Large Normal 92 - Game Over! Scum Win!

[Mastin]

Heh. I PM'd the mod wanting to know why it said Day one and the thread was locked.

Jebus Edit: Was locked for 5 mins after I posted D1, was writing flavour/setting confirmations straight D:

Anyway,


Time to scum hunt.
Hi, my name's Mastin.
I'm Mafia with Red Coyote and Ace.
We were informed that Tar is a mafia traitor willing to join our side.
We were also told that Amished is a neutral traitor, who will join any mafia targeting him. Multiple families, yay!

Mastin votes: Mastin

.
Discuss.

[Mastin]

Heh. Glad to see you too, mastin.

Nice to be scumbuddies with ya, my friend.

And RC too!

His relation to this game is truly a twist of irony, that he ends up entwined with my win condition.

I'm looking forward to finally being able to play another game with you.

I'm looking forward to finally playing a forum game with RC instead of just EM. He's one of the best on EM, so this should be fun.

And now for the conundrum of who to vote on policy.

Empking, Zwet, Millar, and Data. Two are in this game; who do you pick to die quickly and give us our first night-kill, Ace?

I think I'll stick with my favorite, Vote: Zwetschenannoyingname

Zwetschenwasser. Not that hard to remember.

Also, our mod is a zombie.

Or vampire, or werewolf, or demon, or monster, or ghost, or ghoul, or wraith, or shriek, or...

You get the idea. But, yea, you get the idea:
Mod's evil.

Zombies are scary.

Undead are scary.

Scary = scummy

Nah, that's logic.

therefore FoS:Jebus

Nah. It's

-S^1+F, Jebus.

In English,
The most common word in there, minus the first S given, and then replace that S with an F. (I heard the song recently, and mafia was on my mind. I plan to use it in the future. )

[Mastin]

Hmm, can't go against that type of logic.

Well, you *can*, but you don't want to.

If they're that convinced that they're scum

Of course we're scum. We're always scum, given how many votes/FoS's we receive.

(and they should know)

Or...do we?

then this will be a pretty easy game.

Cakewalk, actually.

Vote: Mastin

Why, you traitor!
...Oh, right. You ARE a traitor.

[Mastin]

Amished you should know that mastin and I are suicide bomb NK-proof jesters that win if either of us are killed.

Yea, so just ignore what I said earlier about our roles and lynch us based off of Ace's claim. We're being inconsistent; we must be anti-town, right?

We also win with the mafia and any other non-town factions.

Yup. We get a guaranteed win. Neat, eh?

...

. . .

Wow, I can see why zwet does this

As can I.

It's quite fun.

The only thing more fun than the random voting stage jokes with Ace, Mastin, RC, and others, is trying to reverse an L-2 bandwagon to hit scum instead of yourself, or town instead of scum.

[Mastin]

note to self: If mastin is at L-2 and reverses a bandwagon and it hits town, then he is scum.

Of course I'm scum, Ace. With you.

[Mastin]

First of all, the word zombie now gets this in my head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N1_0SUGlDQ

Heh, heh, yea...

Vote: Mastin

Mastin Unvotes: Mastin,
Mastin Votes: Caboose

.
I have no reason. This is just blatant OMGUS.

Spamming + self vote + sarcasm about "scumbuddies" = scummy

Who said I was being sarcastic about being scummy?

As for your reasoning, it's extremely poor, for the simple fact that I'm doing everything in my power to simply make my posts as long as possible. That explains all my actions rather nicely, don't you think? You better, for you'd only earn my suspicions if you di--oh, wait, I already voted you.

Vote: Zer0ph34r

-S^1+F, Zwet, for bandwagoning.

Most useless useless person I know.

I can think of worse.

Hello all!

Hello, Dust! Nice to see you! How are you doing? Well? I look forward to playing with ya. It should be extremely fun.

Well, seeing as Ace will inevitably hold me to the meta I made for myself in Open 143, I cannot help but state my continued dissatisfaction with the RVS.

Why so worried about meta?
Perhaps because you're not of the same alignment?
Not the same alignment-->Scum.
Kthnxdainow.

Mastin Unvotes: Caboose,
Mastin Votes: Dust

.

That said, though, I find the RVS fun. I like to get it over quickly, though, to actually start playing. What do you think these posts are, just a random bunch of needless fluff? Yea, pretty much, but they serve a darker, more sinister purpose that I will withhold 'til L-1. Makes me scummiest person on earth, but I'm used to it. Oh, well. I enjoy getting on people's nerves.
How much do you want to bet this post alone will earn me at least another two votes to start the leading bandwagon?
I know that I think I will.
Especially because I'm changing my claim:
I'm a lyncher. Red Coyote is my target; I want him dead, but I won't vote him due to how much I like him.

The last two times I've done this, I've gotten the better majority of the Town on my ass

Get used to it.

but somehow managed to survive.

Make a fine survivor, don't you?

@Mastin- If you're claiming scum, as well as your partners, are you truly playing for your win condition? I think that's a rule violation. XP

Nah, it is in some games, but not in this one. I thought I might try it for the lul'z.

"Believe in me believing in you!" ~Kamina

I love that Anime. It's f-ing awesome. No wonder Ani-Monday chose to repeat it...

[Mastin]

(Note: I'm beginning to try to be serious with my vote on Dust. Discuss this.)

DUST I KILL YOU

Then why not unvote and vote Dust?
-S^1, + F, Zwet, for not voting who you want to.

Dust, the only ONE THING that I dislike about your playstyle is your unwillingness to take part in the RVS.

To be honest, until this game, I've hated it. I just chose to make more fun out of it this time.

It's fun and starts discussion, what's not to like?

Well, generating discussion via the RVS takes time. More direct (and scummy) methods exist, though, like me. I'm such a joker, aren't I?

Vote: Zwet

Bandwagon already? -S^1, + F, Zer, for bandwagoning.

Reason: Failure

True.

Zwet, have you ever succeeded?

When?

How?

Can I have a link?

Do you plan on succeeding, or failing, this game?

Do you plan on being bussed to death?

Or buss a partner to death?

Do you think you'll help your faction win?

[Mastin]

Ebwop, wrong game. Vote: alvinz95

. . .

Perhaps more than two post this time?

This would be preferable. Hundreds, no, THOUSANDS of posts!

[Mastin]

Mastin: making it impossible to find a replacement from Day 1.

Nah.

I prefer the term,
Making every player Irreplaceable.

Or, alternatively,
Mastin,
Every game's a novel.

---

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-1

Mastin - 2

(Amished, Caboose)

Zwetschenwasser - 2

(AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)

zer0ph34r - 2

(zoraster, zwetschenwasser)

Dust - 1

(Mastin)

alvinz95 - 1

(Azhrei)

Not Voting - 19

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

[Mastin]

If you like yours, I suggest a modification:

Mastin: Making it impossible to find a replacement from Page 1.

---

Seriously, though, more votes on Dust, please, for a quick scum bandwagon.

[Mastin]

Cause following is easier than leading.

Sometimes.

That and Mastin looks like he knows what he's about.

Always do.

Unvote
Vote: Dust

Hmm...bandwagon...
I'm not sure if I like this, or dislike it... :/

[Mastin]

Ah, but see that makes verbosity seem like an asset, and I want to immediately discourage that notion.

Meh.

Well, I get home tonight and decide to check my watched topics

The second I post in a topic, it becomes watched. Neat, eh? Too bad I don't use the watched topic feature at all. It has no use to me. I just keep a tab for every game I'm in, because I use Firefox.

and see this game is already at 2 pages.

Due to my fluff, mind you.

Good thing it turns out I didn't miss anything though.

It isn't a TRUE party until we have Xtoxm replace in as a vanilla townie and Kublai Khan replace in as a mafia goon.

Is this the part where I randomly vote for a person

That's generally what the RVS is for. But, wait--
You're no new player; you should know that.
-S^1, + F, Maturin.

(Also, players, PLEASE note this:

I'm not Masturin.
Maturin isn't Masturin.
We have similar usernames, so try not to typo either of 'em.)

or just spout nonsense?

I do this. All the time.

Cause I could do either

I do both.

but I'll start with the first one, for starters.

Eh, that's generally what you do in the middle:
Spout nonsense,
Random vote,
Spout some more nonsense,
Debate.

Vote: Mastin

Yay, bandwagon!
I win as a Jester.

Wait

[image]http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... N%26um%3D1[/image]
Okay, we're waiting.

that wasn't random at all.

True enough.

Unvote
Vote: zu_Faul

Lynch the lurkers!

There, that's better.

Aww, but I wanna fulfill my jester requirement...

Oh goodness, maturin as well?

We need Jeff here to be a mafia goon.
Seriously, though, check the players' list. It helps.

This is going to be a fun game.

Is there a boring one?

But, really, it WILL be fun.

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-1

Mastin - 2 (Amished, Caboose)
Zwetschenwasser - 2 (AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)
zer0ph34r - 2 (zoraster, zwetschenwasser)
Dust - 1 (Mastin)
alvinz95 - 1 (Azhrei)

Not Voting - 19 (Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Nice bandwagon. Not voting has 19. That's past lynching. The other tied bandwagons are kinda pathetic right now.

[Mastin]

Bah.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... N%26um%3D1

Just click on it, 'kay. Ms.net dislikes long image urls. >_>

[Mastin]

I can't speak for Opera or any of that Apple nonsense

Nor can I.

but IE and Chrome both have tabbed browsing now.

Firefox had it first!
Seriously, though, Firefox pwns.

Anyway, you missed Amished's Dust vote in your vote count.

It wasn't my vote count.

Mastin - 1 (Caboose)
Zwetschenwasser - 2 (AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)
zer0ph34r - 2 (zoraster, zwetschenwasser)
Dust - 2 (Mastin, Amished)
alvinz95 - 1 (Azhrei)
zu_Faul - 1 (Maturin24)

Not Voting - 18 (Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Better?

[Mastin]

Activity level is truly concerning...you're giving me nothing to work with. <_<

Let's see,

Maybe if I actively lurk, discussion will get going better!

[Mastin]

vote: Mastin

Heh. This Jester win will be easier than I thought. I don't need to pull a Datadanne to get lynched in three pages with votes piling up like that.

CHOOSE THE LIGHT, CHOOSE INTERNETZ EXPLORAR SEVEN!

Firefox gives the light of a fire! It gives brightness to the darkness that once was before.
Internet Explorer is the tool of the devil, it's the pure definition of darkness!

------
On a side-note,
-S^1, + F, Devastation, for reading something this far, yet commenting on nothing but my browser.

[Mastin]

Vote: Killa seven

Lol. Nice choice. Lynching lurkers and all.

That's the reason, right?

[Mastin]

Mastin is probably either Mafia

Yup.

posing as Jester, or Jester, posing as mafia posing as jester.

Wifom for the win, eh?

------

On a more serious note, the FoS is serious on Devasation. More so than before.

[Mastin]

Hmm, two mistakes

Seriously only two?

(lack of preview for image fail, and not counting my vote).

After the first failure, I tried every combination of image/img, but it still didn't work to fix it. :/
And, well, I did count your vote. The first was quoting the top, the second was a modified version which included newer votes.

Clearly Mastin is lying about everything.

Of course I lie. I cheat. I deceive. That's how you win as mafia.

LALiars, *ESPECIALLY* in random stage....

A policy I rather like, which I believe I inherited from 735...

Lynch all who Say Lynch All Liars.
LALAL.

Unvote
vote: Mastin

Auto--S^1, +F, Amished, for rerandom-voting me.

Shameful, is what that is.

*blabbering on about pride*. I suppose I'll have to get rid of it.
-Light Yagami.
I have no pride, and take no shame in my actions.

Besides, I support Jesters posing as anything

Which is what I'm doing.

or anybody posing as a Jester

Yay,
Vote Mastin for the 2009 scummies for best Jester!

so this should help you win your popularity contest.

I'm more popular during the night than during the day.

