Open 87 - Baby Too Much Scum - Over before 641

[Goatrevolt]

Confirmed.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Oman

I have a few questions:

What's your favorite color?
What's your favorite food?
Have you ever taken Mr. Cleaver by surprise?

[Goatrevolt]

vote: goatrevolt

for obvious reasons.

I can't tell if that's a serious vote or random vote? If it's serious, I'd like to hear those reasons.

[Goatrevolt]

The obvious reasons involved needing someone to random vote.

Ok. Works for me.

Yeah, there's no such thing as a second post serious vote.

Usually, no. But you never know!

[Goatrevolt]

Lay off on the random stage,

LOL. You would be in this game as well .

[Goatrevolt]

The Cleaver's didn't have a maid!

FoS Farside

You certainly seem to know a good deal about the Cleavers...

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote, Vote armlx

I'm all for putting pressure on people lurking/avoiding this thread to get this game going.

[Goatrevolt]

And now I have a good reason to keep my vote on Goatrevolt: lurkerhunting.

Can you explain how that's scummy?

[Goatrevolt]

What's an anecdotal scum tell?

[Goatrevolt]

One that I don't have statistical data on but in my experience scum do more than town.

There's not much I can say about that.

I still completely fail to see why what I did was scummy at all.

[Goatrevolt]

Well: Town tend to just vote it and then say "yes, I'm bandwagoning" when questioned or something like that.

Scum tend to overexplain themselves, for fear of getting pressured.

Wait, so you think I'm scum because I explained my vote on armlx rather than place a reasonless vote on him? Now that's interesting...

I want you to show me a proper townie vote in that situation and how my vote was an over explanation.

[Goatrevolt]

Basically, you're saying that you think my vote was scummy because I over explained myself. I want you to back up that statement. The "show me a proper townie vote" was basically my way of asking "I want you to show me the way my vote/reasoning differed from the way a townie would have voted in that situation." The reason I asked that question is because I really don't think you have a good answer.

Also, should I be voting you right now for over explaining yourself when you voted for me? Shouldn't you have just plopped down a vote and waited for someone to ask why you voted?

[Goatrevolt]

Well, if that's the case, then

Unvote, Vote Oman

[Goatrevolt]

Actually, I'm voting you because your vote on me is entirely hypocritical.

You're saying that a townie would vote without reasoning and then only give it later on, when questioned, whereas scum feel the need to explain themselves. Your vote on me contained your reasoning within the post. According to your logic, that's a scum tell suggesting that you're afraid of getting pressured for your vote on me.

Basically, your entire reason for voting me is complete bunk. Providing reasoning with a vote is a complete null-tell. Scum provide reasoning for their votes, and so do townies. For the same logic that you're providing to vote for me, I should also be voting for you.

You were pushing crap logic as a means to put a vote on me, who already had someone else with a legitimate vote on them. It looks like you were just trying to push a bandwagon on me, and threw out that anecdotal scum tell stuff as a fancy way of making your vote look nice.

[Goatrevolt]

Really? I don't find either of them particularly scummy.

What do you think of Oman's vote on me? Justified?

[Goatrevolt]

Interesting =/= scummy.

Then what does interesting mean, and why point it out?

[Goatrevolt]

Back, forgot to reply back in thread. Rereading

Have you read up yet? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Goatrevolt]

Lurkerhunting gives scum a free ride for their vote without (usually) having many questions asked. Certainly the lurker him/herself is not often going to fight back against it, since they're lurking and should be mod prodded rather than voted, and generally the rest of the town goes hm, well all right, a lurkervote, sure and goes on with their business. However, by voting a lurker, you are pointedly not taking a stand on any active players, thereby avoiding the fireworks associated with confronting someone who might fire back, and avoiding leaving a real voting record on any issues the town is actually in the midst of discussing.

On the contrary, my vote on armlx was the first real vote of the game. Also, nobody else was taking a stance on any active players. There was no game discussion for me to be avoiding. I definitely agree with you that someone who is lurkerhunting while avoiding discussing real issues is scummy, but what was I avoiding by lurker hunting?

Considering my vote is now on Oman for real reasons, do you still think this is a valid reason to be voting me?

Also, what do you think about Oman's reasons for voting me?

[Goatrevolt]

our vote on me contained your reasoning within the post

If my vote contained my reasoning, why did you have to ask me questions about it?

I didn't understand a term you used. Had I understood the term you used then I would not have had to ask you any questions.

The point is this. You voted me because I provided an explanation for my vote, which is apparently scummy. However, when you voted for me you explained the reasons for your vote. Therefore you are committing the exact same "scum tell" that you're accusing me of. Hypocrisy.

