wait, wait, wait. Leading the town is scummy because it means the town is risking the game on my alignment? For one, risking the entire game is horribly overstating the matter.

Ok, I exaggurated.

There are not many successes in scum leading town.

Oh no? Is that, in point of fact, true?? I would be surprised.

For two, I really don't see how it makes me scummy. I mean, seriously, this looks like you're arguing it's a null tell to me.

It makes you look scummy, because you are asking for trust. Just like you don't like mea culpas because they ask for trust, asking to lead the town is asking for trust. I don't like it .

You agree scum leadership is bad -- why should the town follow you when we have no idea of your alignment?

You're putting the problem with me when the problem you say there is lies with the rest of the town. Me leading the town is a good thing for me, regardless of my alignment.

Is it, even? If you are scum, it definitely is. If you are town and have excellent reads, it is. If you are town and have good/OK/bad reads it probably isn't.

From my perspective, only if you are town and have great reads on who is scum is it good for me to have you lead the town. Only if you are scum, or if you are town and have great reads on who is scum is it good for you to have you lead the town.

In sum, present cases. If they make sense, and we start finding scum with them, go ahead and lead. If not, I don't like people taking a "leader" role "just because".

The town should analyze me and decide whether or not I'm scum based on my play. But that's their task, not mine.

Ok. I am part of this town. I have no read of you. You could just as easily be town or scum. I don't want people trusting you so implicitly, because unless you are town and have great reads, that is bad for ME because it is bad for the town.

And the town should follow me because I'm town. D'oh.

You say how it isn't your problem, you say you aren't asking for trust, and then in a joke you obviously do ask for trust and say we should let you lead. It isn't necessarily scummy, but I really don't like it.

IGMEOY

.

Adel actually makes a good point here. Another "point" to stopping this complete player lists. I don't like how your complete response to this post is to say, in effect, "eh, don't worry, I'm here so it's OK." Again, you are asking us to trust you implicitly when we as of yet
have no good reason to do so.

Again, this is something you have to think about.

And I have.

Why should we let an opinion be safe?

We shouldn't -- but that doesn't meant that player lists are a good thing! You are chaning the subject.

Bandwagoning on someone being scum is the same as bandwagoning on someone being town.

O.o

An opinion is only as safe as the town allows it to be.

This sentence contributes nothing to player lists being a good thing.

Hmm... I was thinking I'd be agreeing with you that Adel was buddying up -- but here you attack for a completely different reason. What is it with you and not allowing players to acknowledge mistakes and reconsider things? I find this misguided/scummy.

I felt Adel was really eager there, with the whole "Good jorb, Guardian" thing and whatnot.

Ummm, I did too -- but you DID NOT say that was why you found her post scummy. You didn't like it because of the hypocrisy.

It didn't jive, as they say. Too much "Whoops, mistake, let's get off this subject". Too quick, too hasty.

Yes. That was your argument. Mine was that she was buddying up. Yours was that she was hypocritical. I don't like how you are trying to play this off as if we agree.

IsGMEOY

s=still.

Also, seriously, not everything I point out is a scumtell. I do not believe everyone I ask questions of is scum.

That's fine, me too.

I do not necessarily think that everyone who practices mea culpa is scum, I think mea culpa is a horrible argument that scum like to make and everyone who goes all "Mistake, mistake, whoops, let's get off the subject" can expect heavy poking.

Here you are being very unclear again. You implicitly imply that mea culpa with reasons is OK -- and then here you attack it full out.

I may prod and poke the people I think are scum, but that doesn't mean that every time I prod and poke someone, I think they are scum.

k...

I think you're reading a wee bit too much aggression into my play, which may be part due to the fact that you don't know me and how I (can) play, and which also may be part due to the fact that I'm having a lot of fun (maybe even too much fun).

This paragraph means nothing to me. Basically, you're trying to give a very vague meta reason that is very vaguely saying that my read is off and that I should be less suspicious of you.

IdGMEOY

d=definitely.

[Guardian]

In my experience, and from what I have heard from other's experiences, scum are far more likely to make jokes. It just happens.

[Guardian]

Sarcastro, could you also respond to my questions/comments to you? They are also but a few, and I would appreciate it .

[Guardian]

I still don't think Sarcastro is scum. And it cracks me up a little to know that he will think this post is scummy.

Does it crack you up to know that I find it scummy? Why point that out? Moreover, why make a post

just

to point that out?

[Guardian]

for now on, talking about relationships between living players is a HUGE scumtell

Adel is smarter than this. I think. I think her whole theory is meant to hinder the town. She has a history of bad theories, but this one just stinks.

Now I am the one who is guilty of poor writing. I think that you and NabNab have a high enough opinion of me to try to get me killed if you are scum. My mislynch would be a scum tell on both of you if you advocated for it.

Saying that lynching you is a scumtell is... you guessed it, a scumtell.

Guardian is good at making long rambling posts without dropping tells, but for most scum frequent posting of long length is a dicey proposition at best.

I'm not sure if that meta is true, but if so then that's great. Maybe my avatar will become true. In any case, I'm not scum, and if you're not finding tells... Why find me scummy? Especially since you were just buddying up to me a few posts back....

I still don't think Sarcastro is scum. And it cracks me up a little to know that he will think this post is scummy.

Does it crack you up to know that I find it scummy?

No, because I think you are scum in this game. That you think so I find scummy.

Why point that out? Moreover, why make a post

just

to point that out?

Mostly to get a post like your's out of someone. thanks for playing

So you were baiting for a null-reaction? You

do

realize how incredibly scummy your posts was, right?

If you are honestly analyzing my most, and you are town, and you are not Sarcasto, you won't find my post scummy.

Oh, and why am I allowed to find your post scummy, while Guardian is not? I realise that you think I'm pro-town and that Guardian is scum, but the mere fact that you think that I have a justifiable or at least understandable reason for finding some of your posts scummy implies that at least some other people should be able to without being scum. Unless, of course, you know of some trait I have (that you can confidently say nobody else in this game has) that would make me consider something scummy when it's not, while nobody else other than scum would.

^he said it as well as I can.

But it is the perfect material for someone trying to push a fabricated and insincere case.

It is also perfect material for me to push a case based on evidence because I think you are scum and being very obvious about covering it up. You haven't acted like a townie at all this game. At all. If this is you "changing your playstyle" stop it. Like ten pages ago. I doubt it, though.


Jordan and SirT are still on my radar. But congratulations, Adel, you get my vote back. You've

earned

it.

unvote: JordanA24 vote: Adel

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, Guardian
Darko (2): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo
Guardian (1): Sacred
somestrangeflea (1): pickemgenius
Numenorean7 (1): Adel
Sarcastro (2): JordanA24, Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Numenorean7

Not voting (8 ): xyzzy, Honary Hitchhiker, darko, Sir Tornado, NabakovNabakov, somestrangeflea , Zindaras, Erg0

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

[Guardian]

unvote:Num7 vote:Guardian

NabakovNabakov (after he gets back) and Num7 are my two other best guesses for scum in addition to Guardian. I am pretty much sold on Guardian.

You might want to go back to the store and make a return....

It

was

a nice OMGUS quickvote though .



As this day has reached 25 pages, I am beginning to really understand Sarcastro's mentality. I would be quite happy with an Adel or Jordan lynch unless something better comes up... assuming the lurkers came out of hiding.

PEG, make a long post where you take a strong stance with good reasons for it. On literally anything (game related, obv...).

[Guardian]

I think I have you nailed. And I think your scumbuddies are making short little precise posts and you realize that I just called out their major tell. Everything about your play in this game seems really scummy to me right now.

If you are town, I throw my hands up in frustration.

Why talk with me about how we are town together and we can teamwork and all that, and then agree with me so quickly about player lists, and make comments about how great and thoughtful my analysis is, and then do this? I can only conclude that you are responding to me continuing to find you scummy -- both in the long run, and in that quick post, you definitely seem to be OMGUSing

You are either playing terribly as a townie right now, or are scum.

[Guardian]

Like I would stick my neck out like this if I were scum? Bull. Especially thanks the games we have had together, your case against me reads like a list of everything I've been accused of in our other games. Where I was town. Like I am in this one.

What's sad is that I am actually willing to consider that you are just being terrible town here.

.


I have no meta-read on you

as scum

. And you say you are changing your playstyle around in this game and others. I do not have a meta-read on you as you claim. I reject your meta-defense.

What I do know is that many of the arguments you make in this game are absolutely terrible. You have flip-flopped on me more than a fish, you have been inconsistent in other areas, and your case on me is really, really bad.

[Guardian]

Also, I can't believe I didn't notice this immediately: "Like I would stick my neck out like this if I were scum? Bull." is absolutely classic WIFOM....

[Guardian]

Plus you have an avatar the says "Obviously not townie" and "totally not scum".

and

your case on me is really really bad.

and

what you reject as a meta-defense I accept as a meta-attack. You helped, again, to illustrate why my opinion of you is probably correct.

I don't see that, but go ahead silly one.

My vote on you has nothing to do with your opinion of me, but how you support it and rationalize it.

Hm. Well, that sounds nice, but is it

true?

Sarcasto also thinks I'm scum. His criticisms of me are new, he finds

different

things scummy about me, as he should since I am playing with a different style in an open game setting.

Just because a game is open doesn't mean that it isn't mafia. Open games are not

that

different from closed ones.

You, however, keep finding the same things scummy about me that other people did in our other game.

Terrible arguments, flip flopping, and buddying up

are

scummy. If you are town, stop!

The exception would be when you accused me of buddying up to me, but you got that accusation from when Scarasto accused me of it first.

If he accused you of that first, I missed it. I pointed that out in my huge post on page... eh whatever my first huge post.

I think you were hungry to find a novel piece of evidence to use against me.

I am always hungry for evidence to use against my top suspects. FOS is named for a reason -- my suspicion is focused on you, and when you do something scummy, hell yeah I am going to point it out.

I love the direction of the OMGUS accusations here.

This is what I saw happen:

Player 1:

This is the beginning of a case against Player 2

Player 2:

I think Player 1 is scum, vote Player 1

Player 1:

vote player 2

Player 2:

OMGUS!

Player 1:

Wait a second, I was in the middle of building a case against you, and you are accusing

me

of making a OMGUS vote? WTF?

Again, that sounds nice, but is it

true?

No, from my pov. I have found you scummy... all game. Even in the random phase when I didn't have a good reason, and said you were scummy just off of a vibe, and got harshly attacked for it.

So... WTF?

Yeah...

Guardian was gung-ho about his case for Jordon, but it started to stall, I made a case against him, and then he voted for me.

Sounds nice, but is it

true?

No. For about... 10 pages? Maybe 5? I have found you as scummy as Jordan. You've done more than enough to tip the scales.

Now he is accusing me of making an OMGUS vote. Hypocrite.

I am accusing you. I am not being hypocritical.

Also, I can't believe I didn't notice this immediately: "Like I would stick my neck out like this if I were scum? Bull." is absolutely classic WIFOM....

And it happens to be totally accurate.

If by "and it happens to be totally accurate" you mean that it IS classic WIFOM, then yeah. I highly doubt that you would alter your play so significantly if scum.


Die scum. If you are playing this horribly as townie, I want you gone so you don't mess up

endgame

day two.

[Guardian]

Indeed. PEG, do you feel your vote is best placed on SSF at the moment? If so, why?

If not, might there be another player worthy of your vote?

[Guardian]

I would add peg to that, below xyzzy, he is here but isn't saying anything.

[Guardian]

I see a strong link between SirT and Jordan. SirT has never said anything definitive about Jordan, and Jordan has never said anything about SirT.

Err... I don't think this is a very solid reason... I mean... there are a good deal of players out there I, for one, have said nothing about. Does that establish a connection between me and them?
Maybe you do see a link, but I sincerely doubt it's a strong one, especially since it seems to be based mainly on a misunderstanding?

Yeah, it is probably not as strong as I thought -- but it really started bugging me when he would not comment about her substantively.

I also note how Sir T is making friends with (arguably//acknowledged, at least) the three best players in the game.

Arguably indeed. I know I'm a good player, but best is kind of a stretch at this point. In addition, Sir T wouldn't know that anyway.

Zindie sure heralded it...

I think the town can improve its chances of not finding scum by not being lazy.

Not finding scum? Spellcheck for the win? Or slip?

Spellcheck wouldn't catch that, heh. Just a slip.

Sacred's 468 was a reasonable response to me. I still have some disagreements, but I feel some of the issues there are irrelevant/are becoming irrelevant, so no desire to go through that post at this time.

Whatever disagreements you may have, feel free to point them out now, so we don't end up later with stuff like "I've been suspicious of her from the very beginning: look there, that post I disagree with etc."
In other words, I want everything in the open now, so we don't trip on it later in the game. On the other hand, if you feel like it's not important for the game, then you basically have nothing else "against" me.

I have nothing against you at this point.

I still am not sure of Sacred's alignment. Putting it down as surely town seems like a mistake to me.

First of all, no one said that I should be labeled as surely town.

See Sir T...?

I believe "pro-town" was the best I got so far, which is not the same as "town".
Secondly, you say you're not sure of my alignment. Very well, only scum can be sure of someone's alignment.

Yeah. I'm not sure. So why do you keep commenting here...

However, your reluctance to put me in any category as well as your voiced uncertainties look to me like you have something else that's bugging you about me, which is why I want you to tell me what it is that you find questionable about me.
Because I know how scum can "breadcrumb" their accusation against a player: "I have a gut feeling about her", "she's not quite cleared in my eyes", "I'm not sure about her", "I don't know what to say" etc. that later in the game allow that scum to say "Oh, but I've always suspected her! Look how I've been saying it since forever."

Maybe some of the examples I used aren't the best, but I hope you understand what I mean.

I understand what you mean but that's not what I am doing, and you semi-assuming that I am doing it is odd... I just don't have a read on you.

Sir Tornado, this does nothing to change that if you are scum, you just went out of your way to say that three of the best players in the game are very likely to be town.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you meant to say here. What was the purpose of this statement?

To point out buddying-up.

What if Sir T is town?

Then his analysis of those players was honest, not buddying-up, and I was wrong.

What happens to his list then?

If we trust Sir T's reads, they are probably town. If we don't, then we don't know what their alignments are.

What alignments are the other three? How do they change according to Sir T's?