------

I'm doing a fine job of getting us out of the RVS.

Let's get votes on Dust to see his reactions to it. Also, check out my FoS's. Think them through. Ponder others' reactions from my actions and form a conclusion.

---

Fun and games are over. Let's get some scum hunting done.

[Mastin]

I'd like to just vote Mastin as he's obviously asking for it.

Yup, that's the kind of reaction I need.

-S^1, + F, Nanook. This was the RVS, and I'm votes away from a lynch. Why not vote me if you think it's suspicious?

And how do you come to the conclusion that I'm asking for votes?

Why?

I don't care much for the "is he joking, or not" in relation to being scum.

Why?

How does my attitude not contribute anything to a read on me?

Do you think I am scum?

Why?

By your comments I sense that you want to be lynched

Again, why?

Did you fail to consider how this might've been a tactic to get reactions and end the RVS?

Do you think it worked?

Do you think I'm scummy for it?

Why?

which if this is the case then that can't be good.

While I agree with this,

Why do you think that getting lynched wouldn't be good?

Why do you think it wouldn't help my win condition?

I'm sure there's some sort of logic behind Mastin's thoughts that would explain it.

Yes. Ending the RVS. We've had our fun; now it's time to start playing for real. RVS's that last longer than two pages are too long for me, no matter how much fun they were.

What do you think of that?

Do you find this as an attempt to rush the game?

Do you find this opinion scummy?

Why?

Care to explain why you feel the need to jokingly out yourself Mastin?

One word:
Reactions.
It gets reactions out of people.

And it's worked.

You don't think those FoS's and joke-votes are for nothing, right?

Sure, it's the random voting stage.
But I vote for reactions.
And those reactions give me the scum.

[/quote] would vote for you, but I think that's what you want. [/quote]Oh?

Is that what you think I truly want?

How did you come to this conclusion?

Why do you think I would want myself lynched?

---

[Mastin]

I will admit that I didn't know what your link meant, nor did I click on it.

I said that it meant FOS a while back. :/

I can't believe I signed up for this mess

I'm Mastin. I create messes out of what might've been a normal game. From those messes, though, from the chaos, I can try to make order and find the scum.

Please note that I hesitated to vote for you because I thought there may have been some win condition that you could gain from posting like that.

No, just getting discussion going.

I don't necessarily think that you're scum/pro-town at this point, which is also why I didn't vote. I will say though, that attempting to confuse the town is NOT very pro-town behavior in my eyes. IGMEOY!

I'm not trying to confuse the town. I'm merely giving them information they do not fully understand, and then later (after getting reactions) explaining it to scum hunt.

Do you think that you get better reactions if you ask 20 questions rather than one or two focused ones?

Yes. It helps scum hunt rather well, actually. I'm looking for something very specific in asking many compared to one.

Chaos is a good scum weapon, and you're feeding it.

Hmm...you're the second one to come to the conclusion that I wanted to feed chaos.

No. What I was doing was creating order.
Focusing our attention.
On our goal:
To scum hunt.

Snapping us out of the RVS,
Creating reactions from other players to help determine alignments...
That sounds a lot like scum hunting to me.

First, you assert that you're trying to take us out of RVS.

No good RVS lasts more than two pages.

This is an admirable goal

One easy to accomplish.

but I have to question whether you're really doing it by trying to run 5 or 6 threads at once.

Heck yea.

Perhaps you just have a shotgun approach to scum hunting that I don't share.

Shotgun aiming at a pinhole across a football field, actually.

Questions are certainly good to a point

The only kind of questions I don't see as pro-town are rolefishing/loaded ones.

especially when they are incisive, but at some point you have to go out on a limb and say you suspect someone.

I have suspicions of Dust, Amished, Devestation, and Nanook.

There. Happy?

I can't help but feel you're shrouding things in a guise of "scum-hunting."

Then what would you call it?

So let me try and be incisive with my question: If you had to pick one or at most two questions from those posed above, to which one are you most interested in finding out the answer?

All of them have equal value. Why choose?

Oh, and last... please don't post one of those links again.* Makes reading the page hell on earth Wink

*Make sure to get the actual image url, not the google image search one.

Eh, I'll try.

I've changed my mind

After I point out how it's scummy... :/

Mastin just has too much time and boredom on his hands >_>

I wish. I truly, truly wish this was the case... :/
Oh, and, mind posting something of content?

So true.

Again,
Mind posting something of actual content?

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-3

Mastin - 5

(Caboose, Devestation, Amished, zu_Faul, Dust)

Zwetschenwasser - 2

(AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)

zer0ph34r - 2

(zoraster, zwetschenwasser)

Dust - 2

(Mastin, StevieT92)

alvinz95 - 1

(Azhrei)

zu_Faul - 1

(Maturin24)

killa seven - 1

(OrangePenguin)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(cateraction)

Not Voting - 12

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

King has confirmed, and does not need to be replaced.
over_9000 has yet to pick up his role PM, so he will be replaced.

---

Heh. Long page. I love long pages. I enjoy the thrill, the challenge, of such long posts. All the potential scumslips...all the potential tells that most people miss...it's exhilarating, it is. This is how I like to play mafia.

I havent got any scumreads yet.

Three pages into the game?
And with a vote on me?

(I'm calling this BS)

Vote:Mastin

Based off of nothing more than regretting signing up for this mess?!?

-S^1, + F, Zu, for bandwagoning off of such poor reasoning.

It seems pretty clear to me that Mastin is insane

Yes! He gets it right.
I'm tired of people calling me Mad, or Crazy. It's insanity, in its purest form.

Interestingly enough, this is the most effective way of playing the RVS I've ever seen...

Precisely why I use it.
By having such long posts over trivial matters, I can easily gauge the reactions of others. These create a scum list of mine. (One which you're currently on, despite this good point)

Unvote (Not sure if I did so to begin with)
FoS: Amished

Hmm...

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-2

Mastin - 3 (Caboose, Devestation, Amished)
Zwetschenwasser - 2 (AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)
zer0ph34r - 2 (zoraster, zwetschenwasser)
Dust - 1 (Mastin)
alvinz95 - 1 (Azhrei)
zu_Faul - 1 (Maturin24)
killa seven - 1 (OrangePenguin)

Not Voting - 16 (Everyone Else)

Amished has no votes.
Why not vote him if you find him suspicious?

My point about Mastin is that in a game of 27 people, 20 of the 57 (not counting the first two posts by the mod) posts are by him.

So, what, is activity a scum slip, now? <_<

Did I mention that I have a -S^1, + F pointed at you, Amished?

and while I don't like the RVS all that much, I'd prefer to have everybody have a voice in it.

That takes days.
And pages.

Too long.

Mastin: As it *is* the RVS in a 30 person game in my opinion

No. No, it is not.
I got us out of it immediately.
Any vote at this point is likely serious.

And I will treat it as such.

what content would you like me to post?

Suspicions,
Reasoning behind those suspicions,
Why you are voting me...

Basically, to play the game.

Finally, with my vote on Mastin it's more due to non-pro-town playstyle so far, not a flipflop on his erratic behavior.

It's called bait.
My attitude is intentionally scummy.
For it attracts the scum into a trap.

I've done it before,
And I'll never cease to do it.
It's my playstyle to do so, and it works.
For it's led me to you, hasn't it?

I can see being erratic, and I was in my last RVS and it was rather fun.

I classify my own behavior as erratic, because that's what it's meant to be:
Inconsistent, jumping from one place to another, as scummy as one can be in the RVS.
To start discussion.
And nail scum.

Nailed you, Amished.

There is entirely too much fluff/stuff that didn't need to be commented on that he is, wasting all of our time.

That is what the RVS IS, Amished:
A waste of time.

Precisely why my long fluff posts snapped us out of it so quickly.
Now, three pages into the game, I will make posts only as long as I feel they need to be. Everything I'm responding to is either me stating my suspicions, or me defending from these weak attacks against me.
On a side note, if you stop attacking me, it'd half the length of my posts.

it'll lead to town disinterest helping the scum slide by just due to people not wanting to read all of his selected passages.

If I were to scrutinize every post in the game, I'd find scum slips, Amished.

OMG, why don't you just google it yourself.

The fluff post from Zu when the RVS is over has been noted.

With his combination of over-commentary and erraticism, we'll be thrown into chaos, and lose.

My erratic attitude in the RVS got us OUT of the RVS, and has started to get us into order.

I'm not erratic once the game begins.

I scum hunt. Like I am right now.

I think we can, however, make a legitimate case forcing Mastin to either abandon his style in favor of something more helpful, or lynch him.

Let's give it our best try before resorting to things like replacing out, eh?

Vote: Mastin Enough posting shenanigans, por favor.

1: Pushing for a policy lynch is extremely scummy.
2: A sudden 180 over just one post by Amished with weak reasoning is incredibly scummy.
3: I have demonstrated how I am serious in the last page and a half, which is far from "shenanigans". Ignoring this and looking at my obviously-fluff early posts is tunneling at best, extremely scummy at worst.
4: The vote, at this stage, I feel is slightly OMGUS and if not, is based off of other's reasoning, and on top of that, poor reasoning.

Did I mention I'm voting for Dust?

Obviously we're not going to get a good read on Mastin from what he's posted, that's the point of his playstyle.

I am quoting this for truth. Nobody reading me as scum has ever been correct, with the exception of game mechanics.

Jeez, Mastin posts a million times a day and they're long as hell. I would be okay with this if they actually meant something.

For this, Zer has gained a few pro-town points.
That's exactly the reaction I'd expect from a pro-town player, for a few specific reasons.

So the point of his playstyle is to deflect any kind of reading on himself, that sounds pretty scummy to me.

Metagaming me doesn't work.

OMGUS, Cateraction

Fixed.

Quoting every phrase may on occasion catch a scum slip or something, but it's going to be infrequent.

I quote what I need to in order to defend myself (defending without context is harder to understand, so I have to give a quote, making posts that much longer), then point out things which I find suspicious.

While you may have 12 hours a day to play each individual game, most do not.

Yesterday was a fluke. :/

It makes it easy for scum to slip by as any legitimate request for information at a player can get lost in the static of your posts.

The simple solution, to which, of course, is to have people scrutinize posts.

Zor's extremely pro-town for this line of thought.

Moving on, shall we?

Posting Shenanigans? It's day one for christ's sake. That is the time for posting shenanigans. I have no problem with Mastin's claiming and randomvoting shenanigans, the point of D1 is to extract information from a situation where we have none. He has done a plenty good job of giving us a lot to think about out day one.

Pro-town points to Stevie!

---

Short-version-short:

These people are likely scum:

Dust,
Amished,
Devestation,
Zu

There's another which I believe I'm forgetting.

These people are likely town:

Zer,
Zor,
Stevie

My playstyle early on was erratic to catch scum, and it's worked. Now I'm being serious, and will keep posts as short as possible, but they might still be long every once and a while. (Like this one)

Yay, we're playing! Defending myself is so fun.

[Mastin]

Helpful Handy Hint:
While I prefer for people to read my entire post, if you really don't want to, but don't want to miss anything important, scroll down to the bottom, below the [hr] tag. That's the best summary of my thoughts I can give.

[Mastin]

Editing via another post:

The above only applies to long posts. While I love, and enjoy, long posts, I prefer to type shorter ones--they take less time.
Seriously, the post I have at the top of the page?
That took at least half an hour to write. Maybe longer.

And with someone as busy as I am, I need all the time I can get, so while I love long posts, I don't have the time for them 100% of the time.

[Mastin]

With Mastin's statement of intent to keep his posting under control, I'll withdraw my vote of him. Unvote

That was not the reason you voted me--
You voted me for erratic posting, and wanted me to stop such Shenanigans.

That said, I think it was perfectly warranted that I proposed the strategy to accomplish those ends.

All that fluff was in the RVS.
After I declared the RVS over, I had minimal to no fluff.

My vote on Dust seems justified, for now.