I put scum tell in quotations because someone providing reasoning for their vote is not scummy by any stretch of the imagination. If you actually thought that was true, then you would not have provided reasoning for your vote on me.

You're currently voting me for a null tell that you yourself have committed. OGML had already voted me with a real reason, and you hopped on the wagon with crap logic. That's scummy.

[Goatrevolt]

GR, exacly what null tell has Oman voted you for and done.

His vote on me is because I provided reasoning when I voted for you. I argue that providing reasoning along with a vote is a null tell. Scum and townies both provide reasoning when they vote for people.

He did the same thing himself because when he actually put that vote on me, he provided the reasoning for it. He committed that same alleged "scum tell" he accused me of.

[Goatrevolt]

I believe Oman's point was that you provided reasoning on a seemingly random vote. You're trying to make the suspicion smaller than it is.

Is this directed at me?

I provided reasoning for my legitimate vote on armlx. Can you explain how that's scummy?

[Goatrevolt]

The scummiest thing is your heavy reaction to it. Being quite aggressive back "by any stretch of the imagination" etc.

That doesn't explain why you placed your vote in the first place. And I don't see why aggressiveness towards voting you for your blatant hypocrisy and bandwagoning is scummy in the least bit.

[Goatrevolt]

Your vote was mostly in the random stage. Oman's wasn't. Thus, it is not hypocrisy.

What are you talking about? My vote on armlx was a real vote. Just because it happened at the same time others were random voting does not make it less meaningful.

Besides, whether or not my vote happened during the random stage or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not his vote was hypocritical. He voted me for providing reasoning for my vote. His vote on me had a provided reasoning. Not only is providing reasoning a null-tell, but he is guilty of that same tell he accused me of.

And... bandwagoning? Just because it's the 3rd vote doesn't mean it's bandwagoning!

His vote was practically the definition of bandwagoning. He jumped on a player who already had a legitimate vote on them and did so with completely meaningless reasoning. If that's not scummy, then I don't know what is.

Then again, your vote right here is blatant bandwagoning on an extremely weak wagon without giving any reason whatsoever to why you think I'm scum, so I'm wondering if my vote would better be placed on you.

Unvote
Vote Goatrevolt

I can tell you've been wanting to do that for some time. So what are your reasons for thinking I'm scum, or are you just trying to push a weak wagon even further?

Right now my wagon consists of:

OGML: Who is voting me for lurker hunting, which he pointed out is scummy because it can be used to avoid discussion. Considering there was no discussion at the time and my vote on armlx was meant to actually spark discussion he doesn't have a valid point.

Oman: Who is voting me because I provided reasoning when I voted for armlx, which is entirely a null-tell and hypocritical to boot.

Crazy: Who hasn't given a reason outside of outrage that I called Oman's vote bandwagoning, when that's precisely what it is.

I'm still happy with my vote on Oman, but I must say that Crazy's attempt to sneak onto my wagon is pretty scummy as well. Just looking through his posts, it was clear that he had been wanting to do this for a while but was trying to wait for a chance to actually justify it. Is that the picture of someone looking for scum or looking for an easy lynch?

[Goatrevolt]

My vote on you was because of your constant attempts to derail the argument against you.

Translation: I voted you because you were defending yourself.

Admittedly, Oman's original argument against you was rather weak, but you kept defending yourself with craplogic, and voting Oman for reasons that are hardly justified.

Where am I defending myself with crap logic? Point it out to me.

My reasons for voting Oman are entirely justified. His reason for voting me was horrible, so I voted him for his crap reasons to justify his vote on me.

[Goatrevolt]

First of all, I think you're putting me in a "damned if you, damned if you don't situation." Either I don't defend myself and the charges stick against me, or I defend myself and get accused with being over defensive (or reactive and angry as it's called here). There must be a nice tight line that a townie has to walk to manage to get out of a bandwagon and somehow manage to either not be dismissive or over defensive. Of course, scum are too stupid to know how to walk that line, because stepping too far either way is a scum tell...

Besides, where have I been reactive and angry? Are you talking about me turning around and voting you for the exact same logic you used to vote for me?

Obviously I have a biased opinion in this situation, but I don't think that getting frustrated at being wagoned for dumb reasons is a scum tell. Townies get frustrated all the time as well. I actually just finished a game where I defended farside because I thought an outburst she had in response to a wagon against her day 1 was a town tell, and it indeed turned out that she was town.

Scum picked for an early wagon yell and scream and headdesk for their mistakes to be caught so early.

Or townies wagoned for dumb reasons yell and scream and headdesk about how stupid the town is playing, etc.

[Goatrevolt]

@Mod

Could you prod Alvinz? He hasn't posted in 3 days, but has been posting elsewhere on this site in that time.

[Goatrevolt]

Rage, what do you think about the rest of the game besides Netran's questions?