If he is scum, I think 2/3 at absolute worst would be town, and probably 3/3.

Define scumtells. I am not trying to be cute, go ahead, what are scumtells that might make up a good day one case.

I can see where you're coming from with this question, but that still doesn't mean that talking about scumtells like that is good for the town.

OK, but scumtells result from player interactions... which Adel wants us to stop talking about...

And I'm not buying the "lay a trap thing". It all looks staged and fake and wrong.

Yup, me too.

Pending on some replies I should receive to this post, my vote will be going to you.

And to my last post on her -- don't forget to see how she responds to that .

Even in the random phase when I didn't have a good reason, and said you were scummy just off of a vibe, and got harshly attacked for it.

Even if Adel turns up to be scum, you still can't chalk up your initial statement that she's scum as anything else but random

If she turns up scum, I am going to notch up how much I trust my gut. She seemed scummy early on, and if she ends up being scum I am going to happy with myself, and you can't take that away from me .

With all due respect, this looks like boasting. No offense.

Well, not if she is town. The reason I brought this up at all is because she said I was OMGUS-ing her -- which obviously I was not.

Lynching lurkers is hardly ever a good thing for a number of reasons

You'll see how quickly you change that opinion once you start losing games because of lurkers. Because lurkers are one thing, inactives are another. The latter should be replaced. As for the former, I'm starting to think they should be lynched.

Agree...

Note that I'm not saying we should start lynching people in this game. But theoretically speaking, I've recently had a conversation with a player that convinced me of his lynch-all-lurkers policy.

Yup. Xyzzy and PEG need to post content. PEG, just because you said that you don't post content doesn't mean I am going to let you get off without posting content -- it just doesn't work that way.

To me, that is just like how I am not going to put up with Adel saying that we can't talk about the players interacting -- she/you can think these things all you want, but I am not going to abide by them.

It looks to me like you're grasping at straws here in an attempt to keep your vote on darko. However, I really don't see a case here, only misreads and misinterpretations. Perhaps you could make your case clearer? And maybe also take into consideration the other posts darko has made?

Sadly, YB has a meta of making pretty shitty cases.

[Guardian]

Pick em, who is your biggest suspect right now? Adel, I take it? Why, what reasons? Describe in a long post. "I don't usually explain myself" doesn't cut it with me .

[Guardian]

Adel, please respond to my last post in our chain of posts about the issue and to Sacred's points.

I have more to say after you do so.

[Guardian]

My 614, her 639.

My "is it true?" questions may seem rhetorical, but really -- it would be great if you did try and respond to them and to everything, even everything that is not question, and at the very least respond to the post as a whole.

I want to know what you think of my stance, and what your stances are.


Sacred also, in 639, doesn't ask you any (or at least not many at all) specific questions, but brings up a few things that you would do well to address, though much of what I want addressed from that may come out in your addressing my 614.

[Guardian]

You are most are responding to a part of the post -- I want more .

[Guardian]

OK Adel. That is reasnoable. As you requested, here are some things I would like you answer. I feel less comfortable deconstructing Sacred's post, and the things I was looking for from that may come from here, so this will do for now.

For the below, even if I don't ask why/why not, assume that I would like you to explain your rationale behind your opinions.

Plus you have an avatar the says "Obviously not townie" and "totally not scum".

and

your case on me is really really bad.

and

what you reject as a meta-defense I accept as a meta-attack. You helped, again, to illustrate why my opinion of you is probably correct.

I don't see that, but go ahead silly one.

My vote on you has nothing to do with your opinion of me, but how you support it and rationalize it.

Hm. Well, that sounds nice, but is it

true?

So, your voting me has nothing to do with my opinion of you? At all?

Sarcasto also thinks I'm scum. His criticisms of me are new, he finds

different

things scummy about me, as he should since I am playing with a different style in an open game setting.

Just because a game is open doesn't mean that it isn't mafia. Open games are not

that

different from closed ones.

You, however, keep finding the same things scummy about me that other people did in our other game.

Terrible arguments, flip flopping, and buddying up

are

scummy. If you are town, stop!

Do you think you are or are not guilty of these things? Why or why not?

The exception would be when you accused me of buddying up to me, but you got that accusation from when Scarasto accused me of it first.

If he accused you of that first, I missed it. I pointed that out in my huge post on page... eh whatever my first huge post.

Do you maintain that he indeed accuse you of this first, or was I the one who brought this up?

I think you were hungry to find a novel piece of evidence to use against me.

I am always hungry for evidence to use against my top suspects. FOS is named for a reason -- my suspicion is focused on you, and when you do something scummy, hell yeah I am going to point it out.

Is this reasonable of me? Don't you think you gave me evidence I obviously was going to be looking for?

I love the direction of the OMGUS accusations here.

This is what I saw happen:

Player 1:

This is the beginning of a case against Player 2

Player 2:

I think Player 1 is scum, vote Player 1

Player 1:

vote player 2

Player 2:

OMGUS!

Player 1:

Wait a second, I was in the middle of building a case against you, and you are accusing

me

of making a OMGUS vote? WTF?

Again, that sounds nice, but is it

true?

No, from my pov. I have found you scummy... all game. Even in the random phase when I didn't have a good reason, and said you were scummy just off of a vibe, and got harshly attacked for it.

You stand by that your vote of me was not at all OMGUS? Do you think my vote on you was OMGUS?

Guardian was gung-ho about his case for Jordon, but it started to stall, I made a case against him, and then he voted for me.

Sounds nice, but is it

true?

No. For about... 10 pages? Maybe 5? I have found you as scummy as Jordan. You've done more than enough to tip the scales.

Considering this, do you think that I truly just slipped on you because Jordan got hard? Do you think I am just going for an easy target here?

Now he is accusing me of making an OMGUS vote. Hypocrite.

I am accusing you. I am not being hypocritical.

How am I being hypocritical?

Also, I can't believe I didn't notice this immediately: "Like I would stick my neck out like this if I were scum? Bull." is absolutely classic WIFOM....

And it happens to be totally accurate.

If by "and it happens to be totally accurate" you mean that it IS classic WIFOM, then yeah. I highly doubt that you would alter your play so significantly if scum.

Do you maintain that you would change your play that much if you were scum? Do you think that you saying that isn't WIFOM?


Do you stand by that pointing out interactions between players is a scumtell?

Do you stand by that my mislynching you would be a scumtell?


Lastly, concisely repeat (or refer me to one post where you have done so )your case against me, and say if you still find me most scummy and why/why not.

[Guardian]

V/LA posting in all threads: Hey, I might post here once or twice more before going -- but FYI tomorrow I am leaving on a V/LA Thursday-Sunday. Expect me to check this and all threads Sunday evening. Hope you manage without me .

[Guardian]

I stayed an extra day... Hi thread, I'm glad I was missed <3.

I note with extreme displeasure Adel's not responding to my questions. I await your response, Adel.

I note with some sadness Sir T's finding me to be one of the most likely players to be scum.

I note with reserved optimism that I think I agree with The Fonz on ryan. I really don't like how ryan tried to tie me showing up town (which I would/will) with him not being scum in 684.

Mod

: Prod/replace Honary Hitchiker and Fernando. It is a travesty to lynch someone while certain players have not contributed all game. I believe that a deadline is also ill advised considering the circumstances.

Also, after hitting preview, ryan, that is quite curious, as I arrived home about an hour ago....

[Guardian]

Um, I don't take this as a scum tell necesarily, but wow....

I just set hide online status to Yes.

[Guardian]

You seem to be sidestepping my scum reads. You state here that if I am revealed as town, you will accept my town reads as town town too.

I said that we should do so assuming we trust your reads. I

never

said that we have any basis to trust your reads. All we really would know for sure is that it was you as town doing your best -- to what extent those reads are accurate would be up for discussion.

At this point, considering you have me as one of your top suspects, I am not sure that I would be comfortable putting much stock in your reads if you died -- I know for certain you are wrong about

me

, at the least .

But what of the people I listed as scum? Would you accept that they are scum when I come up as town?

Again, if we accept your reads, then I would definitely advocate looking at those you found scummy with scrutiny.

If not, then why not?

If I felt you were making really good reads (including on those who were town), I would look with suspicion on those you found scummy. However, if I didn't trust your reads in general, I would have no reason to think you were doing any better at identifying scum than identifying likely townies.

[Guardian]

Ryan and Num, I asked you both the same question in my post on page 23 that I am not sure if you have addressed -- if you have, please direct me to your response, and if you have not, please do so.

mod

, I respectfully ask for a deadline removal -- I am a big fan of deadlines, really, but not when players have been allowed to lurk for a month without replacement. It isn't fair to those who have contributed for those roles to get a free pass day one.

[Guardian]

FOS: Erg0

.

[Guardian]

I agree completely with Erg0's reasoning.

IGMEOY List:

pickem

Guardian

darko

Copied from my old list

Exactly what do you agree with here? And why does that make pickem go on your IGMEOY list? Are these your main suspects?

[Guardian]

SSF, that alone is why you think pickem is suspect?

Also, is that list your list of your main suspects?

[Guardian]

Why am I on there, again? I am thinking maybe I should be actually worried, as it seems that about 10 people have me on their short list .

[Guardian]

Guardian: I didn't quote but answered your question above (in case you missed it)

Yes -- and thanks -- I was waiting to respond until Num had addressed it or pointed that out to me.

I am interested to know what others think of ST's 770 and if you find PEG scummy for that...

I don't want to bias anyone's opinion, but I find the argument to be terrible.... What I find even worse is that apparently some people, such as SSF, are buying into that argument and thinking PEG is scummy for it without question...

[Guardian]

Guardian's recent posts look overdefensive to me.

Explain.

Flea's are giving me scum vibes (Which admittedly they weren't/I didn't notice before).

Quite.

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

[Guardian]

Flea, do you realize, except for my paraphrasing ryan to try and eliminate the confusion about what I thought he was trying to say, that your entire "case" on me is based on a timespan of about 6 hours on Monday June 16? And that I've explained multiple times how I was just having a bad day on that day? Literally, I want an answer, did you realize this?

That dosen't clear you in any way (Note I'm not defending flea here). I'd assume there'd be more scum tells on a bad day if you were scum, since if you were scum you wouldn't be concentrating as much, and they'd be mixed in with bad arguments. If we found an increase in scum tells, that'd technically be a scum tell itself and therefore I think you're worth investigating

That doesn't sit right with me. I would expect an increase in scum tells from me on a bad day, yes, but I would expect such regardless of my alignment.

I really am going to go insane if I have to deal with that 6 hour span for this whole game.

Hitting preview, it appears that ssf is likeminded.... Wow.

[Guardian]

You can't choose what we are and aren't allowed to use as evidence against you.

And, to answer your earlier question, no,

I didn't realise that at the time, but that doesn't change anything

IMO.

I can't choose what evidence you decide to use, but I can choose to find you scummy for using it.

FOS: ssf

.

People I would be happy lynching today now include:

ryan - I don't like his defense/responses over the last few pages, and I really hate that post I quoted (and yes I realize it was a response, I don't like it

as

a response).
Jordan - I've made this clear
ssf - What I just quoted stands my hairs on end, and I also hate how he agreed with ST's logic about PEG like a nice lil sheep.
Erg0 - He started the bad logic against PEG. He sounded too cocky/confident, and it struck me entirely the wrong way.
Adel - I've made this clear.


IGMEOY:
PEG - Even though you don't, I agree with Adel, in that short posts are bad. Make cases, make definitive stands.
Zindaras - The fact that I get no vibe at all from him disturbs me.
The replacements and future replacements. Lurking through day 1

should not

equate to you getting a free pass through the game.



This is more or less in order, but Adel

really

depends on how she answers my questions, and I am not unvoting her until she does. Here is one more for you, Adel: What do you think about PEG's attack on you, and do you maintain that having short posts is scummy?



I might as well explain now: why PEG isn't being scummy or hypocritical or anything, and Erg0, then Sir T's attack of him was quite frankly BS:

PEG noticed Adel saying X was scummy.
Adel did X, and continued to say doing X was scummy.
PEG noticed the hypocrisy, and voted her.

PEG does X.
PEG

never

agreed that X was scummy, and

in no way

has to agree that doing X is scummy for him to find Adel scummy because of her hypocrisy....

[Guardian]

Guardian: I find it REAL interesting that I'm at the top of my list, yet Adel is getting a chance to "answer your questions to get unvoted" Thanks for the chance to answer questions (such as the one I extended you earlier)

I find it REAL interesting that my 1-2-3 responded immediately and almost in order.

On the questions -- I don't think I have any major uncertainties where you are concerned. The things I am interested in have been asked and answered. What I suggest you do is make your top suspects known and build reasonable cases on them.

That's a pretty broad list of people you'd be happy to lynch there Guardian.

I don't think 5 is that broad in a game with 4 scum, especially since I don't bat 1.000 when scumhunting.

Did you feel the same way when Sarcastro made a list of five potential scum and wished for a pentuple day-vig?

What? I don't know what you are seeing that I'm not, because ST's logic makes perfect sense to me. If anyone can explain to me why it doesn't, please do.

I

just

explained this, in the same post you quoted.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Are people no longer allowed to agree on things?

Zindaras and I had an exchange on this earlier -- no opinion should be a "safe" opinion, and people were

never

allowed to mindlessly agree with things without thinking out the logic behind them for themselves.

If there are no scum in the three above I will be quite surprised.

[Guardian]

I introduced the word I think -- I may be overreaching in doing so, but that to me seemed like the substance of his argument -- no?

[Guardian]

I introduced the word I think -- I may be overreaching in doing so, but that to me seemed like the substance of his argument -- no?

Nope. The only thing he is saying is that Adel "claimed" scum.

I just re-read PEG's argument, and I definitely think he is attacking Adel for her hypocrisy despite his not using the specific word "hypocrisy".

[Guardian]

I find it REAL interesting that my 1-2-3 responded immediately and almost in order.

So it was some sort of scum conspiracy? I don't understand how this could be anything but coincidence.

The order is coincidence, but all three of them responded with short jumpy posts as soon as I accused them. For each of them individually, that is noteworthy.

Because Guardian's current scumlist seems to be about 6 people.

Five, actually. Do you have a problem with that? Is throwing a wide net scummy? If so, I ask you the same question I asked Jordan -- did you find Sarcastro suspicious when he did the exact same thing and wished he had a pentuple day vig?