[Mastin]

Over-commentary != Long Posts. It means commenting on certain things too often. You can do that in a short post as well. I could ramble on all day about a single point to qualify for this, yet keep the post short.

[Mastin]

Stevie's still pro-town,
Dust's still scummy,

I'm still voting for Dust.


(I think I cut back a bit TOO much on post length--that could've been a one-liner. )

[Mastin]

IMHO, everyone getting worked up about mastin's posts (including Mastin) are scummy and/or trying to appear overly townie (by this, I don't mean trying to feign being town, just trying too hard to prove it). Discuss.

It is something worth considering, Ace. A fine point.

You're cluttering up the thread with your sarcasm about "scumbuddies," creating WIFOM if you flip.

This statement is scummy in so many ways, it isn't funny.
1: Stating what I was doing was wifom, when we were still in the RVS.
2: Stating that I will be the lynch, a "flip".
3: You are stating that I would flip scum.

You ask for a wagon, you get it, and then you don't like it?

Let's respond by quoting myself and bolding/underlining important parts!

I'm not sure

if

I like this

, or dislike it... :/

Yay for blatantly ignoring over half the sentence!

-S^1, + F, Caboose.

Caboose, Devestation, Amished, zu_Faul, Dust
Our scum.

Please summarize why you have them.

I've done so over pages. I'll put 'em together, for your convenience, Cabooscum.

I don't get why everyone is saying that Mastin is unreadable.

Because they're never going to read me correctly, that's why.

Also, I don't get the Zu suspicion.

Read.

This looks like chainsaw defense to me.

Pointing out that everyone who was addressing my posting, including myself, is chainsaw defense...HOW?

Also, I made this mistake in Newbie 742.
Ace, why don't you tell Caboose about the fine print paragraph in the Chainsaw Defense?

You know, the fact that it requires for a player to be both dead AND confirmed scum? Yea, that one.

My vote was completely serious and it stays for now.

Your vote...on page one...in what was the RVS...was completely serious...

You know, I'd believe you if you said it was a joke (like most RVS votes), but is now serious.
Nope, not buying it now.

How is calling everyone voting for Mastin scummy not chainsaw defense?

How many ways can I say you're wrong? Let's see...
1: Ace was saying reacting--not voting.
2: He also included myself. So, what, is he chainsaw defensing against me to defend me? Yea, right.
3: Chainsaw defense requires for the player to be dead, and more importantly,
4: It requires for that player to flip scum.

I could go on all day. You should know better, as an experienced player.

Mastin, how exactly did that post of mine gain me pro-town points?

Not saying. Allows scum to mimic it.

Still stupid to introduce a link for the purpose of FoS'ing instead of .. you know.. using an FoS?

Live with it. You'll be seeing it more often.

and you're concerned about a couple days and a couple pages? A couple days is not too long.

Only for the RVS.

EBWOP: By last one, I mean last big one.

Why avoiding it?

---

Our scum for sure are,
Cabooscum,
Devescumtion,
Amiscum,
zu_Faul,
Duscum

And our probable scum are
Nanook,

To a lesser degree,
Empking.

[Mastin]

To save Ace the time, he nailed me for this bad logic in 742, based off of me missing the fine print:

UPDATE: After further analysis, Tarhalindur has determined that the Chainsaw Defense is only trustworthy once the player defended has been revealed to be group scum (once the player defended is proved to be Mafia, any player that used Chainsaw Defense on the dead scum should be scrutinized). Otherwise, it is a null tell. Mutual Chainsaw Defense may, however, still be an outright scumtell; more research is required here.

[Mastin]

What does that have to do with anything. WIFOM is WIFOM

Not in the RVS it is. Anyone who uses RVS supposed wifom as evidence in their case deserves a rather quick death.

No. An NK or a lynch is a flip.

Which means I'd be the nk, or a lynch.
The first, only scum would know,
The second, far too premature to determine it.

---
Wild theory: the scum have daytalk abilities. Just a feeling from my top suspects.

Hypothetically, yes. That's why your statement is scummy. It fits with you as scum.

One (well, three) word:
RVS.

So, where's the uncertainty coming from? The sentence implies that part of you doesn't like the sentence.

Of course. I like the votes on Dust. I'm not sure I like the fact that they were bandwagoning without reasoning. Simple logic, my friend.

Way to OMGUS.

They're OMGUS'ing me, actually. I point out suspicions of them, they vote me. Coincidence?

Why do you think that is?

Because any who read me as scum are always wrong.

I did. I didn't read anything suspicious.

Read my posts about Zu, not Zu's posts.

Nice strawman. I'm saying that the blanket accusation is scummy because it achieves the effect of painting everyone on your wagon as scummy and discourages further votes.

Ace said ANY interacting with me.
That includes myself,
Those defending me,
Those attacking/voting me,
etc.

Explain to me how that's Chainsaw Defense, please.

Also, this is no Strawman. You like wiki tells, obviously.

A "Straw man" argument (also called "setting up a straw man") involves mischaracterizing your opponent's position in order to present a weaker argument than they have actually given, thereby allowing you to defeat it.

<<< Mastin Edit: I am not doing this. Nope. Not this definition. >>>

It usually involves subtle changes to the given facts of the matter, or minor changes to wording that lead to semantic differences in what is said.

<<<Nope, not this, either. >>>

Also, "Strawmanning" involves taking a small piece of the case someone has built up that is weaker than their other points and blowing it up. They can then defeat the weaker point and use that as 'proof' that everything that person has said is wrong.

<<<Still not seeing it>>>

If done skillfully, even the opponent will not realize what has gone wrong with their argument at first. In Mafia, this can give a Scummy player enough momentum to gain a lynch before anyone notices flaws in the new argument. If this is done in the Endgame, it can be a game-winning ploy. Otherwise, it is risky because many players may examine the argument anew during the Night phase, and find the holes in logic.
[edit] Example of a straw man argument

* Player 1: I can't possibly be the last scum, because I was away from the site and couldn't have sent in a kill.
* Player 2: So you admit that you were lurking. Die scum!

<<<Definitely not that. >>>

With all due respect to Tar, my experience is that this tell is pretty accurate.

Tar's a player in this game, right?

Tar, clean up this mess and explain why Caboose is terribly wrong.

No

To save Ace the time, he nailed me for this bad logic in 742, based off of me missing the fine print:

UPDATE: After further analysis, Tarhalindur has determined that the Chainsaw Defense is only trustworthy once the player defended has been revealed to be group scum (once the player defended is proved to be Mafia, any player that used Chainsaw Defense on the dead scum should be scrutinized). Otherwise, it is a null tell. Mutual Chainsaw Defense may, however, still be an outright scumtell; more research is required here.

Now you do.

I don't like really long RVSs. I saw a serious reason. It might not be the strongest, but it's strong enough to pursue.

Not in my eye.
You gave a BS'd reason, and when forced to defend it, you go off to the wiki on outdated tells which don't even apply.

Reacting/voting/FoSing/expressing suspicion, you're mincing words at this point

Reacting != voting/FoS'ing/expressing suspicion.
Reaction-->Having interaction with. Which means, any interaction with me. Suspicions voiced in votes/FoS's, defending me, even just commenting on me, is reacting with me. Ace was saying that everyone doing it was suspicious.

So what?

So, what, is he chainsaw defensing against me to defend me? Yea, right.

No it doesn't.

Yes, yes it does. Read Newbie 742. I used this same line of logic early on and Ace nailed me for it. Why?
BECAUSE IT WAS WRONG.

No it doesn't.

Read the article you linked.
Three times.
Note how it clearly mentions how it can only be a scum tell if used by scum.
Otherwise, it's a NULL tell.
So, for it to apply, a person has to flip scum.

Know better than what? To call you down on something?

1: To quote outdated wiki tells as scum tells,
2: To use them in suspicions, when former scum-tells have become null-tells,
3: To use them as your primary argument against people,
4: To vote off of such bad reasoning,

Do I need to go on?

My opinion remains unchanged.

[Mastin]

Which is?

Obviously not scum. If it were anti-town, Stevie would be voting me. I think Stevie doesn't want to say, for fear that it'd be rolefishing and giving the mafia information they lacked before. Also, to get reactions from other players.

More town points to Stevie. If I'm even partially correct, it's something I consider incredibly pro-town to do.

[Mastin]

Yay for you taking absolutely no responsibility?

(Dang, I can't think of a way to add "Scum" to Zu's name. Ideas?)

I've explained this.

Orangepenguin's posts were obv jokes.

How is this related? :/

Yes, you are the sole judge of when the rvs ends.

It was clear we had left it.

You can cast a spell on the game and RVS ends immediately.

Pretty much, yea. I ended it with my posts.

That's what you are doing there.

So?

You are using your definition of RVS so that it is convenient for you

How so?

but your definition is flawed.

Again, how?

There are several people who have not even posted yet.

So?

If it was one or two, ok, but there are still like 5 or 6.

I have my scumspects. Why do I need anything else?

Maybe now we are starting to make real arguments

We've done so since half-way through page two, thanks to me.

but on page 4?

Try page two.

I don't think so.

Then what do you call the last few pages?
Meaningless garbage?
Yea, right.

See above. I did not think the RVS was over then.

Not buying it.

My scumspects remain the same:

Cabooscum,
Devescumtion,
Amiscum,
zu_Faul,
Duscum

Probable Scum:
Nanook,

Possible Scum:
Empking,
OP

[Mastin]

Hey, I thought of one! Only adds two letters, too!

/facepalm

Mind contributing, Zu?

Oh, too bad I only have one vote. I want to vote all of these scum and end the game day one.

[Mastin]

If everyone used that logic, we would never leave the RVS.

Poor choice of words.
In their cases later on in the game.

We're later on in the game.
And you're using random voting stage "wifom" logic.

Are you seriously trying to make the arguement that I'm scum because I'm saying that you might get lynched or NKed in this game?

Yes. I am. You're voting me (for a lynch), and if that's not how I'd be a "flip", it'd have to be a kill. Which only mafia would know.

Why didn't you say so before?

I did. I said it in fewer words. Now I am elaborating, like any good person who's been misunderstood would.

No, I'm talking about you OMGUSing me.

With all the evidence I've put forward?
Please.

No OMGUS, here (when I initially said it was Blatant OMGUS, I was lying. It's a fine tactic for generating discussion, lying in the RVS).

And this means...

That I'm a hard read.

It STILL achieves the effect of no one wanting to touch you with a ten foot pole.

Which isn't Chainsaw Defense.
Show me where it says in Chainsaw Defense the tactic being used to make people avoid a player.
It doesn't.
If anything, it draws more attention to a player than before.

Let's go back to the original post.

Let's go back to what I'm saying:

You gave a BS'd reason, and when forced to defend it, you go off to the wiki on outdated tells which don't even apply.

I didn't say you used the wiki. I said, when you needed to defend your vote, you used the wiki.
You can't deny that, for it is true.

No, it's not the best reasoning.

And if you can't think of anything better, I'll continue to shoot holes in it.

But, since you like to excuse yourself saying it's the RVS, why don't you do the same for me?

Because you said your vote was serious.

That's why.

---

Did I mention Cabooscum is scum?

[Mastin]

Mastin and caboose: stop with the novellas, please.

...This...
Is a small post from me...
:/

Some of the things you are quoting back and forth are pointless and trivial.

Tell that to Cabooscum.

Zero, are you voting me on policy or because you think I'm scum?

Valid question.

[Mastin]

I don't.

Some of what we are discussing is indeed good, and what isn't is mostly Cabooscum's points. So, surprisingly, I'm partially agreeing with Cabooscum.

[Mastin]

Also, I don't really think that Caboose is scummy, he just seems like he is getting frustrated with Mastin. I think your efforts, Mastin, would be best concentrated elsewhere, like Dust for example.

I am voting for Duscum right now. But Duscum isn't contributing (read: lurking), so I don't have much to focus my attention on.