[Goatrevolt]

I think GR was mistaken of what Oman was trying to do. Oman wasn't hypocritical IMO; I'm thinking he was just trying to start discussion.

Discussion had already started. He was putting a 2nd legitimate vote on someone who already had a legitimate vote and suspicion on them. Believe me, that vote wasn't meant "to spark discussion."

Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,

esp. one whose

private life, opinions, or

statements belie his or her public statements.

Oman's public statement: Placing a vote with reasoning is something scum do more often than town.

Oman's vote: Placed with reasoning on me. His actions speak the lie to his public statement, and thus is hypocrisy.

I'm thinking that both of them are town, actually. As for who the scum is, I gotta reread...

Why do you think both of us are town?

And lurker-hunting, in fact, is a scum-tell later in the game, but at that point, I don't think it can be considered anything.

Then I suppose you could be called out for lurker-hunting, which is... well, bad, as it's the mod's job to do that.

Contradiction?

Woah, woah, what? GR was overreacting to Oman's vote. The whole case was erupted enormously out of proportion.

Overreacting implies that my actions were out of line. I feel that my actions were perfectly justified. Oman furthers a bandwagon on me with crap logic. I feel my reaction and vote on him was not an overreaction at all. Aggressive? Sure, but is there anything wrong with being aggressive?

Show me where I wanted to vote GR before I did... that's what he said but I couldn't find anything.

These 3 quotes right here:

We're not yet totally into the full game-part yet. I'd say his vote is justified.

Your reactions are interesting, if anything.

Interesting means that I don't know whether it's scummy or not, but I'd like to look into it, and

keep my eye on you.

I believe Oman's point was that you provided reasoning on a seemingly random vote.

You're trying to make the suspicion smaller than it is.

Bolded for emphasis. Especially that last quote right there. You accuse me of trying to lessen the suspicion on myself (basically, defend myself) and imply it as being a bad thing. To me that suggests that you've already made up your mind and are just waiting at this point for an opportunity to jump on my bandwagon. It certainly wasn't a surprise at all when you voted for me. I had been expecting it.

[Goatrevolt]

Crazy, show me where Oman said anything about a random vote. My vote on armlx was not random and Oman never implied that it was. You're fabricating reasons why Oman's actions make sense.

[Goatrevolt]

I always get good vibes when someone willingly puts themselves in the spotlight in an attempt to start discussion. It seems like you both did that.

I don't think Oman expected his vote on me to be challenged. After all he was voting for someone other people had already expressed suspicion on.

[Goatrevolt]

Oman is an experienced player, here, so he's not going to do something so obvious not-making-sense like that. Of course we're supposed to provide reasons for our votes, unless if this is AITP or something. I mean, that's the whole point of mafia. So I can assume that that's not what Oman meant. But since nobody can explain what he meant like he can, I think he should respond to this.

This could be one of the most ridiculous things I've read, to put it bluntly.

Crazy, Oman has already explained many times why he voted for me. What you're doing right now is saying that Oman's explanation for why he voted for me can't possibly be true because that would put him in a scummy light. You're starting from the assumption that Oman is an experienced player, which means he can't be scummy. From that assumption you've already drawn the conclusion that he's town, and now what you're doing is trying to go back and fit his actions to make sense as though he were town. You're even ignoring

his own explanations

for his actions because they don't fit your preconceived notions.

In other words, rather than see Oman make a scummy action and then draw the conclusion that it's probably because he's scum, you're instead seeing Oman make a scummy action and fabricating reasoning for why he probably did that so that you can assume that he isn't scum. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, because that is truly absurd.

Here's my honest take on the situation. Oman voted for me under the guise of an "anecdotal scum tell" to hop on my already formed bandwagon. Oman did not expect to get seriously challenged on his vote, because it sounded good and sounded like a reasoned vote. Upon getting challenged though, it quickly became quite obvious that Oman had absolutely no real reason for thinking that I was scum and then took to trying to justify his vote ex post facto based on my aggressive response.

I don't see any pro-town motivation in Oman adding an additional vote to my bandwagon based on crap logic and then desperately clinging to that vote based on more crap logic after his original voting reasons were shown to be bad. The logical conclusion here is that he's scum. Your conclusion is that an experienced player would never do something like this, and thus he's town.

With that being said, I'm very highly considering moving my vote to Alvinz. Alvinz has been posting elsewhere on the site and is displaying the exact same posting style he had in Open 70, where he was scum. I would not be surprised in the least if he's lurking in this game specifically because he's scum and worried about getting caught. Call it lurker hunting if you wish, but in this case I think lurker = scum.

[Goatrevolt]

Crazy, the entire point is that I don't think Oman expected to get challenged on his vote. He tossed out a vote with fancy reasoning and expected it to fly. Now he's in a hole.