But, I don't like Guardian saying PEG voted Adel for hypocrisy. That is simply not true.

I don't think that his reason being Adel's being hypocritical is at all a stretch -- I don't think you can say that is an unreasonable interpretation. I think it is most likely the correct interpretation, too -- I am interested in what PEG has to say on this.

Sir T, I answered your questions from 667, I am interested in why they were asked (what you were trying to get out of them) and if you DID get anything out of my answering them. Could you enlighten me?


And Jordan, please answer my question of you. Also, please explain how PEG is guilty of hypocrisy. I think

Adel

is, and PEG

is not

. !?

[Guardian]

I don't think that his reason being Adel's being hypocritical is at all a stretch

Considering that PEG hasn't said that he voted for Adel because of her being hypocritical, and the fact that you haven't given any quotes which hint that this is the case, I'm afraid it is.

Hm. I am going out, but I felt a

strong

need to address this.

1) Look up what being hypocritical

means

.
2) Read through PEG's argument and see exactly what he is accusing Adel of.
3) Realize how it is not a stretch to say he is accusing her of being hypocritical.
4) Profit!

I really, really don't like your sheep-ness here, in both agreeing with the argument and disagreeing with my defense of it.

---


Sir T -- do you want me to respond to the rest of 667? I just replied to the part you re-quoted, since I assumed that was all you cared for me to respond to .

---

Jordan, you've responded to ryan's question, would you respond to both of mine, please?

[Guardian]

I'm arguing that PEG voted for Adel because she called herself scum, which is hinted at much more by his posts than hypocrisy is.

SSF, look --

how

exactly did she call herself scum? Might she not have called herself scum by saying one thing was scummy and then

hypocritically

doing the very thing that she said was a scumtell? (

Hint: yes, it most certainly can be interpreted that way, and it is imo the most reasonable way to interpret it.

)

SSF, I highly question your understanding of the meaning of hypocrisy if you do not acknowledge that the juxtaposition of Adel's two statements makes her look quite hypocritical.



You, particularly, are being quite thick here -- though I don't excuse Sir T and others who continue to disregard the possibility that he was attacking Adel for her hypocrisy...

[Guardian]

I'm sorry. It was not obvious, and I don't believe you.

.....

You spend the better part of your last 4 pages constructing this argument but never once mentioned the word "hypocritical" before Guardian egged you on to it? Your argument was (and, as of this post, is) that "Adel claimed scum", which I don't think actually happened.

He was pointing out that through being hypocritical, she was claiming scum.

...........

PS: I think this argument is getting ridiculous. We are all repeating exactly the same thing for the past page or so.

It has been ridiculous since it started. Adel was being hypocritical. Now PEG has come and stated the obvious, that he was in fact pointing out hypocrisy...

PS: I think this argument is getting ridiculous. We are all repeating exactly the same thing for the past page or so.

I know, that's why I opted to kill it.

......
PEG pretty much killed it when he came in and confirmed that he was in fact pointing out hypocrisy. Unless you don't believe him too. But you do believe him, you unFOS'd him...

I note how your vote is still on me, even though you freaking

unFOS'd

PEG.


Erg0, I don't see how she wasn't being hypocritical. She says short posts are scummy. She then makes short posts. She was disregarding her own logic and being hypocritical and scummy. I don't quite see how this is analogoous to affirming the consequent.

*assumed: being scummy is scummy=bad=anti-town=don't do it.
Adel says if you are Making short posts(A) then you are scummy(B).
Adel Makes short posts(A).

B doesn't precede A, she does A, B is implied, and she is being hypocritical because she is going against her own observation of what is scummy -- and doing so on purpose.



Adel, I said almost the exact same thing to you in theoville -- that I think you are scum so I won't bother to respond to you.

I haven't heard a good basis for me being scum recently, and I haven't heard one that I haven't tried to address all game, and... bah! You don't have a terrific track record of finding scum.... and I am getting a slightly more townlike read on you than I was getting before, but if you are going to refuse to answer my questions and help me get inside your head, I am fairly content in leaving my vote on you for a while.

I would love to hear from Zindaras about all this as he is back from vacation (enjoyed, I hope? ), NabNab hasn't reared his head in a while, and Sarcastro and Sacred have both stayed out of this hypocrisy debate and I'd like to hear their opinions on it.

mod

: any success on replacements? I think Ether might be interested in replacing in -- she expressed interest in playing in a game with Zindaras. Heaven knows

why

, but I see no reason to not take advantage of her lapse. jk .

[Guardian]

How about this, then: In my opinion the best fake claim for scum to use is doctor. If I now claim doctor, does it necessarily follow that I am calling myself scum?

That isn't analogous, look at the phrasing you used.

If you said: In my opinion, claiming doctor is scummy. And followed that with claiming doctor, it would follow that you are being hypocritical, and calling yourself scummy.

[Guardian]

I think posting short careful posts is the safest way for scum to post.

Do you see the word "scummy" in there? It's you that's paraphrasing, not me.

OMG. If she never said that.... Then.... A lot of what I said is incorrect. I thought she said specifically that.

[Guardian]

I literally am having trouble believing that SSF and Sir T are voting me as a result of the last few pages.

I don't see how SSF can find PEG less scummy as a result of the exchange and find me more scummy. I really just don't

understand

-- I interpreted PEG correctly (maybe we were slightly off and Adel was affirming the consequent, whatever), he confirmed that I was interpreting him correctly, SSF believes him and

unFOSes

him, and then votes me. Explain, I really, really am not getting it at all.

Sir T at least is consistent in that he is suspicious of both of us....

This bears repeating: I

literally

am having trouble

believing

that SSF and Sir T are voting me as a result of the last few pages.

[Guardian]

Who said my vote is staying on you because of the last few pages?

You did. At the very least, you strongly, strongly implied it in the post you voted me, 856.

Eh?

[Guardian]

No, that's why the vote was put on you. It has no relevance* whatsoever on why it's still there.

Ah I see. So, your reasons for voting me have nothing to do with why you are

still

voting me. And instead, your argument relies on June 16.

That is

such

bullshit . You take 6 hours of spammy posts which I probably put about 1 hour total, maximum, thinking about, and you disregard my pbpas, disregard all my arguments after that.... Yeah, I'm really not liking your reasoning

at all

.

[Guardian]

We are probably getting a 1-week extension. Even if not, I see no reason at this point to vote me over ryan solely because we have 3 days left -- like half the town is not voting, and it is not unlikely that some of them would consider voting ryan, myself included.

Don't you find it a bit odd that ryan has been on and off my scumlist all game, and is currently my #1? You are fishing for a pairing that isn't there.

One thing I will say for the record, me coming up town does nothing to prove ryan's innocence, as ryan, in his response, tried to imply.

[Guardian]

We are probably getting a 1-week extension. Even if not, I see no reason at this point to vote me over ryan solely because we have 3 days left -- like half the town is not voting, and it is not unlikely that some of them would consider voting ryan, myself included.

Don't you find it a bit odd that ryan has been on and off my scumlist all game, and is currently my #1? You are fishing for a pairing that isn't there.

One thing I will say for the record, me coming up town does nothing to prove ryan's innocence, as ryan, in his response, tried to imply.

I have already said that I am willing to vote ryan if there is a realistic possibility of him being lynched. At the moment, there appears to be none.

He may be your number 1 suspect, but interestingly, we are 3 days from deadline and you still haven't voted him. What good is a suspect list if you aren't going to vote for your suspect at the end of the day?

I want to draw a response out of Adel. Her responding to those questions will really help me get a better read on her.

I am saddened that she has irl issues, apparently, but nevertheless I don't want to let her peter out the day lurking. Also, it is not the end of the day yet....

I don't like how you are trying to force me vote .



Also, again, where the hell is NabNab?

[Guardian]

Guardian putting me at #1 on his list and not voting me is interesting indeed and since I came to his aid when everyone was piling on I find it funny that I'm not given a chance to defend myself in his eyes.

Defending me is, alas, not a town tell. I have fallen victim to that before -- oh, someone defends me, they must be town, but scum can do that just as easily as townies can.

I asked you to make very clear who your main suspects are and why -- all I am getting is that you think Adel has been scummy enough to be lynched?

Would anyone be up for a ssf wagon? Num, you just moved off, I would be willing to move back on -- his recent actions just don't make any

sense

to me.

Failing that, Adel seems like not a bad choice, as does ryan.



I am a very poor choice . I want to re-read and take a closer look at where Sir T's suspiciousness of me started and what his reasonings for it were...

Sacred I definitely don't even remember why she is voting me, and wonder if she might change it.

Adel is very misguided. Her mislynching townies isn't really a scum-tell, though -- I look for her reasons behind it.

SSF, again I am completely baffled as to why is is voting me.


It is ironic that I joined this because I like deadlines and am now up for a deadline mislynch. It is so frustrating that NabNab goes on vacation and Fernando and Honary Hitchhiker literally lurk

all game

and there is no chance of them being lynched, and I put all the damn effort I put into this game, and am up for lynch.


Sir T is voting me for some non-existent me-ryan pairing, SSF is voting for me because I had some pretty bad irl issues and they came into the game, Adel is voting for me for ???, Sacred is voting me for ???.

Altogether I am very frustrated with the four of you . Look at the effort I have put into the game since it got out of like page 10. Lynching me is silly. Seriously, if I get mislynched today, I hope we lose.

On that note, let's try (although this deadline makes it very hard...) to get a full lynch wagon. Like 9 people even would be ideal.

If deadline hit right now, no one will be lynched

. Lawrence said it had to be at least half. So, let's try and get something going.

Right now:
ssf - making no sense, sheep, bad reasons
Ryan - is striking me as trying to also force my vote, not great hunting, only suspect Adel and no clear reasons
Jordan - done nothing to assuage my suspicions, still feel bad about her
Adel - I really don't like how she is busy and "can't answer my questions or think about who to lynch". Strikes me entirely the wrong way.
Sir t- pushing the me-ryan connection way too hard when none is there.

I will probably move my vote a bit before deadline to try and get something going that makes sense, for now:

unvote vote: ryan

I would be willing to go to ssf in a heartbeat if others are interested. Adel might even get my vote at the end of the day if she continues to not be able to contribute.

-Zindaras
-YogurtBandit
-Sacred
-Adel
-darko
-NabakovNabakov
-FeRnAnDo
-Sarcastro

all really need to contribute before deadline and using all available information say who they think should go.

[Guardian]

Auspicious simulpost . Shame you have to go v/la, but you are making sense at least .

[Guardian]

And if Guardian is town? I suppose that still makes me scum right?

This has been brought up once and already responded on by me. I never said that you being town would make me innocent, I made a remark that "Oh I suppose if Guardian is innocent than I'm still scum" followed by rolling of eyes (to indicate sarcasm) You've misquoted this exchange TWICE now.

You seemed to me to be strongly implying that if I turn up town then you should look less suspicious for defending me. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment. Scum defend town for bad reasons/in a scummy way just as likely as town defend town for bad reasons/in a scummy way.

I don't think I was wrong in the general sense of your statement, but maybe you didn't go as far as to say that it would make you town, so that I do admit.

Ryan -- I read 371 also -- and I don't agree with you on Num, but you also seem to agree ssf is an appealing candidate. Why do you currently think that Adel is better?

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (3): ryan, pickemgenius, Numenorean7
Darko (3): YoghurtBandit, FeRnAnDo, JordanA24
Guardian (3): Adel, somestrangeflea, Sir Tornado
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (2): Sarcastro, Erg0
ryan (2): The Fonz, Guardian


Not voting (5): Ether, darko, NabakovNabakov, Zindaras, Sacred

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch. At deadline, the one with the most votes is lynched.

[Guardian]

Num -- no chance of going back to SSF? And you feel Adel is less likely scum than ryan? I don't necessarily disagree, but I'd like to hear

why

.

Ryan, why is Adel worse than SSF at this point? This directing the town into arguing with each other thing?

Jordan: Your name is gender ambiguous and I forgot . Also, love is in the air, and all. My apologies.


Ryan, by "forcing my vote" I mean both you and Sir T, mostly Sir T, are like "well, if you don't vote in such and such a way, that is scummy." It is vote directing, just like cop directing, and I don't like it. Try and sway my vote with logic as to who I should vote for, not with implications of my scumminess.

Ryan, I am serious, the eye-roll implied you thought he was being ridiculous -- and that you thought you would look more townlike if I showed up town.


Agree @ darko lurking, and the deadline sucks with this level of activity from certain players .

[Guardian]

mod

: Does Fernando

not

need to be replaced?? You asked for a Honary Replacement, I am quite confused as to why you aren't specifically searching for one for Fernando.

[Guardian]

Two quick things, I will address more in detail later:

-Sacred, though it may be wise not to leave a vote, who are you suspicious of? Just so we have something to go on, and so you've taken some sort of stand.



-Adel, most of what I want from you is your reasons for certain actions or stances. Giving me a yes/no questions is like giving someone who expected a new car a 10 year old moped.

That being said, I will see what I can convert to a yes/no format...

[Guardian]

vote: JordanA24

Why?

You mention him twice -- are those your complete reasons?

Flea marks himself as obvscum as early as post 81, where his Darko (who he isn't voting) newbteach involves telling him that "we think you're scum."

Interesting observation. I think I prefer a flea wagon over a Jordan wagon. Hmm.

Ugh. Jordan's 84 reads as a memo, which is what initially got my attention, and I like the contradiction Zindaras found in 385.

Good points.

So there's half your scumgroup by page 4. ^_^

You feel that sure? And if so, again, why not flea?

Seriously, those lesson posts are

all

getting me the wrong way. I'm looking at Nabakov's 236 and Numen's 250 toward Guardian specifically. So you're keeping track. Great. Get an opinion. (I'm aware of the votecounts; nonetheless I didn't get genuine "die scum die" or "man, your bandwagon sucks" vibes out of those advice posts.)

I too am wary of Nab.

Xdaamno's 365: "You could all be scum. (Except Flea.)" Die.

Huh?

The Guardian bandwagon is overrated. The lynch/pressure dichotomy is decent, I guess, but there's worse out there. The day-length opinion is irrelevent to scumhunting; the refusal to defend himself is plausible; the associative tell leaves me inclined to lynch Ryan first and go from there.