I think Cabooscum is also scum, along with Duscum and the others I listed. I find that I probably nailed the mafia d1.

Wow.

You can read my mind.

Yet you are voting me, not Duscum.

o your argument is a fabricated scum gambit?

How the heck did you interpret that post that way?
Blatant twist of my words, plus scum points for Zwetschenwasscum?

my only problem with this, is that we are rather obviously out of the RVS. Even though there are a number of players who have not yet posted, we have clearly moved beyond the RVS.

Which is why after it was pointed out, OP made it onto my possibly scum list.

---
Also Stevie, it'll be interesting what you think I am. I'll wait and see eventually.

[Mastin]

Strawman, by the way, will always be a scum-tell (don't need wiki for that... it's a basic fallacy), though not always a determinative one. It can be used as townies decide they're convinced of someone's guilty and then work from there trying to fabricate reasons for that decision. But either way, it's not helpful to town unless it's an investigative role who thinks he can get away with a little strawman attack.

The question is, was what I was doing a strawman, as was claimed, or was that a load of junk, like I suspect it was?

[Mastin]

Oh, come off it Mastin... I haven't posted in a day, and I'm lurking?

to me, yes.
Funny, how you show up right after I make the accusation, isn't it?

That said, please, rehash your argument against me.

Coming in a few minutes.

These last pages have basically been you attesting to my scumhood

Yup, Duscum, pretty much.

from what I recall

And Cabooscum, but otherwise, you recall correctly.

but I'd like to know all the points before I address them.

Fine by me.

[Mastin]

Well, seeing as Ace will inevitably hold me to the meta I made for myself in Open 143, I cannot help but state my continued dissatisfaction with the RVS.

My response:

Why so worried about meta?
Perhaps because you're not of the same alignment?
Not the same alignment-->Scum.

This still holds true; Dust never answered.

-Despite having suggested getting out of the RVS quickly, he was displeased with the "mess" of my posts.

-FoS'd Amished when Amiscum had no votes.

-Accuses me of having over-commentary and erratic attitude, which would cause us to lose, despite having earlier admitted that my tactic got us out of the RVS stage fairly quickly.

1: Pushing for a policy lynch is extremely scummy.
2: A sudden 180 over just one post by Amished with weak reasoning is incredibly scummy.
3: I have demonstrated how I am serious in the last page and a half, which is far from "shenanigans". Ignoring this and looking at my obviously-fluff early posts is tunneling at best, extremely scummy at worst.
4: The vote, at this stage, I feel is slightly OMGUS and if not, is based off of other's reasoning, and on top of that, poor reasoning.

Guess what? Dust did all of the above.

That was not the reason you voted me--
You voted me for erratic posting, and wanted me to stop such Shenanigans.

He unvoted for what I saw to be a different reason than he voted.

-He comes back, JUST after I accuse him of lurking. Coincidence?

---

That's what I've found, in my own Iso-posts, and Duscum in isolation as well.

[Mastin]

No time like the present for posting, Mastin. ; D

Add wanting to rush the accusations against him to make them easier to defeat (rushed arguments are weaker) to the list of accusations.

[Mastin]

Zwet's posts--14
Zu's posts--4 (LOW)
Zor's posts--15

Zer's posts--6 (Eye on Zer)
Tar's posts--1 (!!!)
Stevie's posts--9
Ryan's posts--2 (!!)
OP's posts--5 (eyed)
Nanook's posts--4 (LOW)
Maturin's posts--1 (!!!)
My Posts--41 (O_O)
Jebus's posts--4 (Eh, let it slip for now.)
Empking's posts--1 (!!!)
Dust's posts--10
Devastation's posts--6 (eyed)
Cat's posts--1 (!!!)
Caboose's posts--10 (coincidence? Eh, probably, but still, makes me laugh. )
Az's posts--5 (eyed)

Amished's posts--7
Ace's posts--11
Others--0 (!!!!!)

------
This doesn't account for content of the posts (scummy/good, fluff/serious), but does give a rough guideline on who to watch out for.

[Mastin]

1. Meta is important for understanding the behavior of all players involved. It'd be a shame to have misunderstandings about behavior based upon meta.

But why are you worried about your meta at all? Afraid it might incriminate you? (I know I'm sure not afraid. Metagaming me won't work, especially when I'm pro-town.

)

I find myself in the perilous trap that I might break away from my past behavior, and be seen for scum when I'm not.

If you have a different attitude than in previous games, something must have changed it. Why can't you just cite the reference to said change, assuming it's within the rules to do so?

This can be seen as an important scum thing, but it's an equally important town tactic to make sure the Town doesn't waste it's time following up on an argument that holds discrepancies with the meta simply because it does.

Hmm...interesting...Duscum refers to the town as if he is not a member of it... (Scumtell, anyone?)

2. Your posts got us out of the RVS, but they'll stall us in the context of the real game.

These two conflict.

3. How does an FoS make me scummy?

Because Amished has no votes. Why not vote where your suspicions lie?

A. Policy lynchs, although not always effective, can be useful in accomplishing pro-town goals. For instance, threat of a policy lynch made you shorten your posts, if only by a bit, thus assisting the town by not bogging down the game.

I find this explanation far more scummy than the actual suggestion for a policy lynch.
(By the way, I would've shortened them on my own)

B. No explanation for this one. It happened because it happened.

Under my daytalk scum theory, Amished said "HEY, BUDDY, STOP BUSSING!", or perhaps just a code that they created during the pre-game confirmation stage.

C. You'll have to forgive me for not seeing the wisdom in every line of each of your posts around page 3, was it?

Two and a half, Duscum. When I declared I was serious, I began to get serious.

There was definitely legitimacy in calling your actions 'shenanigans' once we exitted the RVS

We had exited the RVS long earlier than when you had posted that. It was clear my posts were serious, and slowly shortening.

and the length of your posts was decreasing and the quality was increasing.

Fixed.

D. My vote was to make an effect on your playstyle, as I said previously.

Not in my eyes.

6. Forgive me, but perhaps you misunderstood my last post after asking for your argument summary. That was actually an explanation for my own return, not a call for you to rush your arguments. If someone calls your name, do you answer? Not seeing how my reentrance to the game after Mastin's accusation is anything more than circumstantial.

You missed this point:

He unvoted for what I saw to be a different reason than he voted.

Well, if you say so.

Yes, yes I do.

I will just

"I will just" implies no true reasoning behind a vote.

vote for unvote, vote: Mastin because he is rather obviously scum.

Hmm...after I place OP on my possibly scum list...he OMGUS's me with a vote...

Between his huge walls of texts

Let me enlighten you, OP. Read my posts in isolation from the following links:

You're so wrong
If you think
For ONE second
That walls are
ANY indication of alignment.

Seriously, in the third (763) and fifth (762), I was NK'd n1 and my posts were STILL that long. In the fifth, a day and a half after joining, I was dead, yet still managed that much (760). What's worse is the first two, where I was alive for days, and managed to post novellas every time.

Note how long they were.
They're long.
Very long.
Ask Ace. He was in 742. He--in THIS thread ALONE--has stated that this is my playstyle, and did so in the sign-up thread, if memory serves me, AS WELL.

with the scum claim (which I don't see as a joke, minus the partner bit - I think Ace is town)

I can back this up as a thing I do, OP--

This was made far, far, far before the game started. In addition to that, I can cite 762 and 763, where I self-voted at the beginning over a lie of a random die roll on random.org. This was just a more extreme version of that, as the original just self-voting technique has gotten old and people expect it. That, alone, doesn't get us out of the RVS.

slash "VOTE ME VOTE ME" mentality

And how the heck do you come to that conclusion, OP? I've already defended against this when Amished accused me of it. Obviously, you're not reading everything.

I think we're just better off without Mastin.

Again, one (/three) word(s):

R-V-S.

It's worked brilliantly, I might add.

Not only has it snapped us out of the RVS, but it's given me scumspects from their reactions with me, in particular.

This game is truly uncharacteristic of Mastin

1: And what the heck do you think my playstyle IS, then?!?

2: Metagaming me won't work.

and he is playing real badly.

Nope. I'm playing better now than I have for games in a row. I've nailed the scum from an early page, and I'm not going to let it go 'til I see all of 'em flip scum.

Yes, because my refusal to follow a scummy player is really scummy.

We had some serious discussion already started. It was clear we were out of the RVS.

Many players have not posted yet

Which is why I thought your K7 vote was a lurker vote, a serious vote I had no problem with.

and there is only 7 pages.

The content of those pages is more valuable than anything else, OP.

Most of those posts are from you

So?
Do you find that contribution is a scum tell, due to it?

so take that into account

I have.

nothing, but big walls of pointless text from you have been said.

They WERE big on the first two pages.

But they got smaller.
And become full of very valid points.
Are you ignoring THOSE as well?

Yea, you are.
Thought so.

The focus is on you.

I can't find the quote, but I clearly remember someone in 688 said it towards me. It was along the lines of:

Focus on yourself is good. You defend from it, and then appear to be more pro-town in the eyes of others if your time in the spotlight favors you strongly.

I encourage others to look strongly at me. Their conclusions help me read them back. I defend against their attacks, and attack them back.

Bring it on, OP. See what other bs you can spew from your mouth for me to counter.

You get what you ask for.

Yup.
Suspicions.
On you, amongst others.
(Note to players: OP's rapidly climbing on the scumspect list. He's earned a huge -S^1, + F.)

You wanted us to vote you

To get discussion going. Which I have. And also to help scum stupid enough to fall for the classic trap of Fong's Gambit that I employ.

because you were scum, and then you play it off as a joke?

I changed claims several times in there, OP. The RVS stage is a joke. Any who fall for jokes in said stage and use them as evidence well after the RVS is over...deserve quick deaths. I stated this already. Your failure to see this point is noted.

There would be no need to make such jokes in the first place as town.

Yet I have stated how I would do this once I viewed just self-voting wasn't enough to generate discussion.

And now you accuse others of lurking?

Yes.

It's been, what, a day?

So?

Most players, like you said, have not posted yet.

And they're lurking, in my eyes.

It's a custom and tradition to start w/ the RVS

Which I took full advantage of.

yet because you and a few others continue to make it all about you

No problem with that. All about me gives me reads on other players, and a chance to defend myself.

we are losing info we could've otherwise had.

And we gain new information in its place:

How others interact with me, and how I interact with others.
This kind of information is absolutely crucial later on in the game, OP.

ATTENTION: To all players who haven't posted, Mastin and Az have stated we are obviously past the RVS. Henceforth, all posts shall be serious.

They have been for over four pages, OP. I thought your vote on K7 was serious.

Mastin is L-8.

So?

I've never played with Mastin, so perhaps you can explain how he's playing uncharacteristically?

Look at the links I posted above. They're all my finished games. Take five minutes to look at them in isolation to come to your own conclusion.

He is usually just more level-headed, and

gets his thoughts out there better.

And what do you think I HAVE been doing?

Babbling on about nonsense for the last five pages?
HECK NO.

Expressing my thoughts, IN GREAT DETAIL.

THAT point is ABSOLUTE BS.

I have never seen him go "VOTE ME! I AM SCUM W/ ___" and then get reactions.

I have previously stated that I would do this. Again, take a look at my posts, everywhere, to see that this is going to become the normal until it stops working.

Then again, I have only played with him few times, so I am no Mastin expert.

Nobody is.

Nobody will ever get a read on me which I will call successful. Metagaming me won't work.

---

Revised scumspects:

Duscum,
Cabooscum,
Zcum_Faul,
Amiscum,
Devescumtion,
OrangePenguin,

Probable Scum:
Nanook,
Possible Scum:
Empking.

[Mastin]

By the way, if it wasn't apparently obvious,

Whenever I present a case,
I REALLY present a case,
In my defense, and when I go on the offense.

Simple solution:
Don't attack me. It really does half the length of my posts.