Please, if you're worried about lurkers, tell the mod to prod him. Never switch your well-placed vote just to bring out a lurker.

I wouldn't be switching my well placed vote to bring out a lurker. I'd be switching my vote to lynch lurking scum. There's a difference between lurker hunting (trying to draw a lurker out to post more) and voting for a lurker because you think they're scum.

[Goatrevolt]

The only thing from Netran that caught my attention was him basically avoiding the ongoing Me/Oman discussion and instead was pushing Rage for not random voting in his first post.

[Goatrevolt]

I would say it's more likely that he would be Oman's partner actually. He hasn't commented a single time on Oman this entire game if I recall. Scum oftentimes ignore their partners. Edit: it looks like his only comment on Oman was that Oman's original point for voting me was weak, but didn't pursue it further.

Also, his defense of me came after the wagon on me had dissolved. It's hardly a defense if it comes after the fact.

Anyway, this speculation seems weak to me anyway. Netran's connections to either me or Oman don't mean anything unless me or Oman is dead. And Netran's reaction to us doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we are scum. It would be dumb to lynch either me or Oman under the premise that

if

we are scum then he'd make a good scum buddy.

Finally, I kind of disagree that he would have to be one of our scum buddies at all. He could simply be scum looking to avoid taking a stance either way. He can sit back and wait and see where opinion goes and then jump on whichever seems the better option.

Anyway, all this talk makes me want to go back and look through Netran again.

[Goatrevolt]

I read through the thread.

Oman is still my top target. Here is the flow of events:

1. He jumped on my bandwagon with crap logic.

2. I called him out on his crap logic.

3. He has completely ignored anything and everything related towards his original reasons for voting for me and whether or not he had a valid reason for voting me.

4. Instead, he has kept his vote on me, and when questioned he cites my reaction as his reason for the vote. This is a complete cover up. When questioned on his vote, he cites reasons that

hadn't even happened yet when he initially voted for me

as why his vote is on me, but continues to conveniently ignore anyone's requests for his original voting reasons and whether or not they are valid.

I'm pretty sure Oman got caught. He tried to further my bandwagon with crappy reasons, and rather than admit he was wrong, he has tried to weasel his way out of it by citing events that hadn't even happened yet as his voting reasons.

It's like this:

Oman: Vote Goat
Goat: WTF, why are you voting me?
Oman: Hah, over reaction, that's why I'm voting you.

As for Netran, I'm not sure. I think I'm actually more suspicious of Rage than Netran at this point. Don't be offended by this question, but is English your native language Netran?

[Goatrevolt]

The issue is that you're attacking me for acting like town under the premise that I'm scum trying to act like town. That completely ignores the more logical explanation that I'm town acting like town. Then i attack you for your illogical vote on me, and again you assume that I'm scum overreacting to pressure, completely ignoring the just as likely if not more likely explanation that I'm town aggressively defending myself against bad logic.

[Goatrevolt]

What have you on Rage?

His vote on Crazy would be the main thing for me. Here is his reasoning:

Expressed equal suspicion of both Oman and GR, but decided to vote for GR and later took it off when proven incorrect. Then he FoSed GR and took that off too. He did not consider other suspicions when pressuring GR, and didn't see GR's side until he had already taken a vote and FoS off of him. I want to know what Crazy thinks about why Goatrevolt is suspicious of Oman.

The issue is that this is a summary of events and not actual reasons

why

he thinks Crazy is scum. In other words, he put Crazy at 3 votes (L-2), but doesn't actually say anything to suggest that Crazy is scum. Bandwagon votes like this with weak or nonexistent reasoning definitely catch my eye.

Also, I find it interesting that Rage agreed with me about Oman, but then voted for Crazy and pressured Crazy for her stance on Oman. He mentions he agrees with me on Oman but just leaves it at that. No vote, or reasoning why he isn't voting for Oman. Instead he hops on the Crazy Train.

I also just have a gut feel about him based on some of the way he's worded some of his posts, but it's hard to elaborate more on that. I just get the feeling that he's trying to be careful not to step on any toes.

[Goatrevolt]

But you're not acting town. You're acting as if you're acting town!

Because I voted for armlx with reasoning?

Surely you can see that town also vote for people with reasoning as well, which is why this is weak.

[Goatrevolt]

At least Oman did have an explanation that made sense. I don't agree with his "anecdotal scumtell at all," but at least he had more reasoning for his vote than GR gave him credit for.

Reasoning: Oman's post #155

Um...how could I give him credit for reasoning that didn't come until over 100 posts after the fact? Seriously, wow....

Non-reasoning: OMG YOU SAID WHY YOU WERE VOTING A PERSON! SCUM!