THANK you. You could be scum, could be town, but I agree with that, a lot, if I haven't made that obvious .

Or lynch the above players first and go from there.

Including Xdaamno?

Am I missing something?

Could you provide more detailed reasons? At a glance, your suspicions make a lot of sense, though.

I refuse to actually read Pickem's 338, but apparently he's produced such tripe as town. (Mini 451.) Urguah.

Mmmhm.

Controversial but generic strategy-wise, you're all too soft on lovers. They aren't a power role. All they do is die. It's only a matter of time. They're aren't worth protecting, not in the "scum, go nightkill someone else" sense--as a lightning rod that the doctor could use to

block

a kill, they're a bit more useful.

Agreed! Do you find Adel scummy for her "no talking about interactions" thing, also?

Anyway, I'd suggest that all lovers devise signals tonight so they can agree together on when and how to claim if one is in trouble.

Ok, sure.

Does

anyone

agree

with me that these are a bad idea? Anyone?

No. They encourage people to be completionists and take extra looks at people every once in a while, and they're great on the ego. If it comforts you, though, I'm too lazy to do them unprompted in large games. I'll consider adopting your opinion so I can be too lazy to do them prompted, too.

Hm. That makes sense, too. I think I hate these even less now.

Overall, good content, but I want more explanations (and obviously for you to finish reading ).

[Guardian]

LOS:
flea
ryan
Jordan
Adel
(List of Suspects -- I think I would be happy with lynching any of these today...)

igmeoy:
nabnab
sir t
PEG
(I've got my eye on them...)

want to hear from:
Zindaras
fernando
peg
nabnab
sarcastro
lots of people...


(I keep doing these without referring to my old ones to see if I am consistent/if names keep popping up.)

Some yes/no question for Adel may be forthcoming, if possible. I badly want explanations from her, though, not Y/N.

[Guardian]

First off,

unvote: ryan vote: SSF

. I think we are on to something here, and of my top four I want my vote here, at the moment.

---

Adel, here are some questions in your preferred format:

1) Adel, your voting me has nothing to do with my opinion of you?
2) Terrible arguments, flip flopping, and buddying up are scummy. Do you think you are or are not guilty of these things? Why or why not?
3)

I think you were hungry to find a novel piece of evidence to use against me.

I am always hungry for evidence to use against my top suspects. FOS is named for a reason -- my suspicion is focused on you, and when you do something scummy, hell yeah I am going to point it out.

Is this reasonable of me? Don't you think you gave me evidence I obviously was going to be looking for?
4) Do you stand by that your vote and suspicion of me was/is not at all OMGUS?
5) Do you think my suspicion of you, in general, is OMGUS?
6)

Guardian was gung-ho about his case for Jordon, but it started to stall, I made a case against him, and then he voted for me.

Sounds nice, but is it

true?

No. For about... 10 pages? Maybe 5? I have found you as scummy as Jordan. You've done more than enough to tip the scales.

Considering this, do you think that I truly just slipped on you because Jordan got hard? Do you think I am just going for an easy target here?
7) Do you stand by that pointing out interactions between players is a scumtell?
8.) Do you stand by that my mislynching you would be a scumtell?
9) Lastly, concisely repeat (or refer me to one post where you have done so )your case against me, and say if you still find me most scummy and why/why not. <--Not quite a yes/no, but come on... Your vote is better placed elsewhere, and if you disagree I at least want to know

why

.











FYI Adel, all of these were copied and pasted (some with minor edits) from the post I wanted you to respond to. I really don't understand why you couldn't respond to my post .

[Guardian]

This is going to look really lame. I think you are scum because I remember thinking that I had a really good reason to think you were scum and I should've written it down somewhere. I didn't. I know I was waiting to piece it up into a tidy package before i presented it though. It was something about the timing of your arguments, and I kept rereading your posts and the thread looking for the final links, but I dropped the ball at some point. I suck. I do trust my earlier judgement, even if nobody else will.

The rest of your responses were more or less decent. I am more interested in flea Jordan and ryan than you, I think.

That being said, that is a

really, really, really

lame reason to be voting someone.

I had a nice apology written about how I didn't mean to hurt your feelings when commenting on your play that I intended to post after your responded -- and I

did

write it down. But if that is your reason for voting me....

Eh, here it is. Note how I start off by saying your case was bad. It was bad then, and now it is worse.

Adel, I really do like you, and I am sorry if I was being too harsh in 614, which I was, but your case on me is.... bad.

It isn't like you aren't thinking -- you use interesting logic and come to pseudo-reasonable conclusions from your frame of mind, but the conclusions are definitely wrong -- at the very least, in theoville except for listening to MeMe in lynching me all the conclusions you came to were wrong. Here, about me, you are wrong... And you seem to acknowledge that your case is bad (by saying that I shouldn't hold bad cases against you) but you keep pushing it.

In theoville, I tried to get you lynch because it was easy. Here, I find you scummy because your cases are bad imo and you keep pushing them. So, I wanted to hear your thoughts.

[Guardian]

Adel, by pushing it I mean you keep thinking it and using your vote with it. That did apply more a few hundred posts back, though, when I first asked the questions -- I copied what I wrote then verbatim.

Who are your number 2,3,4 etc. suspects? Maybe you have better reasons there?

Also, if you have time for this thread, how do you not have time for this one, your "big love", your brainchild, etc.?

[Guardian]

. I think I am getting a town read from you despite... this. But I am interested in hearing how others take your attitude .

[Guardian]

Agree on the extension -- remember, the mod did make it clear it will take 1/2 majority to lynch at deadline (I think? Right?) so it would be 5 to lynch. We really do need an extension though .

Zindaras, are you caught up reading? If so, thoughts on Adel? Meh, I want your thoughts on everything .

[Guardian]

Seriously, SSF, you don't know what Toadying is?

I don't know what it is either .

I agree with much of what Nab said. I disagree about one small thing though. I have played a perfect game since page 10. Bow down and kiss the ring, fools. . In seriousness, again, I like how his scum list mirrors mine, and most of all I like his reasons for most of the players.

I agree that YB needs to, you know, read the game....

Adel... it is nice to see your vote on someone I find suspicious, and ryan as your second choice... Eh, I am getting the same read as NabNab right now, but your following is quite blatant...

[Guardian]

Ether, you hardly mention me in your analysis, and yet you feel confident enough to vote me. Seems like your simply trying to sneak a vote on an easy target.

The man has a point. This requires an explanation.

I wasn't so accusatory, but I asked Ether a very similar question and she brushed it aside . Ether, would you like to address this again?

[Guardian]

Guardian's questions to Adel were loaded, I can understand why she didn't want to answer them, it seemed like him fishing for a case.

That's odd, since she *did* answer them when I provided her with them, and she said she didn't answer them because she didn't have time to find them .

How was I fishing for a case? I was trying to get inside her head. It seemed like *her* post that started the exchange was fishing for a case.

No matter how many rolleyes he put in, Ryan's comment was still made with definite intent. Even a sarcastic statement can effect the game and the way people feel, and yours was aimed at getting you off the hook if Guardian turned up town. Stop trying to claim that it meant nothing.

qtf...

[Guardian]

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

[Guardian]

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

Nice try Guardian...

?? If the mafia could talk pregame Jalyn's theory is negated. Some mods let the mafia talk pregame, some don't.

[Guardian]

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

The mafia were not allowed to communicate pregame, as the game started during Daytime.

Jalyn, interesting point...

mod:

Could the mafia talk pregame?

Nice try Guardian...

?? If the mafia could talk pregame Jalyn's theory is negated. Some mods let the mafia talk pregame, some don't.

It is not mentioned in the rules... so I am not sure whether they were allowed to talk during N0.

However, the scum were allowed to talk in N0 all the other games in which I have participated so far... (although it was mentioned clearly in the rules they were allowed to do that in those games)

OK, So Jalyn's point *was* a good one. Good thing I asked, huh?

[Guardian]

SSF, a large part of your explanation of why your cases are bad and for your voting record is that you are a follower, and look for other people's cases, and place your vote appropriately.

If that is true, why are you the

only

vote on me? What recent cases do you find appealing? What are your thoughts on Jordan, ryan, and Adel?

[Guardian]

We have four days until deadline, we need a consensus and hopefully a lynch wagon of 10 players.

It is cool how I started a wagon and lots of people have the same top suspects as me, but I don't feel *that* confident in my suspicions so I am about that.

I also like how my bandwagon evaporated, but am also about SSF's reasons for getting off, especially since he didn't find a new place for his vote. Also, SSF, in your analysis, you ignored cases made against people by people that weren't on their wagons at that specific moment (my case on ryan for instance).

I am not particularly enthralled with the ssf wagon, but I don't see a much better alternative (ryan, Jordan, Adel? ).



Also, and a great part of why I felt I needed to make this post: I at this time would like to claim that I am

not

a lover with ryan. I think a lot of people are reading that and I want to try and dispel some confusion there...

Adel, Jalyn's case on NabNab is obviously in error considering the above... Why do you ask? Searching for lover pairs?

[Guardian]

I will post what I've got this evening to give people time to reply. I'm not done and probably won't be done by then either (I'm having huge troubles focusing). I apologize for disappointing you.

This is funny to hear coming from the guy who disagreed with me when I said that long days are bad for town because everyone wouldn't be able to read and re-read....

OMGUS

everyone who said days longer than 25 pages were good for town, and then couldn't get through reading the game.

I usually find myself seeing a case against all but the very towniest in a given game, when I'm town. The same works in reverse- as scum, there's usually only one or two players in a given game i find it impossible to build a case against.

Like me? <3

I also like how my bandwagon evaporated, but am also about SSF's reasons for getting off, especially since he didn't find a new place for his vote.

Is not voting suspicious?

Yes, except in rare circumstances (lylo, sometimes OK in v/la with deadline...). Voting expresses your intent to lynch/who you find most scummy. Think for yourself, or find someone you agree with, and place a vote.

Ryan you used "We are in a game together currently, and her style is the same there as it is here." as evidence that Adel was scum. That clearly means that you were scum together in a game.

Yeah, ryan, wtf here? That obviously means you two are scum together... I would expect the mod there to modkill you for that post, unless you are lying about it, in which case you would be scum here.

The Fonz is in general being mean and attacking popular candidates .



I actually think a player by player will do me good right now. I am not sure if they are a good or bad idea in general, but I feel like doing one, so here goes:

-Zindaras: Supposedly will help us a lot if town. I haven't seen it, still getting a decidedly neutral/slightly scummy vibe. I await the promised content.

-Xdaamno: Not much from this one either. No feeling either way.

-JordanA24: Came under heavy suspicion, and imo has been pushing popular non-him wagons. Scum-vibe.

-YogurtBandit: Little if any content. Disappointed in his play so far regardless of alignment. I

expect

foolishly hope for more meaningful content from him.

-The Fonz (replacing xyzzy): Neutral/scum vibe. Has attacked popular wagons, and I think being mean is scummy. Town don't have a reason to be mean to people.

-Sacred: No read.

-Adel: Town vibe, but really needs to improve her play. Blatant following, weak cases.... I could see her being scum and doing this too, really.... Especially with the buddying and stuff.

-Sir Tornado: Very misguided in me/ryan connection. Pushing it to the limit for little reason. I find this scummy.

-Ether (replacing Honary Hitchhiker): Town so far.

-darko: Neutral, wants to be replaced, probably town.

-ryan: Scummy, referencing other games, not sure why he defended me, I'd love to see a clear, one-post case on Adel.

-Numenorean7: Neutral/scum vibe. No real read.

-NabakovNabakov: Town vibe, good reasonings behind his opinions... . He could be scum, but he is playing well at the moment.

-Jalyn (replacing FeRnAnDo): The Nab/ryan thing seems stretched. Also relies heavily on the ryan-me connection when none exists. Finds NabNab scummy *based off of* ryan being scum. I suspect at least one of Jalyn/ryan/NabNab is scum.

-pickemgenius: Lurker. Refuses to post much content.

-Guardian: Obviously town. Needs to find scum with better cases, though.

-Erg0: Lurker and follower. No great read, leaning scum.

-somestrangeflea: Blatant and obvious follower. Not coming up with hardly anything original. Unsure of alignment.

-Sarcastro: Blatant lurker. Not sure of alignment.



Based on the above, I would be willing to lynch:

-Zindaras

-JordanA24
-YogurtBandit
-The Fonz (replacing xyzzy)
-Adel
-ryan

-Sir Tornado

-Numenorean7

-Erg0

-Jalyn (replacing FeRnAnDo)
-pickemgenius
-somestrangeflea

Pruning further with a three day deadline, and sorted top to bottom:

SSF
Jalyn
ryan
Adel
JordanA24


What I want to hear from all of you is who your top suspect(s) are, and a 1-post concise case of your reasons.

ryan, especially, even if you are paraphrasing a post that got lost earlier, I'd like you to make a 1-post clear case on Adel and why you think she is the best lynch.

Jalyn, I want to hear more about why you find NabNab scummy -- is it based off of his interaction with ryan? If so, then why aren't you finding ryan scummy, and then IF ryan turns up scum then NabNab scummy? This doesn't make sense to me, and implies knowledge of the scum team.

Adel and especially SSF, some original thought about who you find to be town/scum and WHY would be great. Adel's pointing to NabNab as town is almost promising to me; at least she is following someone she thinks is town, and has some reason to think that he is town. Then again, I could see Adel following NabNab if they were scum together.... so... .

Numenorean

: You never answered the question I asked you and ryan (as far as I saw): If I started making short spammy posts again, would you find me scummy? Why or why not?

[Guardian]

lol, Fonz I was mostly joking with that (note the 5 smilies) , I thought the comment begged for it .

I like your reasoning though, since

some people

*cough Sir Tornado cough* really seem to think that ryan and me are buddies...

[Guardian]

lol, Fonz I was mostly joking with that (note the 5 smilies) , I thought the comment begged for it .

I like your reasoning though, since

some people

*cough Sir Tornado cough* really seem to think that ryan and me are buddies...

Oh, I knew you were joking. It just seemed an interesting and comment-worthy point nonetheless.

Ok.

Also, when you said I've 'attacked popular wagons' what exactly do you mean? It seems like that could be read as 'he's opposed popular wagons' or 'he's attacked people with popular wagons on them.'