------
On more serious vibes, I apologize for the length. I think I overdid the defense a bit too much; I think it was apparently obvious not even a third of the way through how much OP's points were full of junk.

[Mastin]

LOL, I keep moving up I guess. <-- full of junk.

Yes. Yes, it was a pointless post, OP.

Townie points: Adding "scum" in the username of the people you're attacking. (i.e. orangescum). This will definitely make your case stronger and makes you more likely to be town yourself.

If it was meant sarcastically, OP, then I'd disagree. To me, a null tell. If it was meant seriously, then you'd note how I've used it on every player with an S (or in Zu's case, a Z) who I have suspicions of. You're the exception, due to having no S nor Z in your name. (Way to ruin the fun of creating those names, OP.
)

Seriously, though, is that all you can muster in defense of this point?

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-6

Mastin - 6 (Caboose, Devestation, Amished, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, OrangePenguin)
Zwetschenwasser - 2 (AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)
Dust - 2 (Mastin, StevieT92)
zer0ph34r - 1 (zwetschenwasser)
zu_Faul - 1 (Maturin24)
NanooktheWolf - 1 (cateraction)
hewitt - 1 (zoraster)
OrangePenguin - 1 (Azhrei)

Not Voting - 13 (Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

The scum are trying really hard to get me lynched as quickly as possible and send us into night. They're building extremely weak cases against me, some have the poorest logic in the world behind the vote, they're bandwagoning, they've exposed themselves early on.
Of course, I don't think ALL the voters on me are scum, but I think MOST of them are.

[Mastin]

Mastin, can you refresh why you think Amished is scummy?

It'll take 'bout five to ten minutes for the full case. However, one reasoning not this-exact-game-related is how his play reminds me of how he plays as pro-scum.

The vote is the best thing the town has at its disposal. Throwing it around like a rag doll in my opinion is pointless; thus, the reason for using FOS and HOS.

I generally use FoS's when my vote is best placed elsewhere, or when in lylo. 'Sides that, I don't really use it that often.

---
This post overall contains an extraordinary amount of good content; Ryan's definitely looking pro-town to me.

---

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-7

Mastin - 6

(Caboose, Devestation, Amished, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin)

Zwetschenwasser - 2

(AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)

Dust - 2

(Mastin, StevieT92)

zer0ph34r - 1

(zwetschenwasser)

zu_Faul - 1

(Maturin24)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(cateraction)

hewitt - 1

(zoraster)

OrangePenguin - 1

(Azhrei)

Not Voting - 12

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Seeking a replacement for over_9000.

[Mastin]

Mastin: You've listened to reason as to who your "Scum" is from practically nobody.

I'm listing who the scum are based off of several slips, which I have pointed out.

Are you seriously that convinced about 5 people with just 7 pages into a large game

Are scum?
Yes.
Yes, I am.

Now, convince me otherwise with actual content, if you can.

or is killing these people your goal, regardless of their role?

Rolefishing...

[Mastin]

I don't buy having 5 voteable suspects 8 pages into a LARGE game.

I do. Size of a game doesn't matter.

Content of the posters does.

I've found my suspects, and none of them have responded in a way as to make them seem more pro-town. Rather, the opposite.

[Mastin]

so lets see a full summary of their content and how it makes them scummy.

Already did one for Duscum, was about to do Amiscum's one when you came along to protect your buddies.

[Mastin]

Less commentary, more summary. *cracks whip*

Your attempt at rushing me which, by extent, makes my attacks weaker, has been noted.

[Mastin]

Cause following is easier than leading. That and Mastin looks like he knows what he's about.

Unvote
Vote: Dust

I find this bandwagon vote--even in the RVS--to be scummy. It screams "Look at me, voting my scumbuddy!" to me.

Hmm, two mistakes (lack of preview for image fail, and not counting my vote). Clearly Mastin is lying about everything. LALiars, *ESPECIALLY* in random stage....

Unvote
vote: Mastin

Switches back to me, for some of the worst reasoning in the world.

Shameful, is what that is. Besides, I support Jesters posing as anything, or anybody posing as a Jester, so this should help you win your popularity contest.

Assumes I'm a Jester, too.

Lack of Content,

States a dislike to our short RVS, specifically, only a few members contributing to it,
Then states that it is still the RVS, when it is clearly not, and asks what content should be posted. Not a pro-town line of thought.

Claims his vote on me has, in fact, a good reason, lack of pro-town behavior, when it was clear that I had already began displaying many signs of extremely pro-town points.

...Yet then admits that he can understand being erratic, to get out of the RVS.
Hypocritical, anyone?

Says that there is TOO much discussion (bunch of bs--there's no such thing)
Then makes the absurd claim that my posts would let the scumslips slide. Which is a load of junk, by the way.

His next post shows "concern" about how I was supposedly "concerned about a couple days and pages", when I had made it clear that I was talking about just the RVS.

Says that I was saying all those voting for me were scum, off of practically no reasoning, when it was clear this was not the case--I gave reasoning as to my suspicions on ALL of them.

Then claims that I was saying he was scum for him saying that I have erratic posts, when it is clear that's not what I meant--I was pointing out the inconsistencies in his opinion, not the fact that he called it erratic (see above points against him).

He claims his paragraph in the post before contains broad points about my posting style as having been " posts contain extraneous "words""--I saw only criticism.

Accuses me of not scrutinizing posts like I said I would, despite it being clear that I was doing so, AND accuses me of selective quoting, when I've quoted nearly everything said.

Claims he was doing the exact same thing I was with his vote on Duscum, "to generate reactions", which is something I had interpreted as him having thought was a bit scummy earlier.

Disagrees with Stevie on many of the points raised against Cabooscum as well. Then says he has concerns over Duscum and as a wrapup to a paragraph, says that I admitted that my posts were mostly fluff, ignoring the fact that I was commenting on my RVS posts, and that after that, there was almost zero fluff involved.

Calls my reasoning on Nanook junk, and "better than you" reasoning.
There was no "better than you" reasoning at all in that post. And I was commenting on my scum hunting technique, which is not "junk". I wasn't commenting on others' scum hunting; I was commenting on mine. This could be just a misinterpretation, but what I am seeing is a twist of my words.

Calls my tone "patronizing" when it is, in fact, not, and worse yet, calls it "more than enough reason to keep a vote on". The goal of the game, by Amiscum's own admition, is to scum hunt.
Not to vote someone for their "patronizing tone".
The ONLY way that could POSSIBLY be scum hunting is if he views a "patronizing tone" as a scum tell.

Somehow, I seriously doubt this is the case.

Then throws a wild accusation about me not having a solid stance on reactions/commenting on me, when I have, in fact, held a strong stance about it since the beginning.

Puts words in Empking's mouth (if true, the clarification would've been nice, but we have no way of knowing this),

Comes to OP's defense,

Goes off-topic with avatars,

Claims no experience with Chainsaw Defense,

And so on.

Yea.

Lots.

[Mastin]

*continues to crack whip*

More lack of content...

Mastin, way to tunnel this early on.

Accusation of tunneling, when all I'm doing is pursuing my top suspects,

I wouldn't be surprised if the real scum are sitting back, enjoying that you're taking all the heat for them.

Claims that no scum are on the wagon, and that I'm an easy lynch...

I mean, I doubt your partners are on you

After just talking about tunneling, this statement seems rather hypocritical, as it is clearly not the mind of an open person.

but I know that I am not scum.

"You're wrong. Back off!"-logic.

You're not going to get anywhere, if you already think you've won when half the players haven't posted yet.

"Stop playing the way you currently are; it won't get you anywhere with so few posters."

Yea, right.

Look, I'm still here. My weekends are usually not the best time for MS, and I have my last final set for Monday afternoon. I will be reading everything, but if there are any specific posts/quotes you want me to see, give me a shout. I hate to set a date... but hopefully Tuesday I should make a solid post.

Good, Red. I'll be anxious to see your insight into the game.

---

Nothing as of yet has changed my opinion.

[Mastin]

Thats just luck, Azhrei.

More brilliantly helpful content from Devestowntion...[/sarcasm]

FoS: Dev

I think he's fake helping the town.

You're a weak busser, aren't you?

1 vote on somebody isn't likely to do anything, while 2 isn't much better it would seem to show scum that there's more support than one person who may or may not be listened to by all

The way this is worded, it seems like you're basically admitting that you KNOW I am pro-town. As if scum see that a bandwagon has support, scum wouldn't be on said bandwagon. It also implies that you're town, but at the same time, implies I am.

You're still voting for me, though.

Oops

.

Scumslip, anyone?

2-3) RVS shenanigans.

Definitely didn't seem that way, especially as it was clear the RVS was beginning to end.

No *real* contest here, but if you look back it was me, who has seen you post in other games as well, saying that you often post huge walls o'text. Probably due to boredom/too much time on your hands.

No.
You were quoting someone else.
You weren't the one who posted it.

And if you did, you were far from the first.

5) I like to hear from everybody in the RVS so that I can get a baseline for them from there on out.

And I am a firm believer in the fact that we need not have all our players to scum hunt.

Take 742--

Two townies who flaked (Ting, Caleb) contributed very little to discussion, and it wasn't necessary. The issue at hand involved Khan and I, nothing more. Only us two (plus one, to drop a verdict on the victor [me. ], of course) were truly needed for that. Everyone else, just voters.

I'll use your own words here: Behavior and Points.

My behavior in this game is the same as always. Null tell.
My points are solid. Town tell.

Why are we still debating over who to lynch? Yea, we've nailed the scum, defending each other and themselves, from me and they're voting for me as well. If there are pro-town players involved, they've been fooled very badly by the scum via buddying.

You can have good points but bad behavior (ABR is a decent example).

Doesn't mean that you shouldn't be followed, if the points are solid.

Your points might have validity, but your behavior, if continued would become too much discussion.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH DISCUSSION!
Discussion--ESPECIALLY once out of the RVS on day one--is CRUCIAL to determining the alignments of other players.
So, the more discussion, the more we can catch scum.

I've seen several people comment on the length of your posts and them being too long.

So, what?
Those who vote me off of it have only condemned themselves as scum, due to the fact that I can (and have) shot every point of theirs full of holes.

THAT is what makes it too much discussion.

How so?

What makes commenting on my post length too much discussion?

What makes it not a very valuable tool in scum hunting?

When everyone can't keep up with the pace of one (or a couple) people's posting.

This is NOT related to the above. AT ALL.

8) See end of 6. There is too such a thing as too much discussion.

No. No, there isn't.

If you're dominating most of the discussion, the rest of the townies will have a hard time either seeing where you're coming from or where the person you're questioning is coming from. That could be avoided by letting us commoners talk amongst ourselves and get a better feel for each other by questioning each other on our own.

Let's see how scummy these sentences are!
1: Rolefishing. "Townies", "Commoners".
2: Referring to said roles in third person. Not part of the town.
3: Says that it would be best for me to shut up, essentially, when I've made several valid points.
Hmm...I believe there's more, but my train of thought became distracted. Anyone else think of more?

This is still taking part of my quote, and disregarding the agreeing with you part of it.

/no
Is far from an indication of sarcasm.
I do not buy it.

12) I was criticizing your posting style that contains too many words for this type of game.

Which is different from what Zer/Zor did, and you trying to put yourself into their group, when it was clear you were not a member of it, I found rather scummy.

13) Got it: "nearly everything he said".

Well, I'm not going to quote everything. That gets repetitive, and makes things unnecessarily long.

You have gone over some stuff, which still is selective quoting.

BS. Again, I've quoted everything that isn't repetitive.

15) Disagreeing with people is also a scumtell, eh? I see Cabooses and Dusts actions slightly different than you do, and by posting my opinions on them I'm scummy.

Twisting of my words.
I said nothing of the sort about disagreeing being a scum tell.
The fact you were disagreeing about someone attacking Cabooscum, by extent, means you were defending Cabooscum, and THAT is what makes it scummy, for Cabooscum is also one of my top suspects.

then later

explaining it

Then later
explaining it.