First of all, that is his reasoning. Second of all, I think your defense of Oman is ridiculous.

Play by play:

Goatrevolt: Oman's logic for thinking me scum is wrong.
Crazy: But if that was Oman's real logic then it would make him look like scum. Therefore it can't be his real logic.
Goatrevolt: Um...
Crazy: Come on Oman, tell them what your real reasons were.

Long Intermission:

Oman: Here are my reasons. They are the same as my original reasons, but I've given slightly more explanation to them.
Crazy: There you go. I can't believe you didn't see that Goat. You give Oman no credit.

[Goatrevolt]

Anyway, I can finally do what I've wanted to do for a while and that is

Unvote

with a reason: basically, his play isn't anything like Cog City, where we were mafia together.

I was wondering if that was going to happen.

Anyway, I'm still somewhat suspicious of Oman, but right now I simply think Rage has a better shot of being scum, and thus I will

Unvote, Vote Rage

I'm still anxiously awaiting skitzer's analysis, and I still think there is a fairly decent chance that he's scum based solely on meta arguments against alvinz.

[Goatrevolt]

Rage has asked to be replaced. I will do as requested. Carry on

Rage! I wanted to see his response to my points against him.

Maybe he's trying the tried and true "replacement defense" where he simply replaces out at the first sign of pressure and hopes it dissipates.

I think I will never vote anyone based only (I know you have other reasons) on this because I see it as an implicit declaration (and I use them too).

I wouldn't necessarily consider it much of an implicit declaration. Let's see what he's said here.

1. "

Expressed equal suspicion of both Oman and GR, but decided to vote for GR and later took it off when proven incorrect.

" Lacking is any reasoning why these actions suggest Crazy is scum. Are scum the only ones who unvote upon being proven wrong? Are scum the ones who express equal suspicion of two players but end up voting for one?

2. "

Then he FoSed GR and took that off too.

" Missing is any explanation why the FoS and take off is scummy.

3. "

He did not consider other suspicions when pressuring GR, and didn't see GR's side until he had already taken a vote and FoS off of him.

" Is failure to take into account other suspicions a scum tell? Is failure to see someone's side a scum tell? You can argue that they were by suggesting that Crazy's behavior in these matters suggests a mindset of scum, but Rage did nothing of the sort.

My point is that he basically provided merely a summary of the events without any real indication or even implicit declarations of why those actions were scummy. This reeks to me of scum joining a bandwagon and faking reasons to be on it.

I mean, I could go through armlx's posts and say, "armlx first chose not to take a side in the GR/Oman debate. He later questioned Oman. Eventually he decided to vote for Oman despite originally not taking any sides" and then vote for armlx, but what am I really saying? I'm not showing how his actions are scummy, I'm merely just summarizing what he's done in a manner to suggest that I have legitimate reasons for that vote.

[Goatrevolt]

I find it weird how Goatrevolt wants an analysis when he knows he's likely to be the focus of it, based on the current pages.

I want an analysis mostly so I can get your opinions to help my read on you. I'm not sure what you're really trying to imply by that statement...that I'm narcissistic and really just want everyone to focus on me?

[Goatrevolt]

@Crazy: Again you'll have to show me where I've straw manned the attack against me. He attacked me for "looking townie" by putting reasoning with my vote. I think my reaction to that vote was entirely justified.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think Crazy is scum. His vote + unvote on me was certainly a suspicious action, but I've been leaning town on him from the rest of his play. His willingness to jump into any discussion and not be afraid to say what he thinks even if it's not the popular opinion gives me town vibes.

@iamausername: The "replacement defense" comment was mostly a joke. I say mostly because from my mafia experiences scum replace out more often than townies. Either way, I'm not going to use it as justification for pushing your case, and Rage mentioned he was on vacation in another game, so it's not much of an issue.

Also, you think Crazy/Oman are a scum team, however you think Crazy is scum partly because she is defending her scum buddy Oman. Doesn't it logically follow that you should then be voting for Oman, since that logic only holds up if Oman is actually scum?

[Goatrevolt]

I think Oman is correct regarding the circular argument bit, but I also think that this discussion is missing the point.

Oman, do you think that the first person to place a non-random vote is scummy if they provide reasoning for it, and not scummy if they don't provide reasoning? Isn't that almost contradictory, because if they don't provide reasoning, then how would we know it's a real vote and not just another random vote. Rage and Netran were both random voting additional players. If I voted armlx without reasoning, it would be assumed to be another random vote. If I vote armlx with reasoning, it becomes clear that it's a real vote.

@armlx and Goatrevolt: What I'm trying to say is that Goatrevolt is under plenty of suspicion now, and he is trying to get more people to focus upon him?