I mean the latter -- Jordan and ryan were popular targets when you replaced in, and they are your main suspects, right? It may just be coincidence, but I have no way of knowing that, and I find it suspicious.

Adel: I believe she is following whatever is the most popular bandwagon at the time to look more pro town. She’s admitted (as late as 976) to having terrible arguments, I believe terrible arguments can be used to distract a town and she’s had her fair share in this game. I am also not a fan of her complete change of thought on relationship speculation. I do think that SSF is guilty for leading the town into arguments but I find Adel to be a better candidate to be lynched today.

ryan, that was very concise -- that is your entire case? It seems rather... sparse? But it does have merit. I shall think it over... Maybe I was too restricting in asking you to be concise -- if you need more space to elaborate (and a few more examples/linked post numbers would really help!), the please do so.

[Guardian]

Right to the point is what you asked for Guardian and that is what I gave you. 8)

Indeed -- now I realize that, by my standards, that was *too* right to the point for my liking -- if you have more to add, that would be great! .

[Guardian]

Mod edit
Votecount:
Adel (2): ryan, pickemgenius
Darko (1): YoghurtBandit
Sarcastro (1): Xdaamno
JordanA24 (1): Sarcastro
ryan (4): The Fonz, Numenorean7, Sir Tornado, JordanA24
somestrangeflea (5): Guardian, NabakovNabakov, Adel, Ether, Erg0
NabakovNabakov (1): Jalyn

Not voting (4): darko, Zindaras, Sacred, somestrangeflea

With 19 alive, it's 10 to lynch.

Gaurdian, I thought I made it fairly clear that I do think ryan is scum. I voted for NN because I thought it made more sense to lynch the one less likely to be a lover.

Interesting. I really think that the whole lover thing in this game is a red herring. This game is almost mountainous -- lovers have about the same chance as anyone of being mafia aligned. We shouldn't be trying *that* hard to avoid lynching lovers, if we think one of them is treacherous. One of the lovers is scum, we have to try and lynch him just like we have to lynch anyone else.

Also, when you lynch lovers -- if you hit the treacherous pair, the rest become confirmed, and that is a huge boon. Also, if you hit wrong, there is a chance that that person's partner is treacherous, which would also be a great boon. Also, if we lynch one pair of innocent lovers, as soon as the other pair gets NKed, the last townie lover can claim and we will know for a fact that their partner is scum.

Lesson: let's not worry too much about lover's safety until we get rid of the treacherous one.

Seriously though Gaurdian - go back and read the posts I indicated and then tell me, with a straight face, that there are no links between ryan and yourself. They're all initiated by ryan, but they are obviously there.

Ryan defended me, yes. So I see the link, but I know it's not there, and you admit I have done nothing to make it seem at all likely that the link is there -- only ryan has. So I can see where you see a link, but there *is* no link.

The Fonz thinks this makes you look protown. I tend to agree. I think if you were scum with ryan you would be crucifying him right now. If you aren't ryan's duped lover... the whole thing looks exceedingly strange to me.

As I have already said, I am not ryan's lover. So you need to start rethinking. I am not scum lying about this, and if I was, I would expect ryan to contradict me. Again, rethink the me-ryan lover thing.

As for other reasons for suspecting NN or ryan... I'll get there. My notes from the first half of the thread are at home and I'm no where near done with the second half.

OK. *eager anticipation*

I really hope you are a townie Guardian because defending you when a group of bandwagoners and your meltdown happened earlier is getting me crucified right now.

*mental note to not defend anyone in mafia games*

Nah, ryan, defending me in mafia games is

always

a good decision . Nah, ryan, what got you in trouble is that the reasons you expressed for defending me were highly shaky. Defending someone from a wagon you don't like is fine, but you need to clearly express good reasons for doing so. As this turned out, even I am still a bit suspicious of you defending me. Hitting preview, what Fonz said applies too.

Also, I find it somewhat odd that you strike through four names for lynch candidates and you say you have scumvibes on every one of them (the first four: Zindaras, Sir Tornado, Numenorean and Erg0).

I doubt I would find support for any of those wagons besides Numenorean if there were not a deadline, and all of those four are among the closest to neutral of those I find scummy. Why is it odd that I expressed that I found them almost lynch-worthy, but not quite?


@Fonz, I recalled him being high on many people's suspicion lists, if not high in vote count (iirc the highest vote count at the time was 3 or so). That being said, your defense is reasonable.

[Guardian]

Interesting. I really think that the whole lover thing in this game is a red herring. This game is almost mountainous -- lovers have about the same chance as anyone of being mafia aligned. We shouldn't be trying *that* hard to avoid lynching lovers, if we think one of them is treacherous. One of the lovers is scum, we have to try and lynch him just like we have to lynch anyone else.

The huge difference between this game and mountainous is that here, we actually get confirmed townies (if we lynch the Mafia lover before the other lover pairs die).

I hate to waste a whole post on this, but I felt i needed to say -- I pointed this out in the next paragraph of the post you are quoting. And we are never going to get those confirmed townies if we are squeamish about lynching scummy lovers. It seems like you are being a contrarian for no reason.

Guardian: So me saying I disagreed with the bandwagon starting on you and that I felt that scum were driving it AND that we should give you a chance to speak (after your meltdown) were all invalid reasons?

Those are good reasons for trying to stop a bandwagon, not for thinking I am town. You were rather imprecise in your wording there, and it came off looking really bad -- you gave no convincing reason to the people voting me to stop, yet you set it up that you had defended me.

Because those were the top three I gave in defending you. And stop saying that I have EVER mentioned you and I being lovers, that is a lie and something YOU keep bringing up. I have NEVER even mentioned possible lovers in this game until right now in this post.

Ummmm... read, please? Many other people, Jalyn notably, are theorizing that we are lovers, and I explicitly claimed that we are not, twice, in the last few pages. Your lack of actually reading is noted .

[Guardian]

@NabNab -- I disagree that I was just "suspicion-spreading". I found three people (not including me or Adel) to seem townlike, and a lot of people I have no read on.

And to the extent that I am suspicious of many people, is that a bad thing?

Also, I admittedly don't feel *that* great about my suspicions, and I expressed this earlier. There is no one in the game that I am "sure" is scum, yet.

re: Adel, I am not sure what her alignment is -- my gut says town, but my head says scum -- and her play has definitely not been helpful.

Also, I too think that looking how people treat these wagons will be telling if one is town and one is scum -- first things first though -- let's try and figure out who is scum (of anyone in the game) and lynch them.



@ssf This post is a good start for looking at why I found ryan scummy. It is a bit outdated now, but I don't think there is a better post than that one to look for "my case against ryan". My address of him is more spread out than that.

@ryan, I will look back at your reasoning.

I never brought up the me-you lover thing without responding to others, I think... And I never "lied" about it, I just insinuated (and then recently explicitly claimed) that we were not lovers.

[Guardian]

I feel the need to say this in bold red letters:

What is with everyone unvoting and not voting with three days until deadline, and not making any meaningful contributions to boot!?!?

[Guardian]

Perhaps I misunderstood your "See you Day 2" comment?

qft? PEG, what are your thoughts right now? Give us

something

.

Adel, I've only had one glass of wine. Human logic should still make sense. What the hell are you trying to do now? (Other than giving me a headache.)

qft! Adel, what are you on about??

SSF, who are you finding scummy right now?


And all three of you, what is with the not-voting??

Zindy's post on the last page was very content-full, I hope to respond to it shortly.

Ideally I'd like to re-read Adel, ryan, and ssf before leaving, but alas I will be getting on a plane tomorrow (though quite possibly with some limited access).

Zindy

, one thing immediately -- the reasons

my

vote is on ssf are something like this:

• blatant following
  
• no original content
  
• horrible reasons for placing a vote on me/scummy action over PEG's "hypocrisy"
  
• horrible reason for continuing to keep a vote on me
  
• more blatant following and still no original content

Come to think of it, that is just unhelpful, and not necessarily scummy . I was re-reading my own posts, and recently I put ssf as my top suspect though I wrote that I was unsure of his alignment -- I definitely am conflicted here, I need to/would like to think carefully about this.

[Guardian]

Posting in all threads: V/LA until Monday. Good luck without me.
---

I would love to get to reading and responding to some things in this thread tonight.... We'll see if that happens.

[Guardian]

I strongly disagree with Zindy's player by player list only on Sir T, ryan, and Jalyn. (and I guess ssf but he admittedly hasn't read the case on him).

I am not sure at all Sir T is town, not as sure that ryan is scum as I'd like to be, and I think maybe there is a Jalyn--ryan connection.

I especially like the Numenorean7 -- ryan connection Zindy pointed out.

Zindy pointed out quite a few other good things, but I spent my time judiciously reading on those I thought to be good today lynch candidates -- Zindie your post was quite good and deserves more attention than I'm giving it (especially a few parts I found myself disagreeing with), but oh well .

I get a very town vibe from his post, but I have fallen into the trap of finding someone town because they agree with me before -- but while I am still wary, he is on the town side of neutral to me now.


I think my vote ends up on ryan, SSF, or Adel today.

Numenorean7 would be nice, but I don't see it as feasable for today... I am no longer feeling a Jalyn lynch to be appropriate, though I definitely want to see the content she has promised. Jordan is still in the back of my mind... PEG and Erg0 had better get their act together tomorrow <3.

For right now, I will keep my vote on ssf.



I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am becoming very wary of the ryan wagon -- I re-read his posts and it seemed to me that he had legitimate concern that I was a townie being speedlynched, and I also think he has made the most sense and contributed the most of the three.

Adel, like, I really agree with Zindy -- I re-read some of your posts, and I really get a "what the hell are you doing!?" feeling. Do something meaningful before deadline, or my vote might go off of SSF and on to you.

I don't know to what extent I will have internet access over the next few days, but to whatever extent I do my vote is liable to change among the top few wagons. I have the bad habbit of being underconfident in my reads as town, but I dreadfully fear that all three of these wagons are town .

mod

: I think I remember you making this clear before, but I'm sure I'm not the only one whose forgotten -- what exactly happens at deadline? What happens if there is a tie? Good job modding so far btw -- I think I will definitely consider doing VCs in the style you are doing them when I mod in the future.

Um, that's it for now, I think. Zindy, one thing I would request you, and everyone really, do is re-read ryan's posts where he defends me and explains why he did. I am very conflicted about them. On the one hand, I really don't like his diction (stuff like "us townies"), but on the other hand I wonder if he really did have honest motives. I don't think that the case on him holds much water without this part of it, and re-reading this bit is a good idea... I don't like some of his behavior recently though, like where he lashed out at me for no reason, for example. His reasons for his vote on Adel makes a lot of sense on the other hand, though. All I'm saying really is that a ryan lynch should be carefully thought about and discussed. I don't think ssf is at all a bad alternative.

ryan, keep making sense, focus on defense and attacking the other major wagons.
ssf, start doing anything original. take a stand and give good reasons for it. Even if it is saying you shouldn't be lynched and instead *** should, give good original reasons. I want to see something besides following from you.
Adel, basically same deal as ssf. Start making sense. Explain yourself.

[Guardian]

ebwop: read the rules, it is clear: whoever has the most votes is lynched, in a tie first come first serve. That is good -- no need to worry about accidentally no lynching. OK, that's truly all for now.

[Guardian]

fyi, I have some limited access, and might move my vote if I see it as approrpiate.

I again protest in the extreme how Sir T is trying to force my vote. I changed my opinions. I will do so in the future.... That isn't scummy.

[Guardian]

I've read over the thread, and I see nothing in the last few pages to convince me to a ryan lynch over a ssf lynch. Really, I don't feel good about either lynch. I think I feel better about SSF being scum than ryan, but really I don't feel great about either at this point.


Adel & Jordan seem like better candidates, Numenorean's point about Jordan I really like.

PEG's lack of placing a vote after promising to do so is noted.

Actually I

unvote vote: JordanA24

. Sir Tornado can happily note that I am placing ryan in a to be lynched position with this vote. A position that I really don't feel he deserves, but one that SSF I don't feel deserves either .

I would encourage others to consider a Jordan wagon.

[Guardian]

It *is* last minute wagon jumping. I almost decided to stay on ssf, but I felt very iffy about it and Numenorean madea lot of sense about Jordan lurking. Maybe jumping ship is ill advised, but I feel he has been trying to actively lurk and is more likely to be scum than ryan and ssf.

I thought about this for like 10 minutes, because I will feel really stupid if ssf is scum, but I feel ssf has just played badly, and ryan is not at all likely to be scum, whereas Jordan is likelier to be scum.

[Guardian]

I was right about ssf being town >.>. Thanks a lot Sarcastro . At this point I would love to know ryan's alignment for sure (note how I tried to make that happen), but the mod's mistake makes me think the outcome wouldn't have been that different on a ryan lynch. I would guess that his role is also vanilla town. In any case, while I was (dis)liking ryan a little little bit more than SSF as I put him in a lynch spot yesterday, I really am not convinced he is scum, at this point.

Personally, I am really happy Adel and Sir T are dead and their alignments are confirmed. They were distracting me a lot, at least, with Adel doing nothing and Sir T having the very annoying habbit of pushing a nonexistent me-ryan connection.

Whether their being dead is good for the game is disputable... but as for me personally, I couldn't be happier with a dead lover pair.


One last thing -- lovers -- if you are 95% or better sure your lover is treacherous, coming out might not be a bad decision . Only do it if you are really, really sure though, we don't want to mislynch the last pair of two innocent lovers .


Um,

Vote: JordanA24

seems good right now.

[Guardian]

Quick FOS there Zindie. I know it was outguessing the mod, I was putting it out there for y'all to think about. As mod, I know I am more careful and less likely to make mistakes when of two wagons one is scum and one is town.

The sentence means that I thought ssf was a wee little bit less scummy than ryan at end of day, but that I still don't think ryan is that scummy.


Xdaamno, I'm sure someone wouldn't have realized it. Maybe it is obvious to you and me, but just watch someone be like "oh, my lover is so scummy, thanks for pointing that out."

[Guardian]

Hmm. I really need to stop saying I am happy when townies are dead. People always find me scummy for it, even though I do it both as town and scum. .

Xdaamno, your reasons are kinda BS, as Fonz pointed out.