Those two words are some of the most common phrases I've seen around. Later explaining actions is something everyone regardless of alignment has to do. How on EARTH do you see THAT as being somehow condescending?

Both of these make you come off as "I'm great, certainly better than most because I'm doing exactly what everyone should do to scumhunt, and if you don't see it, I'll explain it to you."

Now, THAT has got to be the most interesting (via how absolutely ridiculous it is) explanation I've ever seen. Again,
HOW THE HECK DOES FOUR VERY COMMON WORDS EQUATE TO THAT KIND OF ATTITUDE?!?

Not seeing it.

I'm calling it absolute, and completely total BS.

AND
Amiscum failed to answer the original question:
How does a patronizing attitude in ANY way justify a vote, meant to lynch a person?
How is a patronizing attitude in ANY way related to the primary goal of us, the uninformed majority, to SCUM HUNT?!?

It doesn't.

It really, really doesn't.

Amiscum's BS and junky reason for voting has been noted.

it doesn't really matter if my vote is on you for that, does it? If it gets close, I'm sure I'll have 30 more pages of your posts to analyze and come up with a solid opinion.

"Because I want to put my vote somewhere, I'll leave it where it is until I want to push a bandwagon on someone else. Maybe if I'm lucky, this will become a mislynch!"

^
|
|
What I see.

17-18) Do you know everything that I find to be scummy? No. Ok, then I suggest you not speculate as to everything I see that's bad.

This was not a defense.
"Mastin's just seeing everything scummy in my posts, so ignore him."

If there was any good in your posts, Amished, I'd point it out.

I don't see any.

19) You've gone back and forth about bandwagons

What a load of absolute BS. I've stuck on my opinion on the matter of bandwagons,
AND on which bandwagons I like.

While I'm sure you're solid on other points, both of these I can point to in this game.

Alright, do.

21) The "point" against OPengy was his voting of a lurker in a non-standard way of saying it. I pointed out what I thought it meant, and OPengy basically said it's exactly what I thought it was.

And I find that extremely scummy.

22) Avatars make it easier to relate people to thoughts. In a game of thoughts, I feel that's very on-topic.

We have, what, two people without an avatar?

Yea, not seeing the issue.

So, no, I don't see how it's game-related.

[quote="Zor']Prod: King (I don't buy he's active. He has posted ZERO TIMES since his /in post for 92 on APRIL 3rd.) [/quote]Lurking's the word I'd use.

Prod: killa seven
Prod: Phoebus

I agree with both of these.

Prod: hewitt

Hewitt has posted elsewhere on the site; lurking going on, here.

oh and Prod/Replace: _over9000 as he's unconfirmed still.

9000's getting replaced. Jebus said so earlier.

[sarcasm] Dev continues his good streak of pro-town behavior [/sarcasm]

Quoted for truth.

I agree with Caboose calling him out.

That would, by extent, mean that you're saying Ace was using Chainsaw Defense, Cateraction, and I've proved how that's not the case.

I don't agree with Mastin's points on Caboose.

Oh?

It's so minimal and yet Mastin is so adamant.

Explain how it is "so minimal".

I really don't like that style of scumhunting.

742, 735, to a lesser extent, 763, and after I was killed, 760.

Yea, do research.
This is my style.
AND IT WORKS.

It's so unproductive.

Let's see my track record, shall we?

735:
2/3--miss on hohum, hit on Ult/And and Kier.

742: 2/3--initial miss on Data, hit on Kronos/Khan and Jeff.

763: 1/2--miss on Ivan, hit on Chief/Sister/Tubby.

760: 2/3--Mostly due to luck, so I don't count it.

762: 2/4|2/2--I had limited the possibilities of scum down on day one, and later, on day three, had all the scum pegged (though I was dead).

TOTAL:
7/11|7/13|9/13|9/15 (One of these four, depending on how you tally the above)

That's fairly darn good, no matter which you choose.
Let's see just how right I am right now.

My style is far from "unproductive" as you claim.

It works.
It catches scum.

Why change it?

Questions are how things get done.

Of which I have asked plenty of. What do you think I'm doing right now?
Posting fluff?
Yea, right.

It seems to me that Mastin just puts whoever he happens to be talking to at the top of his list of "confirmed scum".

I'm already confident enough to say this much:
Of those who I've listed as scum, AT LEAST half are scum.

I don't like Stevie keeping his positions to himself in post 127.

I do.

Mastin assumes that this means that Stevie think's he's town

Of course it does. If it were scum/third party, he'd vote me, for an anti-town role is still against the town.

but with the possibility of multiple teams, I don't think that it's that cut and dry.

I do.

Any withholding of information is anti-town.

BS.

Ask any power role on this site.

Cops,
Docs,
Trackers,
Watchers,
Roleblockers,

Whatever.
Withholding information as those roles is sometimes CRUCIAL to the town. Withholding information is not always bad.
Any who suggest otherwise either do not have the experience to know differently,
Or are trying to steal the information out of the player who they are questioning, threatening with a lynch if their demands are not met.

The latter is extremely scummy.

Mastin, post 136: Mislabeling what you think is a scumtell is not scummy.

From an experienced player like Cabooscum, I'd expect it, ESPECIALLY since he claimed that, in his experience, the said scum tell had held true. Implying he knew the article very well.

It just means Caboose didn't know the correct name, but he explained what he thought the tell was.

Again, I don't see someone with that level of experience who has had it supposedly hold true in the past having made this simple mistake.

Mastin's accusation to Dust of lurking and then coming back when mentioned is bullshit.

Oh, is it?

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: 149

PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: 150

Just about thirteen minutes.

And his post contained almost nothing but the response to me. He commented on nothing else.

THAT seems like lurking to me.

I really don't like Mastin's soft claim

Soft claim-->Telling the town without actually saying it what kind of role you are. Basically, a huge breadcrumb so large that almost every player instantly recognizes what kind of role you are.

Overall, Mastin annoys me.

THEORY:
Annoyance-->Scum tell.

blows small null tells out of proportions

If they were null, blowing them up out of proportion would still have them as null.

is incredibly adamant over those "tells".

So, what?
Do you expect me to WAIT on my accusations?
Use these things pages later into the game to build a case?
Why not start NOW?

Yea...

It's annoying that you continually post how sure you are about your scum suspects

Why is it a problem?

and adding scum to their name is very annoying.

Get used to it. I'm not changing it.

Stop doing these things.

No.

Let your points speak for themselves.

They are.

Right now.

---

Oh, and by the way,

For this post,
Cateraction gets a -S^1, + F.

---
Scumspects:

Revised scumspects:

Duscum,
Cabooscum,
Zcum_Faul,
Amiscum,
Devescumtion,
OrangePenguin,

Probable Scum:
Nanook,
Cateraction,
Possible Scum:
Empking.

[Mastin]

Um....no...not true. I have played in many a game where there are things I have found out during the course of the game that if I discussed in the thread, scum would see what I see, which can be used against the town. Since I found this information, and withheld it from the thread/scum, it helped in a win. Thus, witholding information is not always anti-town. It depends on the nature of the information, and I beleive he knows what he is doing. Again, this pretty much in game theory discussion, but I justw anted to point out the fact that there are things worth holding.

This says what I wanted to say, but in many ways better.

[Mastin]

Beautiful bandwagoning, this is.

Beautiful wagon on scum, it is, indeed.

Excellent? LOL.

The fact that you countered practically zero of my points, and aren't pushing your case, are evidence that you have no true case, that it was BS'd, and that you are mafia pushing for a mislynch.

[Mastin]

Since a lot of his large walls of texts are just fluff,

NONE of my posts since PAGE TWO have been mostly fluff, OP.

This proves that you haven't been paying attention, and your mind was not where your mouth was in your cases.

As in, pushing a case you had little evidence in and didn't believe.

I will just not read them.

Ignoring long posts-->HUGE SCUM TELL.

If it contains anything of real importance, someone else will spot it

Not true. They will often say it was a good post, but won't quote even a third of it.

Saves me time.

Mafia's not a game you should rush.

Take time to read it.

---

Did I mention OP's scum?

[Mastin]

Why would I counter your points?

Because that's what anyone who is scum hunting does. If they don't counter the points, it means there isn't a counter, and if they don't drop their vote, they're pushing the same garbage over and over again, as in, more likely to be mafia.

All of them are contrived and mean nothing to me?

If a counter-attack and a good defense mean nothing to you, then you're either very dense, or scum.

I don't need to push your lynch

Yes, you do, if you want it to go through, unless you're scared of pushing a case on a mislynch.

As in, mafia voting, but not leading the wagon.

If I am killed as a result of unveiling the truth about you, so be it, but you are scum.

This is the WORST defense/offense POSSIBLE in ANY mafia game.

"If I die, it will reveal you as scum."

Why don't you self-vote, while you're at it, or even self-hammer?

It isn't pro-town to do.

Panzer, 735,
Hohum, 735,
Santos, 762,

And that's just the ones that are finished that I know of.

They all self-voted, CONVINCED that their death would HEAVILY imply that someone else was mafia.
Panzer thought Hohum,
Hohum thought Dourgrim and I,
Santos thought Scien.

It's such a weak attack, and I can't believe a player with your experience would use it.

[Mastin]

I never push cases in any of my games.

We'll see...

Ignoring long posts by a scummy player = Saves my time.

Ignoring long posts by a player who's raised MANY good points-->Scummy itself.

Anything important will be repeated

Not always.

Either way, I will see it if it's important.

Again, not always.

Mafia doesn't need to be rushed, no, but it doesn't have to drag on for countless months eithger.

But a few minutes to read won't kill you, especially when I post nice, short posts like this most of the time.

Yes. Does your accusations mean anything? No. Are you town? No. Are you anyway confirmed that makes your word gold? Nope.

You want me to read your previous games, OP. It is only fair that I ask the same of you.

Look at my play there and say that I'm not playing the same.

I dare you to say such a lie.

It'd be the final nail in your coffin.

[Mastin]

Nope, I know what you are Mastin, curtosey of a 1 shot rolecop. But if you cant believe your own role, I won't press it >_> [/sarcasm]

Your sarcasm has been noted.

If you couldn't tell, Devescumtion was joking on that claim, and is trying to contribute, when really not doing so at all.

[Mastin]

By the way, I saw Dust post elsewhere earlier. THAT seems like lurking to me.

---

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-9

Mastin - 6

(Caboose, Devestation, Amished, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin)

OrangePenguin - 3

(Azhrei, cateraction, zwetschenwasser)

Zwetschenwasser - 2

(AceMarksman, zer0ph34r)

Dust - 2

(Mastin, StevieT92)

zu_Faul - 1

(Maturin24)

hewitt - 1

(zoraster)

Not Voting - 12

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Seeking a replacement for over_9000.

[Mastin]

In fact, I would like the posting frequency from you to slow to at most five per day.

I'm no Zweteschenwasser.

The last time I checked my profile, it was well under an average of one post per day. Nothing has changed that, to my knowledge.

O_O

Never mind. How the heck did I skyrocket to just under

three posts per day

?!?

What, with my months of not posting while waiting for 688 to be over,

My general playstyle of long posts spread days apart,

Etc.,
How does one suddenly bounce back into a post average of that high?!?

Seriously, I think a Wizard did it. (Zwet had an avatar of a wizard before, right? Lynch the person manipulating things!)

but they are infrequent compared to yours, therefore making them easier to read.

The more often I post, the shorter they are, as there's less to respond to. I'd think that frequent posts are easier to comprehend than infrequent ones.

I am cured of ever wanting to play a game with Mastin again.

I wasn't nominated for the title of "Unabridged" for nothing.

I dare someone to find a person who has an average post length longer than mine for all of their games. If they do actually beat me, I'd be just stunned.

Sorry, I'm just in a bad mood right now. I didn't really mean that.

Eh, it's hard to offend me unless you know what specific points bother me. Certain players do, but I don't think anyone would find out what it is in this section of MS.net. Points such as that which sound really offensive I manage to take very light-hearted.