This is false in so many ways. First of all, there are more people in this game than me. When I ask for your analysis on the game, that doesn't mean I'm asking you to give your opinion on me. You have yet to show where I'm asking you to focus on me. Secondly, what pressure on me?

[Goatrevolt]

I really think rage and skitzer are scum. Maybe OGML, but I haven't seen enough there yet.

[Goatrevolt]

I really think rage and skitzer are scum. Maybe OGML, but I haven't seen enough there yet.

What have you seen from skitzer really?

His posts speak of a lack of desire to provide concrete opinions. Also, meta arguments from Alvinz play a big role here, which he can't answer but I still find meaningful.

I also think Crazy is town, so I think the wagon on him is "an easy spot for scum to hide" if you ask me. Considering Rage/Skitzer are my top two, it doesn't surprise me they are hitching a ride on that Crazy Train.

[Goatrevolt]

His posts speak of a lack of desire to provide concrete opinions. Also, meta arguments from Alvinz play a big role here, which he can't answer but I still find meaningful.

Can you explain this?

The first part is basically my read on the situation. When I asked him to provide analysis, he chose to pressure my motivations for that analysis rather than actually do it. The meta argument is basically based on Open 70 where alvinz as scum lurked all game and most of his posts were basically just him promising rereads, which was pretty much the entirety of his contribution to this game. Also, he avoided posting in this game a lot while posting semi-frequently in other games on this site.

[Goatrevolt]

I completely disagree with almost the entirety of what Grimmy said. I would say this game is not at all going to play out like town v. town. The town wants to lynch scum, the SK and mafia both do not care who gets lynched as long as it's not them. Those are two completely different motivations for actions and thus we will be still be able to determine who is scum based on their actions. Is the scum going to try to blend in as town, of course. It's the same as any other mafia game. Trying to paint this game as a completely different form of mafia and then use it as a basis to toss suspicion around is enough for me to

FoS Grimmy

.

I'm still happy with my vote on Iamusername, and would also support switching to Sktizer if others wanted to go that way. Grimmy/OGML as of yet hasn't said enough for me to be willing to lynch him.

[Goatrevolt]

I still want to lynch either Iamusername or Skitzer.

[Goatrevolt]

Why are you now voting Crazy?

[Goatrevolt]

What are you talking about not genuine suspicion? Why are you voting Crazy if you don't suspect him?

[Goatrevolt]

Prod received, but too busy in RL to analyze.
Ill try to check back in tomorrow.

Grimmy

Please do. Deadline is quickly approaching.

[Goatrevolt]

I agree with Crazy. I would prefer lynching Oman to no lynch, but I think we have a much higher chance of hitting scum with Iamusername. Those last two votes on Oman are enough to make me think it would be a poor lynch.

Look back through Rage/Iamusername. Rage's vote on Crazy was with weak or nonexistant reasoning as he hopped onto the already formed wagon. Iamusername's vote on Crazy and Oman (especially) could both be classified as self-preservation more so than an actual attempt at scumhunting.

Also, let's not forget about Skitzer. I think there's also a very strong chance he's scum. His contribution thus far to the game has been mostly to question my motives for asking him to provide opinions, rather than actually provide opinions.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm here. The Iamusername kill surprises me and I think is actually meaningful and not something to just dismiss as WIFOM. What exactly it means, I'm not positive yet. I need to think this through.

I think Skitzer is part of the mafia. His lack of concrete opinions suggests an unwillingness to provide information as to who his partner could be. I think his partner would be either Mencellator/Grimmy, and the other has a strong chance of being the SK.

Crazy I think is town by nature of Skitzer pushing her and Skitzer being my top mafia suspect.

Armlx I'm fairly neutral on. I don't see him as a strong suspect for either scum team but haven't really ruled him out for anything either.

My picks for the Serial Killer are basically: Grimmy/Mencelator/Armlx in that order of likelihood, although I'm a bit torn with which is more likely out of my top two choices.

[Goatrevolt]

-Goatsters theory of my SK-edness

It was actually based on a misinterpretation.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out who would kill Iamusername, who was a likely lynch target today. This stuff generally gets tossed aside as WIFOM, but who has the most to gain from such an action? I would argue that Grimmy has both something to gain and lose from it. To gain is the fact that he was being paired up as a mafia member with Iamusername and this would end that speculation, but he also loses in that he was a top suspect and with another top suspect gone he becomes a higher priority lynch target.

My guess right now is that Iamusername was killed for one of the following reasons:

1. Someone thought he gave off signs of being the FBI Agent.
2. Someone wasn't following the thread closely enough to realize he was under suspicion
3. The SK is someone relatively unsuspected who can afford to take out a top target and not have the noose fall around their neck next.