I didn't like Guardian's 1270 one bit. I'm still not sure if the "I was right about SSF being town" part was a joke or not, and the "I'm glad their dead" part rubbed me the wrong way. Also, major deflection away from Ryan (this has been mentioned before).

I am always happy when I make the right decision with my vote. Unvoting SSF was a good decision -- I'm happy with my play there.

If a pair of lovers had to die last night, I don't think I could have been happier with any two other players dying. Sir T was annoying as hell with his attacks on me, and Adel... like seriously NabNab, how is anyone not happy that (if a town player had to die) that it was Adel? I love Adel, but she was actively doing nothing and hurting the town.

If those two are scumbuddies, I'll kick myself.

Me and ryan? Lol, not kicking required.

I'll admit to being the one who really lead the SSF bandwagon, and I'm not above scrutiny if anybody wants to scrutinize me, but I think Ether, Erg0, and Sarc should be looked at more carefully. All of them pretty much jumped without

any

reasoning beyond "let's have a bandwagon/lynch." I'm interested particuarly in seeing what Sarc has to say now that there's some concrete info to go on.

I agree with this -- and yet you nicely omit how I moved *off* of the SSF wagon to prevent his lynch. So, they are scummy for jumping on, and I'm scummy for jumping off? .

I was right about ssf being town >.>. Thanks a lot Sarcastro .

SSF's lynch is entirely Sarcastro's fault?

Yes, it mostly is his fault. He deliberately tried to get SSF lynch at the end of the day just because I unvoted. You would say it is not his fault? Also, you find me scummy for unvoting a townie at deadline? If SSF turned up scum, I'd have looked really bad, and had to deal with that. But I was right, and he was town...

At this point I would love to know ryan's alignment for sure (note how I tried to make that happen),

WHAT?! You jumped off of the SSF bandwagon and voted for Jordan because you wanted ryan to be lynched? Does this make any damn sense to anyone?

Yes, it does. They were tied, I put ryan in a position where SSF needed two more votes or he was dead. Sarcastro even found me scummy for this and started the wagon, pointing out how my unvote might have as well been a vote on ryan.

but the mod's mistake makes me think the outcome wouldn't have been that different on a ryan lynch.

So, you wanted ryan dead even though you wouldn't vote for him but now you think he's probably innocent because the mod wouldn't have been damn careful to make the decision as role non-specific as possible?

I wanted him dead more than SSF. I think they are both town.

I would guess that his role is also vanilla town. In any case, while I was (dis)liking ryan a little little bit more than SSF as I put him in a lynch spot yesterday, I really am not convinced he is scum, at this point.

Personally, I am really happy Adel and Sir T are dead and their alignments are confirmed. They were distracting me a lot, at least, with Adel doing nothing and Sir T having the very annoying habbit of pushing a nonexistent me-ryan connection.

I'm glad that you're happy that we've lost two more town votes last night. That works well.

If two lovers had to die, I couldn't have picked a better pair. As far as my frustration with them attacking me for bad reasons and/or actively hurting the town, then YES I love that they are dead. Do you want Adel around today? She helped mislynch SSF, basically because she wanted to follow NabNab. Do you think she was helping the town, at all?

Whether their being dead is good for the game is disputable... but as for me personally, I couldn't be happier with a dead lover pair.


One last thing -- lovers -- if you are 95% or better sure your lover is treacherous, coming out might not be a bad decision . Only do it if you are really, really sure though, we don't want to mislynch the last pair of two innocent lovers .

I really hate stating the complete obvious in an attempt to look helpful while not actually doing any good.

Watch a lover come out today and point to me as encouraging them to do so. Just watch it. I hate how both you and Xdaamno are turing pro-town theory into scumminess. It is complete bull. Also, I find it interesting that you don't say my vote for Jordan with no more reasons is scummy, yet you find all this scummy. Jalyn, cut it out, seriously.

Personally,

I am really happy Adel and Sir T are dead

and their alignments are confirmed. They were distracting me a lot, at least, with Adel doing nothing and Sir T having the very annoying habbit of pushing a nonexistent me-ryan connection.

Why would you say that Guardian? Saying they are distracting is interesting and although Sir Tornado did bring up a connection between you and I, he never pushed it, so why you would say that baffles me.

WTF!? He never pushed it!? Are you

reading the game

!? His whole play yesterday consisted of deciding which of me and you to vote. Wow, ryan, you are demonstrating a surprising level of incompetence here.

Why do you want two townies dead? You're starting to make me wonder if I was completely wrong about you and your allignment.

WTF!? I said I am happy those two specific lovers are dead. If any lover pair had to die, I am super happy it was them, they have not been helping the town this game at all.

Ryan, if you want me to keep defending you, then this is not the way to do it, wtf with this whole post, seriously.

FoS: Guardian

Ah, that's just swell. No vote though, even though I'm at lynch minus... a lot. Wow. This post really notches you like 8 players higher on my scumdar.

It is OMGUS -- because this post does suck. You are parroting others reasoning -- and it is bad reasoning. And you add some additional bad reasoning on top of it. Wow.

Seriously,

unvote vote: ryan

. I am pretty much done defending you for now. That post was horrible. Others might be right about my outguessing the mod, and I wanted you lynched over SSF yesterday, and I am seriously considering using today to do it. I'm not sure if you are scum or not, but you definitely need to get your act together man.

[Guardian]

Guardian: YOU said you were glad two townies were dead? How is that not the most anti-town move IF you are actually a townie?

You and others really need to think about this. How does my being happy that an active lurker and someone who had a bad case on me are dead have anything to do with my alignment? Your question highlights this -- it is not an anti-town

"move"

. It is simply my

feeling

about how their deaths impact the game. Unless the doc successfully protected, someone had to die, and in this case a lover pair had to die. I'm glad they are dead.

I never felt as though ST was driving a Ryan/Guardian bandwagon, you seem to be very paranoid about this when you "have been defending me" (allegedly) I think Sir Tornado had been bringing up good points as to the finding of scum.

Yeah, um, reading the game is a really good play, ryan. Sir T at one point said that me and you were the only options for his vote yesterday, and that he had to choose between us, and that if you were scum I likely would be too.

I am parroting other reasoning? YET you vote me? I find that interesting Guardian.

Parroting bad reasoning is worse than coming up with it yourself. It shows not only that you are using whatever means necessary, making sense or otherwise, to find someone scummy, but ALSO that you don't even try and come up with arguments yourself.

Why the attack on me? I asked a simple question of you, to answer why you were happy two town players died and you go off on a tirade? Why is that Guardian?

I think I explained myself well... . Any more questions?

[Guardian]

Mod edit
Votecount:

Ryan (2): JordanA24, Guardian
Guardian (1): Jalyn

Not voting: the rest

With 16 alive it's 9 to lynch.

Your vote smells of OMGUS

I stated that my vote was OMGUS when I placed it. OMGUS in and of itself isn't scummy, when there are good reasons to OMGUS...

, but I'm not going to muddy up the thread with arguments and counter attacks.

I read this as you admitting that your attack on me was baseless and that you don't have any good defense of that.

I feel you being happy that two townies died to be an anti town move.

Again, this diction is horrible. It isn't a move, it is an opinion. My mood about their deaths isn't scummy.

If you are in a game with people you don't like, than fine that happens but it is a GAME

I like Sir T and Adel. Very much so. Yet I didn't like their play this game, and I am happy and,

surprise

, think it helps the town that if townies had to die that they are the ones dead!

but when you are happy that two townies (when you yourself said you are one) are nightkilled I find that to be very telling

All I get from this is: "Oooh. Guardian prefers some players dead than others. So... he... wants.... townies.... dead! Bad bad bad!" Seriously, think about this more...

it doesn't sound to me as though you want to win the game for the town, it sounds like you want the scum to win.

What!? How does it sound like that, at all? I want the town to win, and I think that considering the scum had to kill someone last night, it is great that they removed two great distractions for us.

Adel very well could have been mislynched today, and Sir T was contributing nothing positive other than his case on you, which I am now even more inclined to believe.

Ryan, you make me more and more happy with my vote on you.

[Guardian]

Guardian: You said you were happy two townies died!!!! Are you missing that?

I am happy that they are dead if someone had to die tonight. With the lover mechanics of the game and both of their distraction from the town, I think it is better for the game for the pair of them to be dead than just about any other two townies.

Is that part not registering in your head?

You are being very silly.

You claim to be a townie but are happy we lost two off the town list?

Since we had to lose at least one townie last night, and we were going to lose lovers eventually, I am happy those two are dead. Again, I do this regardless of alignment and I think I can provide examples (though a few are ongoing ).

That is just retarded and no I'm not gonna argue anymore because that is my main point and has been my point.

Your main point is "just retarded".

You are happy townies died even with you claiming to be one, it's completely stupid.

Nope, try reading my explanations.

You want to talk about reading a thread and paying attention, give it a try sometime and you'll see how absolutely outrageous it is to be happy members of your own team (allegedly) were nightkilled.

Nope, not true. If Zindaras had died (and was town) I would much more disappointed thatn Adel and Sir T being dead. They both were doing very little to help the town, and Sir T was actively hurting me. I am, objectively, very happy that they are no longer alive in the game.

[Guardian]

Xdaamno, your reasons are kinda BS, as Fonz pointed out.

You seemed to miss the part where I proved fonz wrong.

You seem to have missed the part where you agreed with Fonz and turned away from the argument and were like "oh, well, we agree, but I say you are grasping at straws and you say you're clutching at evidence." I don't think you proved Fonz wrong at all...

[Guardian]

YB - there are

53

pages. FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT FOR A DAMN POST!

Er. Sorry. But geez...

NO U.

...Couldn't resist, and you somewhat deserve it .


Darko, you are playing quite well, why get replaced? I would love to hear your thoughts on this if you could spare me one last post.

[Guardian]

I will not condescend to address Darko's reasons for voting me.

The whole back and forth between Guardian and Ryan strikes me as odd. I mentioned the "happy townies died" bit of the post as an afterthough, Ryan seems to think it constitutes a case. On the other hand, Guardian flopped from "I didn't think Ryan was a very good lynch" to "Vote:Ryan" with very little provocation, and the way he constantly brings up how he jumped off the SSF wagon strkes me as the "I told you so" scum tactic. Because Ryan is very likely to be lynched, I think we're seeing either distancing or bussing going on here.

FOS: Ryan, Guardian

I was right about SSF, and people talk out of both sides of their mouth and say we should both look carefully at the people who voted him and simultaneously find me scummy. I know what you mean about that being a scum tactic, but I am town, I made a good read, and people are finding me scummy for other reasons AND finding people scummy for this. You can't have it both ways...

I am not affiliated at all with ryan. His post really annoyed me and struck me as completely and wholly anti-town.

How is ryan "very likely to be lynched"? I had thought he shouldn't be lynched until his recent display...

And I am very interested in darko's thoughts/reasons for voting you.

gtg for now, friend here, later (no time for preview ).

[Guardian]

I don't see how what I'm doing is talking out both sides. The scum knew SSF was town, so there were two ways they could have handled that:
1) Join his bandwagon and try to get him lynched
2) Defend (or unvote) him for the "I told you so" credit

There are four scum in this game, and it's very possible they choose different options (it actually works out better for the scum if some go 1 and some go 2, because "I told you so" doesn't work if the townie doesn't die). If we refuse to look at it both ways, we could definitely miss something.

I just don't see how it makes sense for me to get off to be a null-tell or a scum-tell, and for people who hopped on for it also to be a scum-tell.

Ryan is likely to be lynched because he actually

was

the lynch for yesterday, and many people still feel the scumminess that applied then applies now.

At the end of the day I disagreed with his lynch... Now his play is making me terribly conflicted.

I don't see why you would be interested to know why Darko voted me. The reasons he posted were ludacris.

I think darko is likely to be town. He could be scum. Either way, I'd like to know his thoughts and motives more.

I think ryan and Guardian discussed the game last night and decided they needed to distance. Lover distancing to this extent doesn't make sense, so.... This is just an impression based on a qucik perusal of what has happened since the thread opened, but the whole interaction seems contrived to me.

FoS: ryan and Guardian

I'm supposed to be eating dinner right now.

Ok... Read more carefully and see what you come up with.

I fully intended to steer the town away from ryan today until he started spewing the badlogic that he is now...

[Guardian]

Guys, like, I want to post this clearly and in one sentence:

MY ACTIONS AT DEADLINE

DID

SHOULD HAVE CAUSED RYAN TO BE LYNCHED -- HOW IN HELL DOES THIS MAKE ME ALLIED WITH HIM!?!?!?!?

[Guardian]

If you don't understand what I'm trying to get across, I don't know how more basic I can make it. Why can't you accept a situation where seemingly polar actions can both be tells? It's like saying "I can't see how it's a tell to be too passive

and

a tell to be too aggressive."

I get what you are saying. Really.

But look at it from my perspective -- at the end of the day yesterday, before I unvoted and voted Jordan, who had two votes and I thought was much more likely to be scum than SSF, I had no votes on me and most everyone in their pbpas was like, "oh, Guardian is town." Now, not even despite of, but seemingly in part

because

I

correctly

unvote SSF, people find me scummy. That is incredibly frustrating for me, as it makes absolutely no sense.

I don't see the difference between the garbage Ryan spewed today and the garbage he spewed yesterday. But there must be some, because yesterday's garbage was forgivable, but today's is lynch-worthy.

Ryan seemed to be trying yesterday, and he seemed to have internally consistent reasons for voting and defending and all that. Today, he is parroting the bull levied against me -- not only is his logic horrible, he has demonstrated a complete lack of reading the thread (re: Sir T), and is finding me, the only person even considering defending him, to be likely scum. Complete and utter bull.

Darko may be town, but that doesn't give his opinions weight. All that means is he's confused, not malicious.

Or he got something right? Or he is scum and has no reasons that are more than skin deep? I don't see hearing more from darko is ever going to be detrimental.

[Guardian]

and all that. Today, he is parroting the bull levied against me -- not only is his logic horrible, he has demonstrated a complete lack of reading the thread (re: Sir T), and is finding me, the only person even considering defending him, to be likely scum. Complete and utter bull.

Why is my logic horrible? Because I called you on a stupid comment you made?

Your logic is horrible because you were parroting horrible reasons for finding me scummy.