It's not like I'm tunneling, or anything, and turning it into a personal attack to invoke emotional responses, which would be a scum tell of some sort, and all of that.

This is a really damning arguement.

Glad to see you're admitting you were wrong.

You're just mad that I accused you in my first post.

I do not get angry unless people touch my sensitive spot.
But your actual defense of the attack, well, sucks.
That's not something I'd call a defense at all, actually.

No mistake exists.

You admitted to not having knowledge of the fine print on the Chainsaw Defense.

That's a mistake.

/facepalm

My theories are insane, alright, but they do get reactions.
Definitely not liking yours.

You calling anyone who speaks out against you scum isn't effective and is not going to help the town in this game.

Oh, not everyone.

I imagine that some pro-town players are being mislead by the scum, right now.

I definitely think the majority of the people speaking out against some of my very logical points, though, are scum. As I've stated in my scumspect lists.

Man, in a game with 27 people, it sure does get boring when nothing happens.

Perhaps contributing more will help solve that?

I have no experience with Zwet, is this normal for his playstye?

Yea, he normally has short posts. People rely on how he says his posts, and what are in the posts, for a read. I haven't learned the technique, personally.

No, I agree that what Ace was doing, whatever you want to call it was scummy.

Caboose's argument was that he was using Chainsaw Defense, which made the post scummy.
Not that it was scummy by itself.

Therefore, I concluded you were supporting his view on the Chainsaw Defense.

Simple logic.

I think it your argument boils down to misnaming a faulty defense and then mispeaking about a wiki, both of which are extra-game mistakes and not scum tells.

If he were a new player, or even an experienced player who had never actually accused/seen this strategy used, I'd agree.

Thing is, he claims experience on the matter.
Meaning he SHOULD have known.

He didn't, or, at least, claims he didn't.

don't have time to go read your games

This is not related to the comment. It's related to a different comment elsewhere.
And to vote me (or even FoS, for that matter) without looking is incredibly anti-town to extremely scummy, depending on what the reasoning is.

but no one is listening to you.

This is why I need to work on my persuasion skills--
I know I'm a good scum hunter; my record speaks for itself.

Convincing others that I'm right takes days to do.

If they listened, they'd realize I was right.

I can say "I told you so" after the game when I'm right and they ignored me, at least.

You're not getting any closer to lynching any of your targets,

I'm presenting cases, I'm defending against theirs, I'm pointing out how they're bandwagoning, etc.

If that doesn't get them closer to being lynched, then nothing will.

You aren't asking questions nearly as much as you just keep saying, "person x is scum; kill them".

I ask questions when appropriate,
Or if we're still early on in the game just out of the RVS to generate more discussion.

Neither I have found appropriate at this current time.

Also, I'm proving cases as to WHY they are scum; THAT is definitely scum hunting from me.

Repetition does not make something more true.

But elaboration does.

And by elaborating (which can be fairly repetitious), I am showing how it is true.

Wait, I thought you were sure of them?

There's no way to be 100% unless being a cop.

Who are you unsure of? Because I've heard nothing from you but absolute certainty.

Not any players in particular who I have listed as scumspects.
I just highly doubt ALL the scum are on my wagon so early. I think MOST are, but that at least one or two are holding back from it.

How old are you?

Your personal attack is noted.

In all honesty, Mastin, given the number of lurkers non participants so far, can you hold from posting until these lurkers chime in?

Not without lurking/falling behind myself, which would cause me, upon posting again, to have a MASSIVE wall of text.

So, uh, no. Not really.

OP's resistance to defending himself is asanine. Any pro-town player knows that if you are attacked, and are town, you must defend yourself, as you getting lynched is a mislynch. That is the name of the game. If you are town, you defend yourself because you know the outcome. Not only that, OPs posts have more fluff than Mastin's. Not to mention, I hate people who say "If X is scum, Y is town" and vice versa. That's tunneling and often a scum tell. Scum always have more information than town. They have the ability to bus, defend, attack anyone they want because they know the outcome if that person flips. They use this to their advantage, and often use the above quote type of phrase to nail two town in back to back lynches. Making pairings like that is dumb. OP also has willingness to jump on Zwet's non-discussion, while he himself doesn't defend against Mastin. Zwet is actually giving more than he usually does, and more than a lot of others. Seems if you tagged a vote on there we'd have OMGUS. OP, if Mastin's posts are contrived, do explain why.

Again, this is why I like Ryan:

He says it better than I can.

---

By Lorithia
(<--AE-games nerd),
I hope this is still a short post. Hard to judge by the QT box.

[Mastin]

Mastin, Your role name is Lyncher.

Oh, how convenient. You choose one of the joke-claims in the RVS that I made, and try to spin it into an elaborate lie.

You can't get your target lynched until day two

I've never, EVER seen a lyncher work that way. It's beginning-or-nothing for a lyncher, in all my experience. And this is a Normal Large Theme.

If there were to be a lyncher, they can lynch their target at any time. That's the lyncher role.

Anything else would be just ridiculous.

And do you honestly expect anyone to believe you're a one-shot-day-role-cop? In a Large NORMAL game?

I can understand a cop in the game.
But a one-shot-day-role-cop?

Yea, right. I'm calling BS on that point.

Add to this the fact that scum have role-cops in my experience more often than pro-town players, in what few cases I've seen of role-cops as well.

so you've got yourself 5 or so people, including the lynchee, to be classified as scum.

I'm seeing people as scummy. I'm pointing it out.

Where you failed and what made me want to investigate you is that you couldnt be moved on the general core membership of that 5.

The thing is, you've been posting NOTHING of real content, and suddenly come up with this absolute BS claim,

Where I have my meta to support this as my playstyle.

Devescumtion, nice try, but it's time you and your scumbuddies died.

[Mastin]

This makes sense. It explains his horrible cast on myself and others.

"SWEET FAKECLAIM, SCUMBUDDY! Dang, that was awesome for you to do that! I mean, most people would claim to have mafia results, but lyncher? Just brilliant; it will make people more willing to believe you for not having done the Norm, and might get us a mislynch!"
^
|
|
What I see.

[Mastin]

Mastin is probably either Mafia posing as Jester, or Jester, posing as mafia posing as jester.

Nope, no setting up a fakeclaim here. You had the "opinion" (note the quotation marks to express my doubt at the sincerity of this) that I was either Mafia, or a Jester.

Nope, nothing here, either,

Definitely not here,

Ooh, ooh, maybe here! Nah, this is fluff,

Nope, not here. Clearly thinks of me as mafia, which doesn't support your claim.

Not seeing it here, either.

Nah, doesn't look like it here, either.

Hey, maybe it's here! Nope, wanting commentary from me,

Hey, here it--no. Just joking. Not here. Worthless post.

Nah, this isn't even directed at me!

And out of the blue, BAM! Suddenly, a rolecop claim so early into day two?

Yea, definitely not buying it. Especially considering how I know my role isn't Lyncher.

[Mastin]

And out of the blue, BAM! Suddenly, a rolecop claim so early into day two?

I hate typos.

*claim so early into day one?

We're out of the RVS, but we've--as several others have pointed out--barely heard from other players at all. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever, your claim.

[Mastin]

I am actually a jack of all trades, but I will keep my other ability quiet >_>

Right.
I really want to see Duscum lynched,
But while I am fairly confident in over half of my choices of being scum,
Devescumtion is the only one who I can confirm is scum 100%.

He had one chance to write it off. The mandatory "retract-now-before-it-is-too-late" courtesy I give to those who make such claims.

He blew it.

He's sticking through the claim, and that confirms him as scum.

Mastin Unvotes: Dust,

Mastin Votes: Devestation

.

[Mastin]

I've been pondering this all night.

The math doesn't add up.

Even if Devestation DOES flip scum, there's far too much detail in his claimed result, meaning that he'd flip mafia namecop. I don't know the setup, but I wouldn't be surprised if there'd be a vig to snipe me off.

Simply put, there's no way out of this mess.

As scum, I'll fight to the end, sure, even in hopeless scenarios. Claim the cop was lying about results to get reactions, or another such BS'd excuse.

But I am not scum.

...Well, by my definition of scum.

I consider scum any anti-town role who has a killing power, although some consider any anti-town role to be scum.

Yes, I'm a lyncher.

But Devestation made a mistake in his assumption:

He assumed my target was amongst those I was targeting.

That'd be stupid.

I was tunneling badly for a reason--because that's what I do as a cop.
And I've been known to investigate slightly pro-town people, so investigating Red Coyote would make sense. I thought that a cop claim with a guilty on Red would be an easy win, for my tunneling matches my cop-play perfectly.

Devestation has made that prospect impossible.
I breadcrumbed being a lyncher page one (although, obviously, nobody believed me):

His relation to this game is truly a twist of irony, that he ends up entwined with my win condition. Smile

I then told the truth, knowing I wouldn't be believed right here:

Especially because I'm changing my claim:
I'm a lyncher. Red Coyote is my target; I want him dead, but I won't vote him due to how much I like him. Wink

So, yes, I am the Lyncher. For the details, look at Devestation's claim of my role.
---

You may lynch me if you wish. I *am* anti-town in role.

But I really want to scum hunt.
Be an "honorable townie", so to speak.

Maybe, just maybe,
Considering we have a claimed JOAT with unusual powers,
And an unusual lyncher-style,

There's a recruiting mason. Recruiting masons generally change third-party win conditions to be pro-town in nature.

And I'm really, really hoping there is one.

---
I'm putting my life in your hands. You can do with it what you wish.
My lynch is the lynch of an anti-town player.

But it's not a lynch of mafia.
If you want me gone, leave it to a vig or something; a setup of this size doubtfully doesn't have one.
Or maybe if you're lucky, the mafia will try to kill me.

I can't win, anymore.
It's impossible for me to do so.

Me efforts to scum hunt, however, have been legit.

Minus Devestation, I still think that most of the people who bandwagoned me were scum.

With that in mind,

Mastin Unvotes: Devestation,
Mastin Votes: Dust

. Where my vote was before.

You know, via Devestation, that I can't lynch Red 'til day two. If you doubt my target, then you know it can't be Dust, for a lynch day one makes me still lose.

By Lorithia, I'm praying you people try to scum hunt instead of lynch-the-lyncher-who-gave-himself-up. My lynch won't be a lynch of scum (by my definition--my definition pretty much means that only Mafia/Serial Killers are scum), so I encourage the town (which I really wish I was part of. Again, "Honorable Townie" and all of that. If I am lucky, there's a recruiting mason (Like most Setups on EM that have a lyncher have a mason as well to give them a better chance of winning) who can make that "honorable" part into truth.

[Mastin]

Typos. :/

so I encourage the town (which I really wish I was part of. Again, "Honorable Townie" and all of that. If I am lucky, there's a recruiting mason (Like most Setups on EM that have a lyncher have a mason as well to give them a better chance of winning) who can make that "honorable" part into truth.

I left you with two parenthesis, without closing the original.

"so I encourage the town (which I really, really, REALLY wish I was a part of. Again, "Honorable Townie" and all of that. If I am lucky and this game has a setup with many qualities of a good portion of Epicmafia games with lynchers, this will have a recruiting mason which changes my win condition to pro-town. Or maybe a lyncher psychiatrist to cure my hate of Red. Something to make "honorable" into truth.) to continue their efforts to scum hunt and just leave me alone, for now."

[Mastin]

Did Mastin really just give up

I said it already:

I.
Can't.
Win.

It was an either/or situation between Devestation and I, no false dilemma involved. One HAD to be an anti-town role.
If Devestation were lynched, it'd condemn me.

Even if Devestation were a scum rolecop,
And even if there wasn't a vig to shoot me,
And the mafia didn't kill me,
AND Red Coyote wasn't shot,

Then I'd be the target for a lynch the next day, because Devestation would be confirmed as a rolecop, mafia or not.