Honestly, I think the Iamusername kill points most closely to armlx. He was under no suspicion and thus wasn't directly putting himself in the crossfire by making a kill on a top suspect. By nature of him not being on the Iamusername case yesterday, he wouldn't be able to just easily jump back on today, which would have given less incentive to make that kill.

I'd like to review armlx. I find him terribly hard to evaluate, since most of his posts are fairly straightforward and logical, but don't ultimately give much towards evaluating his alignment. Either way, I think the Iamusername kill points mostly to him and I'd be interested in looking more into that.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not sold on having the FBI agent come forward. If we lynch mafia, but not the SK today, it's in our best interest for the FBI agent to remain unknown. If we lynch Mafia today, and the FBI agent has come forward, then the serial killer is likely just going to take the easy shot and put us in a tough spot. We want the SK to hit the other mafia member, but that simply won't happen.

I propose that the FBI agent remains anonymous and only claims if either:

1. They are going to get lynched.
2. They investigated a player as not the SK who is going to get lynched.
3. They got a guilty. In that case, they should simply claim now.

armlx: As the only way to determine scum, yes it's dumb. Ignoring it is even more dumb though. People are night killed for a reason, thus it's rarely a good idea to throw it away as strictly WIFOM. Trying to figure out that reason is helpful.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, my point is that given any player as SK, I could probably come up with a reason for them to kill IAUN. There's no way to ascribe a given reason to a specific kill barring in end game scenarios.

Yes, you could come up with reasons, but some reasons simply make more sense than others. Someone who is highly suspected has less motivation to kill another highly suspected player because it puts them more in the spotlight. Sure, it's possible that player killed IAUN anyway for other reasons, but I simply find it less likely.

Thoughts on what I said about the FBI agent? The reason we want the FBI Agent to claim is to clear 2 people of being the SK. A better alternative is to have the FBI Agent only claim if one of those 2 people is going to be the lynch. That way, if we lynch mafia but not SK today, we still have a chance of the SK hitting mafia tonight.

[Goatrevolt]

I think the hypo-FBI claim is a good idea.

Oh, and I think it's entirely plausible that the SK killed Username just because they thought he was scum.

That is certainly possible. I would assume they would go for the FBI agent, but you may have a point.

[Goatrevolt]

Grimmy, you claim first.

Popcorn after that. Grimmy picks the next person to claim, who then picks the following person, etc.

[Goatrevolt]

I checked Sktizer and he's not the SK.

He can go next, though.

[Goatrevolt]

3 people say Goat is not the Sk
1 says Grimmy is not the SK
1 says Iam is not the Sk.
1 says Skitzer is not the SK.

Fixed that for you.

I'm not sure how meaningful that information is. I'd like to be able to say that since 3 players said I'm not the SK that there's a 50% chance one of them is the FBI agent, thus clearing me, but that's not a very strong argument.

I'd like to just reread and see what I can pick up from that.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not sure about the speed of this wagon here. The fact that Grimmy is already at L-1 scares me.

I would strongly suggest no hammer.

[Goatrevolt]

I'll be honest, I'm starting to suspect armlx/crazy as the mafia team.

[Goatrevolt]

Ok, I can definitely picture armlx and crazy working together as the mafia team now. I'm not sure whether to stick with Grimmy or switch to Crazy.

Heh. No. Does this scenario completely eclipse yesterday? Armlx kept using stupid, mindless arguments against Oman, being the most vocal person on that wagon, while I was the one that was

so obviously

Oman's scumbuddy.

If armlx was using stupid, mindless arguments against Oman, why were you not suspicious of this?

[Goatrevolt]

I am the FBI agent. Crazy is lying scum.

Night 1 I investigated Skitzer, not the SK.

Last night I investigated Mencellator, also not the SK.

With 5 alive, I don't honestly know why Crazy would lie about being the FBI agent. It doesn't seem to make any sense from any scum, but at any rate, I cannot see a town person making that play, and thus Crazy needs to be the lynch.

If Crazy is mafia, we simply win the game. That means that Grimmy has to be the SK, as I'm the FBI agent, and Mencellator/Skitzer are innocent. If Crazy is the SK, then we have 2 days to correctly lynch the mafia member, and I'm confirmed town, giving us a serious leg up.

Vote Crazy

If you're unsure, look back at one of my earlier posts day 2. I make the statement that I'm really sure Skitzer is part of the mafia and not a SK, hinting at my night investigation in case I died. I also was opposed to the FBI agent coming out, because I simply didn't want to have to claim and paint a target on my chest for a NK, when it wasn't completely necessary.

[Goatrevolt]

Also, Crazy was in favor of the FBI agent coming forward and claiming. If he legitimately was the FBI agent, why wouldn't he just claim right there?