I didn't find Sir Tornado trying to "shove a Guardian/Ryan relationship" down people's throats" (you've been overly sensitive about that.) I invite everyone to read back through and show me how he was trying to say we were 100% a pair, he stated it a few times, made a couple of observations and you freaked out (a pattern with you in this game since the beginning)

[Ryan is more likely to be scum if Guardian is in fact scum.

Personally, I would like a Guardian lynch today, but ryan lynch is fine too, followed by Guardian tomorrow if Ryan is found scum (or, we can do it the other way round, Guardian today, and Ryan tomorrow if found scum). I am willing for either of the approaches. I would also look closely at NabNab if they turn up scum too.

I am planning, as of now, to vote for either of Guardian or Ryan (it depends on who has the larger wagon) when the time is right.

I would be happy to vote both you and ryan today. But, ryan has only 1 vote on him, and you have 3, keeping in mind that person with most votes gets lynched, you get the vote.

Post 683 and 684. You said I'd be more likely to be scum if Guardian was scum.

I've been saying you are likely to be scum in Guardian comes up scum for something like forever. (Actually since after you defended Guardian way back)

...Those were just the first three I saw on re-read. Sir T has been trying to get both of us lynched all game (assuming the first one dead is scum). That is factually true.

And as for not stating a case today, who has? You're the only one voting me with any sort of case. Jordan said he stated his reasons in Day 1 and everyone else is saying I'm distancing myself from you and instead of splitting the vote they are piling on me.

You

tried

to state a case. It was a really horrible case. I found it so bad that I have trouble believing you really meant it, and I find that scummy.

(also using the excuse that my play has done it to myself today) I'd like to know from you who have voted, what do you think about Guardian's comments?

Me too.

Should what he said be allowed to not be questioned?

Yeah, pretty much. I have done this in other games and gotten flak for it, and I 100% disagree that it is in any way scummy. I am going to keep doing it, because I think it is good to allow others to get inside your head as much as possible, and because, you know what, I meant what I said -- I am happy that they died last night, assuming someone had to die.

Where exactly am I wrong for calling him on it?

Where you parrot horrible logic and create more horrible logic of your own.

[Guardian]

Welcome desisted .

Regarding your first point: I can now talk about this -- SSF, as a cop, helped lynch someone he got an innocent on in C9 + 2 that just finished. He also played quite badly in that game; I didn't know he helped mislynch the townie he got an innocent, but I knew his scum hunting was horrible.

I metagame, to an extent -- I realized that I was on a lynch wagon of SSF that was on my part a) OMGUS and b) lynching him for bad play -- both of which shouldn't be scum tells, especially where SSF is concerned.

Jordan, however, had a meaningful case against him. Also, I had no problems with ryan being lynched over SSF, and I knew my unvote would do that. I knew I was taking something of a stance just by unvoting -- and I support that stance, especially with SSF indeed being town.



Regarding Sir T -- Sir Tornado saw a link between me and ryan when none exists. You bet that his single mindedness annoyed me and that I'm happy he isn't here to keep mindlessly pushing that agenda.

I laugh at how people continue to find my being happy at the deaths funny. Really, I think it is ridiculous.


Sarcastro has been lurking indeed, is that all you have on him desisted?

Also, what do you think of your predecessor's last post and vote?

[Guardian]

As for darko... Had I not replaced darko, I would've pushed for his lynch as well. I can see why a lot of people voted him, he gives off massive scum vibes.

Hmm, what makes you say that? His vote on NabNab, or his semi-lurking, or what?

[Guardian]

As for darko... Had I not replaced darko, I would've pushed for his lynch as well. I can see why a lot of people voted him,

he gives off massive scum vibes

.

Hmm, what makes you say that? His vote on NabNab, or his semi-lurking, or what?

A combination of persistent lurking,

frequent bandwagoning, wagon hopping, and failure to provide original explanations

.

Guys, this might be a huge flip for some people.... It is for me -- but look at all those things I bolded. None are true. Darko voted once all day 1. He also had some good insight when he posted.

I had a pro-town read on darko, and then desisted replaced in and said that he would have pushed for his predecessor's lynch. I ask him why, and then he gives reasons that are completely untrue. I think he basically "claimed scum". He said he found his predecessor scummy, but had no good reason for doing so.

D3sisted has a great likelihood of being scum, for the above reasons.

unvote: ryan vote: d3sisted

Discuss and wagon, please.

[Guardian]

Ryan, I think Guardian was happy that those

particular

townies are dead. I mean, someone's going to be NK'ed, and it ain't going to be scum, is it?

The case on you from day one remains, but I give you some plus points for being among the first person to interpret my comments in the way that I meant them, and to not hop on the "omg being happy townies are dead is scummy" wagon.

I definatly get the case on D3sisted, the case on erm, himself, certainly isn't true. (First time I've ever seen someone make a bad case on themselves.)

Yes, exactly. He has no reason to say that he thought his predecessor was scummy -- but he did. And his reasons are not only bad, they are

completely inaccurate and largely fabricated

. Finding yourself scummy for such bad reasons means this to me: he knows he is scum, and wanted to cover his butt for his predecessor's actions, especially since some players found darko scummy. I didn't find darko scummy, and

no one found darko scummy for the reasons desisted mentioned

.

Desisted finding darko scummy implies very, very strongly to me that he knows darko's role is scum.

But I don't see how this makes him almost certain scum. I mean, I think Darko/D3sisted has a good case against him. But I don't feel it's quite that strong.

Did I explain myself better above, maybe?

And besides, I think Ryan is a better lynch for today.

I don't agree, for the record, but I am done defending him for the moment.


Zindaras is actively lurking and not taking a meaningful stance on anything that has happened today -- most of his comments are fluff or tangential.

Zindaras, what happened to this game being next with meaningful comments and all that?

His attack of Yogurt does not impress me, nor does his seemingly random assortment of players that he asks YB about.




Anyways, the case on desisted is excellent and incriminating, I am going to keep posting this sentence with this link to post 1367 until people discuss and wagon desisted. I think he is the best bet for scum we have currently.

[Guardian]

Zindaras is actively lurking and not taking a meaningful stance on anything that has happened today -- most of his comments are fluff or tangential.

This is absolute bullcrap. I was the first to point out your deflecting off ryan onto Jordan. I've argued against the "scum fleeing away"-theory. I've argued against the "scum instead of mafia"-theory about wording, I've pointed out the way desisted posts an analysis but ignores the most important player.

You've hardly "argued against" anything, all day. You've made one sentence posts, voted the mod, and had a nice discussion about Glorking. You have contributed a bit, but your signal:noise is horrible.

Zindaras, what happened to this game being next with meaningful comments and all that?

It still is. My analysis for the other game is almost done, but not yet.

OK.

His attack of Yogurt does not impress me, nor does his seemingly random assortment of players that he asks YB about.

Oh, you mean to say Yogurt's posting is perfectly acceptable?

No, it sucks, and is really annoying. But I love the guy, but have learned that, unfortunately, he is really, really bad at mafia. His play in every game is not much better than it is here. I would love for him to improve, but I am not going to policy lynch him for bad play. I would like to see more from him -- his play is not acceptable, but him playing terribly is not in and of itself scummy.

If you think my choices were random, then you're just flat-out wrong. All my choices are reasoned and understandable.

I would love for you to explain them though. I could make no sense of them.

Anyways, the case on desisted is excellent and incriminating, I am going to keep posting this sentence with this link to post 1367 until people discuss and wagon desisted. I think he is the best bet for scum we have currently.

I have no interest in the desisted-wagon. My gut vibes on darko were town and that's not going to change with a bad post where he misrepresents

his own predecessor

. I mean, seriously, if it had been some other guy and his conclusion had been a vote, yeah, sure, you've got a point, but misrepresenting to make yourself look worse is not a scumtell.

Had desisted not pointed out that he was incorrectly referencing another game, I highly disagree with you. Replacing in and saying "I looked scummy, but I'm town" when you did not in fact look scummy -- is scummy.

And even if it was, then this "case" of yours would still pale in comparison to that on other players, most notably ryan.

I dislike ryan's play today so far. I am not sure of his alignment, but for the moment I refuse to defend him in any way so if y'all want to lynch him go ahead. I am not sure I want my vote back there though.

To be honest, your switch here only confirms to me my thoughts that you're trying to deflect the lynch away from ryan.

lol. Nothing I can say will make people who think I am linked to ryan change their minds, should I stop trying? What happened to yesterday when everyone was like "no WAY ryan defends Guardian if they are actually linked"? Did't YOU say that Zindaras? At least two people did.... And it makes sense to me, especially because I have no relationship with ryan...


Posts like this one are what I want from you, albeit not attacking me . Your posts before this have not explained much reasoning for your actions and thoughts at all, and have contained quite a bit of useless side discussions, a few mafia related and many not.

[Guardian]

Guys, like, I want to post this clearly and in one sentence:

MY ACTIONS AT DEADLINE

DID

SHOULD HAVE CAUSED RYAN TO BE LYNCHED -- HOW IN HELL DOES THIS MAKE ME ALLIED WITH HIM!?!?!?!?

More to the point, HOW DOES THIS MAKE ME DEFLECTING ATTENTION AWAY FROM HIM!?!?!?

*bangs head on table multiple times*

[Guardian]

I think sometimes I would enjoy this game more if I just lurked and voted where appropriate instead of trying to scum hunt and help out and convince others of stuff.

The responses to my insights and posts do nothing to convince me otherwise...

People seem to be finding

any excuse possible

, even conflicting excuses to find me scummy right now:

Oh, you are happy certain townies died -- SCUM!

Oh, you are voting ryan and distancing, -- SCUM! Oh, you are protecting ryan and telling people not to vote him -- SCUM! Oh, you should have gotten ryan lynched yesterday by voting -- SCUM!

GUYS, RYAN, FOR ALL WE KNOW, COULD BE TOWN.... AND EVEN IF HE'S SCUM, I CAN'T BE DOING ALL THREE oF THOSE THINGS AS PART OF ONE STRATEGY.


And I almost forgot -- Oh, you found someone scummy for logical inconsistencies -- SCUM!




What. The. Hell.



Yeah, so.... I am going to see if I can post a maximum of one post per day, if that, for at least a week or so. This game is just being super ridiculous towards me right now. Sarcastro has the right idea about these things. btw he is on vacation soon so he will lurk even more than me

If you find me scummy because of this, go play in traffic . It is not at all fair how lurkers get no attention and I try to scumhunt and be really active and get this bullcrap connection with ryan and no one listening to me at all.

Posting in this game as frequently as I have been does not even nearly reward me for the effort I am putting in.

See you in 24 hours, at the soonest. Probably a few days.

unvote

.

[Guardian]

vote: JordanA24

.

I supported this at the end of yesterday and there is no reason not to now.

Desisted's defense of ryan -- that he didn't opportunistically vote -- makes much sense.

I bet everyone would still say I am connected to ryan if he died and was a vanilla townie at the rate this is going....

Anyways, that is all for now.

[Guardian]

Hm, I think he answered that pretty well.

Unvote

I don't know about Ether and Guardian though, they jumped onto my wagon pretty quickly.

I supported it yesterday, I supported it at the beginning of today, I think I have stated why in the past (my own reasons + Numenorean's), and your votes reminded me that I have a good place for my vote.

Jalyn, you actually do have a point about how YB's play is different than Theoville. IGMEOY YB.

If people are too lazy to read my sig, I am on v/la, so even if I hadn't decided to post less in this thread, I wouldn't be able to post much more anyways. Later.

[Guardian]

YogurtBandit really really disappointed me day there here. If he didn't (basically) tell us to lynch him, we could have won.

Prod him with fire.

And YB, for the love of goodness, why are you continuing to join new games when you allow yourself to perform so badly in the ones you are in? WTF .

[Guardian]

1446 by Jordan also did wonders for me. Xdaamno wasn't really bashing -- yet he accuses him of doing so. And his diction implied something like "how did you know Xdaamno is a townie? He is, but how did you know?"

The real question for me is is Jordan scum and knows Xdaamno is a townie by nature of being scum?

Possible distancing with ryan, too, imo.

Either way,

confirm vote: JordanA24

.

Mod edit
Votecount:

JordanA24 (4): Ether, Guardian, Numenorean7, d3sisted
Ryan (2): JordanA24, The Fonz
YoghurtBandit (1): Jalyn, ryan

Not voting (9): Zindaras, Xdaamno, YogurtBandit, Sacred, NabakovNabakov, pickemgenius, Erg0, Sarcastro

With 16 alive it's 9 to lynch.

[Guardian]

I don't keep personal notes outside thread. these are just my gut feelings at the time. I'm sure you will scrutinize these or whatnot, but I don't care really.

-Zindaras -- not helpful yet. who is the scum???
-Xdaamno -- town probably.
-JordanA24 -- scum probably
-YogurtBandit --
-The Fonz (replaci ng xyzzy) -- who's scum??
-Sacred -- who's scum??
-Ether (replacing Honary Hitchhiker) -- probably town
-d3sisted (replacing darko) -- probably town
-ryan -- probably town. people need to

stop thinking there is a connection between us, its such a load of whooey. I *GOT* ryan lynched instead of SSF -- and SSF is TOWN. HOW DOES THIS = CONNECTION!? Go back to kindergarten.

-Numenorean7 -- scum? maybe play-style
-NabakovNabakov -- eh? probably town, I think.
-Jalyn (replacing FeRnAnDo) -- town?
-pickemgenius -- where is the lots of content your promised? </3.
-Guardian -- town, going to continue lurking because no one listens when I'm active and when I lurk, then people lynch who I want.......
-Erg0 -- ?? Content plz? Who is the scum?
-Sarcastro -- who is the scum? action on wagon at deadline was really suspicios.

list o' scum
Jordan
Sarc
Numenorean?
-people who I've asked "who is scum?" probably round out the scum group.

Now we resume your previously scheduled lurking.

[Guardian]

And Guardian, if you *GOT* ryan lynched instead of SSF, why is SSF dead and ryan
not?

Mod error. WTF is this supposed to mean?

Don't think I've forgotten about how you unvoted SSF... and voted for Jordan. Could you really have been so confident that the 2 longest wagons at the time were both town, rather than vote one over the other based on whoever is scummier?

Yup. I really had no preference between the two and a Jordan wagon needed only 2 more votes.

Or were you really just trying to dissociate yourself from both of the wagons to look clean D2?

Or maybe I was trying to....................................................................................................... lynch Jordan... ...............................................................................................................................

3: Sarc, Jordan, Guardian

Eh?

[Guardian]

"stop thinking there is a connection between us, its such a load of whooey. I *GOT* ryan lynched instead of SSF -- and SSF is TOWN. HOW DOES THIS = CONNECTION!? Go back to kindergarten. "

I understand that your reasoning is, you and ryan can't be partners because your unvote caused him to become lynched.

Exactly. I didn't care whether he or SSF was lynched. They were both about as scummy.

But because of your peculiar vote, we can also turn that against you and say that you and ryan are partners because you unvoted but

didn't vote ryan.

Bullshit. Jordan had 3 votes, each of them had 4/5. Jordan was a perfectly viable candidate. Based on your reasoning you could say I am paired with anyone in the game because I didn't vote them.

[Guardian]

Guardian: What are you opinions on deadline voting? Basically I see that 9 people haven't placed a vote yet and I'd like your opinions on anything we might or might not be able to conclude from how people vote here in the next 3 days

I think people should vote for who they find scummiest at deadline and explain why. People who fail to do that hurt the town.

Unless there are only two clear viable alternatives, I think people should vote for someone they are most comfortable being on a lynch wagon of.

?

[Guardian]

Jordan, say something amazing and build a clear one-post case on who should be lynched other than you.... or you will be lynched.

Just fyi, you don't seem to react to the graveness of your situation -- you're like "oh, these reasons are bad. *pout*". If you aren't scum, DO something about it.

[Guardian]

unvote vote: Sarcastro

?

[Guardian]

ftr: Sarc scum implicates ryan scum, and also Sarc is quite possibly a treacherous lover

[Guardian]

Deadline wagon on Sarcastro please. Jordan isn't scum -- way too much effort and sincerity in the above.

I would also be willing to deadline wagon ryan over Jordan. The above post convinced me Jordan is town.

[Guardian]

Sacred, I liked Jordan's post on Sarcastro, and it pretty much moved my vote AND more so it convinced me Jordan shouldn't be today's lynch.

Erg0 has similarly not contributed much, and I could be down for an Erg0 lynch.

However -- why did his vote raise a red flag for you?

[Guardian]

unvote: Sarcastro vote: Erg0

I prefer the Sarcastro lynch to this highly, ftr. It may work though.

[Guardian]

That was pretty snappy bandwagoning. 3 consecutive vote on Erg0, and none of them have brought up anything original themselves. I'm having a problem with the "I prefer so-and-so better, but Erg0 will do fine" reasoning, which all 3 of them use.

What do you recommend I do if I am pretty sure Jordan is town and deadline is... TODAY?

[Guardian]

YogurtBandit, Xdaamno, vote Erg0. Thx.

Or at least vote

someone

. Take a stand.

[Guardian]

Sarc is scum, Erg0 is like 50% town, Jordan is like 70% town. But Sarc is impossible at this point. No time before deadline so my vote stays.

[Guardian]

unvote vote: Sarcastro

.

Will switch back to Erg0 if I get time to check and it matters.

[Guardian]

I don't want Jordan lynched. His post reeks of townness. Sarcastro I do want lynched, and Erg0 is a suitable alternative to Jordan, though by no means optimal.

This isn't that complicated.

[Guardian]

I don't want Jordan lynched. His post reeks of townness. Sarcastro I do want lynched, and Erg0 is a suitable alternative to Jordan, though by no means optimal.

This isn't that complicated.

Two pages ago he was your #1 and one post and he's suddenly town?

His case on Sarc made a load of sense, and he put a lot of what seemed to be very honest effort into it. What was the case on Jordan really? It was mostly Numenorean's points about how he wasn't doing much -- the case on Sarc and Erg0 are better, especially with Jordan contributing like he did.

Why am I guessing you'll jump around a few more times before deadline?

Why am I guessing you're scum? I'll definitely be jumping around a few more times before deadline to try and not lynch Jordan -- why are you 'setting me up' like this?

[Guardian]

Vote: Sarcastro

YB, also looks appealing to me at this point. I am not willing to let his meta let him lurk through *this* game.


Zindaras, why Erg0? He was a decent alternative to Jordan-town, but tbh I wasn't that convinced.

Also, for the record, I was online at 9:30 AM day 2, and would have changed my vote, but did not get a chance to. .

[Guardian]

Erg0, he was the only possible wagon.

[Guardian]

I don't want Jordan lynched. His post reeks of townness. Sarcastro I do want lynched, and Erg0 is a suitable alternative to Jordan, though by no means optimal.

This isn't that complicated.

[Guardian]

I don't understand your flip flopping of votes Guardian, you've done it the entire game and you seem to do it always near a deadline or a lynch.

I

"flip flop"

change my mind when someone's behavior gives me a good reason to do so. SSF near the end of day 1 was acting like a townie, Jordan wasn't, I moved my vote.

End of day two, Jordan's post was obv. obv. obv. townie, and I changed my vote to try and get Jordan not lynched.

It's almost like you are looking to say "see I didn't help lynch a townie" If Sarcastro is the one you believe is scum and should be lynched, than build a case on him and stick with a suspect.

It's almost like I am trying not to get townies lynched. What a novel concept.... It is very interesting how you are painting my trying to not get townies lynched as a scum tell.

Jordan built an excellent case on Sarc. Sarc's play has been nothing but lurking and going after Jordan. I would not be disappointed with a Sarc lynch right now if he keeps that up.

But that is the thing -- his actions theoretically

could

change, and that would change my opinion of him -- just as it happened with Jordan.

I'm pretty sure you've had everyone in this game on your scum list at one time or another

I am not sure of the factual accuracy of that statement. I don't recall being terribly suspicious of Sacred at all this game, for example.

However, if it is true --

how is that a bad thing

?? How is my being suspicious of everyone in the game at some point a relevant point against me?

[Guardian]

I know where you guys are coming from...

But it would be worse if I changed my reads near deadline and *didn't* move my vote, right?

It is unfortunate that SSF & Jordan didn't do anything to make themselves look different until right before deadline, but both of them did such a thing, and I changed my vote appropriately.

I think it is ill advised to find me suspicious for making accurate reads and NOT find those suspicious who didn't make accurate reads and stayed on the mislynches.

[Guardian]

But this is exactly it. You didn't prevent the mislynches, you helped to build the wagons, the distanced yourself from them.

For the record, I did prevent the SSF lynch and cause a ryan lynch.

Your unvote of SSF was a shining example of lack of courage in conviction, since if you'd been really serious about saving him, you'd have voted for the only other viable wagon.

I didn't feel that great about ryan as scum either. I don't think unvoting one probable townie and voting another has any purpose....

[Guardian]

@Guardian: Yes, Jordan's post is extremely sincere. He's about to be lynched, he wants to save his life. Scum or town would be equally willing to throw everything they have at another player in an attempt to shift the wagon at the last second. I saw nothing worthwhile in his post. It was blunt, rehashed, desprate, and it had too few of the "This is what you guys should do once you know I'm town" vibes (despite the statement he made at the beginning)

I liked his case on Sarc. It was accurate. He spent way more effort on it than I would have as scum. He sincerely was town and wanted to present what he thought was the best viable alternative.

I couldn't have changed my opinion earlier, because Jordan didn't post earlier. That post *caused* me to change my read.

How was I supposed to change my read earlier when the post that caused me to do so came a few days before deadline??

[Guardian]

He spent way more effort on it than I would have as scum.

Then you must be pretty poor scum. In my experience, scum make more of an effort to save their skins than townies do.

But scum cases don't make as much sense and sound so sincere. His post was made by a townie. That was just obvious to me.

[Guardian]

I'm personally not enamoured with Guardian's last-minute indecisions. I'd love it if Xdaamno would make a post comparing Guardian's deadline behavior in this game to his (town) behavior in 24 Mafia (funky days; there's got to have been some deadline pressure in there).

There really wasn't anything similar. Wait actually... end of day 3/4 I wagoned anyone possible to save my own skin as town.

My play this game has been much more "townlike" than typical me-town, seriously, I got good reads and voted appropriately, stop finding me scummy for it..



I would love to see YB replaced.

[Guardian]

Erg0's probably town. I've said this pretty much consistently, so don't even try and say this is a huge change.

Wagon Sarcastro instead plz.

[Guardian]

I still hate the Erg0 wagon. I don't like how everyone is like "Erg0 now, then Guardian." Usually setting up two lynches in a row is scummy, what happened to that, here everyone is thinking that.

I don't like the case on Erg0, and I think he's town. And as I've expressed, I don't like the case on me and don't think it's a good one.

[Guardian]

We're not saying, "Erg0 today, Guardian tomorrow". We're saying, "Erg0 is scummy, Guardian is also scummy". There's a difference.

Some people seem to be saying that. In any case, I disagree with both assertions.

[Guardian]

Erg0's probably town. I've said this pretty much consistently, so don't even try and say this is a huge change.

Not really. Day 2 deadline rush, you voted Erg0, apparently for Jordan's sake.

Yes really. End of day 2, I voted Erg0 and said the case on him was much worse than that on Sarcastro, and that I thought he was "50% town" while I found Jordan "70% town". I found Erg0 to be a better decision that Jordan, but by far not the best decision in the game. You are

definitely misrepresenting me/misunderstanding me

here.

But on the Day 1 deadline rush, you'd refused to touch

either

of the two leading bandwagons once they were head-to-head. And judging by 1651...

I didn't find either leading bandwagon significantly different, and 2 votes were needed to get Jordan, who at that time I found very scummy. I don't know what you are trying to say by referencing this post, that isn't any different from what I am saying now/have been saying...

(Mathematically, if someone was 50% town with 16 people alive and four scum, that'd be twice as likely to be scum as a random player. I understand if that's not what you meant, mind you, though that renders percentages kind of unhelpful.)

Ah. Yeah, I mean like, my sureness of them being town. The percentages are useful only in being compared to other percentages I give. For examples, Sarc is like 75% scum and YB is around 55% scum.

Think of it as a 200% scale, with 100% town being town, going down to 0, and then up from there to 100% scum. 0% anything = no read.

Could you give Erg0 a defense instead of just going on about his towniness?

Erg0 has had a hard time catching up to the game, I don't understand why people pressured him to be a really good player, no offense but I haven't seen that anywhere, and nothing of his actions has seemed that inconsistent/scummy to me.

I don't want to defend him much more than that. He could be scum -- but I think there are many better/more likely targets than Erg0, Sarc and YB being two of them.

I could list more names, but then you'd want me to justify them, and I don't have the effort to focus on 8 targets right now -- and even if I did, that would be a complete distraction. I'll move on from Sarc and YB if nothing happens, but especially re: Sarc, I think there is a good case (made by Jordan, confirmed town, no less) and that he would be a good lynch.

[Guardian]

I just skimmed SirT and d3sisted, the two mafia targets.

SirT was suspicious of... me... .

D3sisted was suspicious of Sarc and to a lesser extent... me...


So, nothing valuable from them to me there, except that maybe the mafia might try and bring this up later, or better yet hope for someone else to bring this up. Except that d3sisted had some good points on Sarc.

D3sisted did vote Erg0 late too, maybe that came into play? I felt really weird defending Erg0 just there, I will re-read the case on him and Erg0 in general, as time permits. I'm going to look really bad if he gets lynched and is scum -- I'd very much like to see Erg0 defend himself.

[Guardian]

unvote vote: PEG

. I think he's scum.


Sarc is still also probably scum. Erg0 *maybe*, I want to hear a defense from him.

[Guardian]

PEG, why you're scum:

You haven't scum-hunted all game, mainly joining easy wagons. We never got this expanded participation you promised. Your "going-through-the-game" analysis was lackluster in terms of concrete conclusions on anyone. Perfect scum play.

[Guardian]

MOD: replace YogurtBandit.

!!

[Guardian]

THANKS SKRUFFS HAI .

[Guardian]

unvote vote: Sarcastro

Counter-wagon ?

Erg0, some content and suspicions would be nice, my patience in terms of tacitly defending you is growing thin.

I can definitely envision a scenario in which Erg0 and ryan are scum, and trying to associate with me .

Sarc & PEG = main suspects. Skruffs pretty much has a blank slate; I will be watching closely...

[Guardian]

I find it extremely suspect that you are asking me to metagame your scum play off of

one 7 PLAYER newbie game where you replaced in and your partner DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HE WAS SCUM due to mod error

.

I refuse to do so.

[Guardian]

I find it extremely suspect that you are asking me to metagame your scum play off of

one 7 PLAYER newbie game where you replaced in and your partner DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HE WAS SCUM due to mod error

.

I refuse to do so.

alright.

then you're as lazy as me.

Not at all. All three games I was scum in on MScum I had significantly different play styles. I have no reason to think your style as scum would be a mirror image of that game.

you can most definitely look at my playstyle there and easily see it comes nowhere near to my playstyle here.

Like I said, I think that that's irrelevant.

P.S. he didn't know he was scum day 1. he was well aware day two.

True -- but it was a 7 player game, not a 20 player one. And lurking your ass off in this game and not doing so in that game =/= you aren't scum here.

[Guardian]

unvote vote: PEG

im not requesting him to do anything.

Question to you Guardian.

Am I playing like that. If so how.

Like hell you're not requesting me to do anything. scum suck die suck die scum die scum.

[Guardian]

You are scum, and trying to disregard my valid arguments is ludicrous.

Mod edit
Votecount:

Erg0 (5): Zindaras, Numenorean7, NabakovNabakov, Ether, Sacred
ryan (1): The Fonz
Sarcastro (1): ryan
pickemgenius (1): Guardian

Not voting (6): Xdaamno, YogurtBandit, Jalyn, pickemgenius, Erg0, Sarcastro.

With 14 alive it's 8 to lynch.

[Guardian]

Hi Skruffs. vote PEG plz.

[Guardian]

Numenorean, he's scum. He needs to die. Why lol?

[Guardian]

PEG, why you're scum:

You haven't scum-hunted all game, mainly joining easy wagons. We never got this expanded participation you promised. Your "going-through-the-game" analysis was lackluster in terms of concrete conclusions on anyone. Perfect scum play.