-----

Here's the plan:

Crazy is SK: We can deal with this later, since the mafia doesn't have a NK, and we'll all be alive again tomorrow

Crazy is mafia: The SK has to be Grimmy at this point. I'm assuming I'd be night killed simply because I'll be confirmed town. If that is the case, Skizter/Menc have to lynch Grimmy, as I've confirmed both of those players as not the SK.

If Crazy is mafia, Grimmy is SK. If Crazy is SK, then we can discuss further tomorrow (although I have a fairly good idea of who the scum is at that point).

[Goatrevolt]

I want to read through everything before making a decision, but I'm currently leaning either Skitzer or Mencellator as scum here. Armlx put Grimmy at L-1 in a situation where a mislynch meant a mafia win. I doubt Armlx is going to push for a scum buddy in that scenario.

Armlx ignored skitzer almost all game, and swapped off of Grimmy and onto Mencellator "to get a response." I could see skitzer being a buddy just as well as that being a distancing technique with Mencellator.

[Goatrevolt]

While I was correct about Crazy, it still irked me to see her vote herself off the island.

Why would that irk you?

[Goatrevolt]

Hmmm...I personally think If I were armlx's buddy we would talk...

What do you mean?

[Goatrevolt]

Ultimately I make the decision both today and tomorrow, should it be necessary. I'm going to do my own review of the game, but I would like to see all 3 of you provide reasoning for who we should lynch and why.

I mean, I see that Mencellator suspects Skitzer then Grimmy, Skitzer suspects Mencellator then Grimmy, and Grimmy suspects Mencellator and Skitzer, but I think I could have worked that one out myself . Why should I suspect them as well?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm waiting for Grimmy/Mencellator/Skitzer to give some solid reasons for who we should lynch and why. I want to know your top suspect and why they are scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm still here, still keeping up with the thread. Just waiting for Grimmy/Mencellator/Skitzer.

[Goatrevolt]

Yes, yes yes. I want to continue please. Sorry farside that this game has been so slow. .

[Goatrevolt]

If Crazy is SK, then we can discuss further tomorrow (although I have a fairly good idea of who the scum is at that point).

care to share yet?

Ah, yes, that statement was my "I don't think Grimmy is the scum" statement that I made earlier, based on Armlx's vote on you. I want to read to make sure I'm not giving you a free pass though.

[Goatrevolt]

Reading tonight, and will make a post on my findings and decision.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm tempted to vote Grimmy for his blatant Goat misrepresentation. Paws? Claws? Are you mad? It's hooves man. Clearly only scum would create such misrepresentation.

In all seriousness, though, I'm going to go ahead and vote Mencellator. I believe Armlx and Mencellator were doing a bit of le distancing on day 2. Armlx voted Mencellator and then said "I'd still be willing to hammer Grimmy" which suggested an escape route for getting off his partner. Both of their actions in that scenario speak of scum busing. Mencellator felt the need to make a statement along the lines of "Hey I was right about Armlx," which to me suggests he was busing his partner and wanted townie credit for it. Netran's posts strike me as scummy strictly on the tone of them. Mencellator only jumped onto Armlx when Armlx pushed him first and when Mencellator looked like the lynch. He was trying to setup armlx for the win when he was lynched. Other than that, Armlx/Mencellator have ignored each other throughout the entirety of the game.

So after reading through the thread, my gut is telling me

Mencellator
Skitzer
Grimmy

in that order.

Vote Mencellator

[Goatrevolt]

Awesome.

Any compelling reasons to vote the other? I'm going to reread one more time before making my choice.

[Goatrevolt]

Ugh, I hate being put in this position. Neither of you have really been shining beacons of townieness.

Vote Skitzer

I hope I'm right...

[Goatrevolt]

No responses? The suspense is killing me...

[Goatrevolt]

Yeah, I thought that was funny. There was no way Crazy was the FBI agent based on the way he handled the "FBI agent come out with results" thing from day 2. I would have supported anyone else who counterclaimed him. . I do want to hear the reasoning though.

Armlx didn't leave a whole lot of clues to his partner, and other than Mencellator (who I really thought was scum) I was up in the air about Grimmy/Skitzer. I almost felt like just flipping a coin, but I decided to stick with my earlier feel of skitzer-scum. Armlx did waffle some on Grimmy, but the fact that you kept him at L-1, and only when I made a comment about leaving him at L-1 did you unvote made me think you might just be hopping off for townie cred at that point, rather than actually saving your scum buddy.

Sorry farside for the slow pace. The town shot ourselves in the foot by lurking. Grimmy/Mencellator/Skitzer all made plausible sense as scum simply because of the lack of content/lurking. It's not like I really could call anyone out for it either, since I lurked pretty hard myself .