The ONLY chance I had would be that Devestation WOULD flip mafia rolecop, and for me to claim he was lying about the result.

Yet EVEN IF I WERE BELIEVED,
What's the chance I'd actually get Red lynched d2?

Practically none.

As long as lyncher is around, he has a hope of winning

I know. I know. Lynch the claimed lyncher who claims his target d1. It's how it works on epicmafia; I understand the concept quite well.

My ONLY chance of winning is if there's some sort of role that can change my win condition to that of a pro-town player,
Or if Jebus incorporated a hidden "still-wins-with-town" mechanic.

I agree, in that my target (Red) is most likely pro-town.

And if I die and Red is lynched, I still do not win.

With the exception of day two, I am very familiar with this form of lyncher, on EM.

If Jebus is merciful, there's some way I can win with the town.

If not, then I will continue contributing to the town. ("Honorable Townie.")

But Mastin gives up without any sort of fight.

Again...I did the math.

The only chance I would've had of getting Red lynched is if someone other than Devestation were lynched, impossible due to the either/or scenario we had.
Only if Devestation were, in fact, a scum rolecop would I have any credibility d2.

With night-kills possible on both me and my target...

And day two being a night-mare...

Even claiming cop wouldn't have gotten Red lynched.

1. Mastin is lyncher, Devastator some sort of weird jack of all trades.

We don't know Devastator's role for certain, but it's clear he at least has a one-shot rolecop ability. Whether this is his full strength or not, we can't know for sure.

are we sure RedCoyote is the target?

I left breadcrumbs on page one. Yes, I breadcrumb as a third party role, due to the fact that third parties can still win with the town a good majority of the time.

He claims Dust couldn't possibly be his target

I've pushed for Duscum's lynch. I'd be fairly stupid if the lynch went through and my target died d1, wouldn't I?

If we don't take it on its face and assume Mastin is scum, what kind of WIFOM games can we play with RedCoyote? Generally, Lyncher targets are town. So is this an attempt to clear RC?

If I'm not the lyncher, Devestation would be exposed as a liar.

But, well, I am.

And, yes, I believe that RC is pro-town. That's why I thought the only chance I had at winning was claiming cop with a guilty, whose sanity was 100% guaranteed. I dropped loaves of breadcrumbs about being the cop in preparation. Devestation threw that plan out the window, though.

Far more than his scum hunting posts do. RC is then clear of being mafia.

Not necessarily--Red could be scum; lyncher targets are usually pro-town, but given how I'm already an unusual lyncher, he could be scum.

Lynching me won't clear anyone.
Its only purpose would be to get rid of an anti-town role, who was doing his best to be pro-town.

[Mastin]

Because I'm a lyncher. Not a jester.
If I can't win, I want the town to win. It has always been my principle to be sided with the village as a third party role who can no longer win.
To be quite honest, I despise working with scum as a third party role. I hate it. I'll do it to win, but if I can't win (which I currently cannot), then I won't.

It only helps the scum, in my opinion, for me to be lynched.

You could call RedCoyote semi-clear, and Devestation semi-clear, but my death wouldn't clear either of them 100%. My lynch isn't a lynch of mafia, and certainly isn't the lynch of a serial killer (my definition of scum is only these two, due to their killing power).

[Mastin]

Lynchers lynching their targets don't end most games.
(Not to mention, vigs are still around, AND I have to be alive to win)

I asked Jebus 'bout the matter, but he said it'd be revealed when it happened.

Not like it will, now.

There's no taking back the claim.

I weighed the consequences, and found that I had nothing to lose.
Whether I gain anything or not depends very much on the setup, and the actions of the town today.

[Mastin]

Responding from page 11. (Sheesh, can't a walking dead man go a day without commenting?)

[Mastin]

THEORY:

If the mafia are defending/unvoting me, they want to keep me alive for later. As well as RC.
If this is the case, they likely have a way to prevent a vig kill of me. Like a Bus Driver.
Said action would explain this, because going into night, a vig shoots me, and gets redirected to an incredibly pro-town person, with the mafia kill as well, two for the price of one.
This would be a very deadly scenario.
And is very probable, given the vote patterns/unusual roles already proven to be in the game.

ANTI-THEORY:

If the mafia are pushing my lynch, they want to try and look pro-town by pushing for the lynch of a confirmed anti-town role. They know it isn't a lynch of scum, so it essentially gives them a free dead body, as well as a night-kill.
If this is the case, any setup would be possible, but I'd think they'd have more goons/roleblockers/godfathers than any unusual mafia roles.

I'm aware they don't end most games. But they play for second place. Lyncher wins first because town lynched someone they HAVE to lynch to win the game? The best town could hope for would be a tie for first place, but most likely second place? No, that's a broken setup.

Eh, Red could be vigged if mafia, I could be dead, etc. Anything's possible.

Something feels off. Severely off.

Yea--
The fact that I'm not dead yet.

Either there's a pro-town role who now knows that I would be a target (lyncher psychiatrist, mason recruiter, something I haven't thought of), or the mafia want me alive.
I can't think of any other reason I'm not dead yet.

-Why would you breadcrumb an anti-town role, especially as early in the game as you did?

Several reasons.
1: It's the RVS. Nobody takes breadcrumbs in there seriously.
2: They might be useful later on. What if I were outed? (I was. <_<) The claim looks better if you can show how you breadcrumbed it earlier.
3: I love breadcrumbing. Dropping loaves, actually. It's a stylistic thing.

-Were you playing any differently during this day than you would have as town?

No. I was playing exactly the way I would if I were a cop. If I tunneled on scum, great! Doc protection almost guaranteed, and I keep on going through my list 'til I hit a pro-town player. (...Unless all on the list are scum. In that case, at the expense of my win condition, I f'ing STEAMROLL the scum. )
If it were pro-town, even better (surprisingly).
I can give the excuse of "rethinking my targets" and going after *Some Category that Red Coyote fit in at the end of the day*.
Like I said, easy win. It's what I had wanted.

What do you believe now that you yourself have admitted intentional tunneling?

I still think most of the bandwagoners on me were scum. They had no way of knowing I wasn't pro-town. They thought I'd be a mislynch.

-RedCoyote, were you informed of your status as a Lynchee?

I had a theory of such.
Generally, there are two types of lyncher.
1: The type I am, who target a player, without knowing their role.
2: The type that has to lynch a certain role, but doesn't know which player has said role.
I figured that, if the mod were cruel enough, he'd have the lynchee be the second type of lyncher who has to lynch the person targeting him to win.
It's plausible, given the flavor in my role. Apparently, I'm a big bad guy, the cruel person who likes to torture my victims and make them suffer for some earlier deed. General lyncher stuff and all that, which is why it wouldn't surprise me if Red's got a similar counter-role.

-To the Town at large- How valid are Mastin's previous arguments in the context of his roleclaim?

Depends on one thing:

Whether they believe my claimed target is truly my target.
If they think Red IS my target, then they'll think my scum hunting is legit. What better way to get my target lynched than to get scum lynched first?, after all. (Especially several scum in a row--see my plan above)

If they think I'm telling a lie, then they'll try to discredit my scum hunting as being a load of BS.

By claiming Lyncher, and suggesting that if the town wants to be rid of him asking for a vigkill eliminates the possibility, in my mind, of him being Jester or Mafia.

Yea.
No doubt in anyone's mind.
I'm the lyncher, alright--
It's just a question of whether people believe my target or not.

-I think Mastin played a really bold move here, regardless of his actual role

"Bold" is an understatement.

I place this along the scale of claiming SK in a setup, just after the beginning of day one, in the hopes that there's a psychiatrist to cure you. (Suicidal, in most cases, as you become the lynch d1.)

and the first I've seen where the lyncher claimed his true role on d1.

Then do you believe my target, Ace? Sounds like you KNOW my target is legit, somehow. Clarify?

I am scummy because I think an anti-town player should be lynched? Mastin has even claimed at this point, clearing Devastation, so people should be voting Mastin, not me, and certainly not Devastation.

It really boils down to one's definition of scum.

What I see is a few possible ones.

Scum-->Mafia.
Scum-->Any Anti-town killing role (my definition).
Scum-->Any anti-town role that wins if faction makes up half or more of the town (cult, sk, mafia.)
Scum-->Any anti-town role.
Scum-->Any Anti-town player.

If all players truly believe what they say, then it boils down to belief:
Whether they consider the lyncher to be scum.

Those voting for me believe that it is best for their win condition to see an anti-town role dead.

Those defending me believe that it is best for their win condition to scum hunt and leave me alone.

Devastation is cleared right now.

No player is clear until the mod says the game is over and their role is revealed. (Death-godfathers, death-millers, etc. mess around with mod results) I have no doubt Devestation used a day-rolecop ability.

But it doesn't automatically mean Devestation is not an anti-town role.

------
Personally, I think the term that defines me would be Frenemy. (Friend-Enemy)

I'm someone who wants the scum dead.
Friend.

Yet if someone was moronic enough to place RC at L-1, I'd hammer. (Enemy)

The latter is nearly impossible, now. The former, I will do until I die. I will continue scum hunting until I die. That's what I do best: scum hunt. I've got no other purpose in this game, now, as an honorary townie (as I like to think of myself as).

Why are you the defensive related to this post, when in fact it was geared towards cateraction

Those two points were not related at all, Nanook. One was about how metagaming me is pointless. The other was about how you were OMGUS'ing Cateraction, and I was pointing it out. (Note how he conveniently leaves it as a "?" in there to avoid the point.)

Why do you feel the need to defend him Mastin?

I pointed out how you were OMGUS'ing and attacked you for what I saw as weak logic.

There was no defense of Cateraction.
(If you hadn't noticed, Cat moved up on my scum list.)

I'm starting to think that you just plain like to argue in general instead of using logic with all of your arguments.

I use logic in all of my points.
It's the quality of the logic that's important. (...Which, admittedly, is not very good from me. I latch onto scum tells and push through them until my opponent provides an adequate defense.)

Nothing anyone else can say is going to be pro town in your eyes

Nah. I've had people disagree with me and call them pro-town, only misguided.

You believe that when someone isn't following you and your tactics then they must be scum.

Nope. I find it more likely that they're scum if I know my target IS scum (as cop), and will be suspicious of them if my target DOES flip scum, but if my target flips town (rarely has happened), then I will think of them as more pro-town, actually.

It's dependent on the circumstances, really.

and yet I've still yet to read a post from you as to why.

I've given cases on both Amished and Dust. I gave a mild case against Devestation to try and defend myself, until I realized that I had to push for the lynch of Devestation due to the either/or scenario, and that not doing so would be scummy, and if Devestation were to be lynched, it'd expose me as scum.

Yea. You're not reading that much, are you?

This vote will be because of the lyncher claim by mastin.

Then why ask the questions/make the points above if you already know my claim? Why make a "case" against me?

I thought he was just a commoner.

After all the cop tells I was dropping? That's a first.

The reason I thought this was that no way he would draw attention to himself so blatantly if he was a power role.

Well, you know I'm a lyncher, now, but to be fair, I was leaving myself open to a MAFIA night-kill if I hit scum, and a VIG kill if I hit pro-town.
Tunneling was a risky maneuver, which I was hoping would pay off.

I do not think Mastin is telling the truth about his target.

You shouldn't. People who do are normally foolish to believe the lyncher claim d1 with his target. Any good pro-town player will doubt it.

I'm telling the truth, sure. I've got nothing to hide. I've been outed; all I can do is be as truthful as possible.
To lie about my target is to risk all killing roles target my REAL target. For example, if we were near lylo, and I claimed lyncher, the mafia could accidentally shoot my real target if I lied.

But lynchers who the town refuses to lynch, as long as alive, will always try to get their target lynched.

If this were EM, I'd rest assured, knowing there'd be a mason to recruit me.

It aint EM. I have no way of knowing if anything can convert me to be just a normal pro-town player. I don't magically know the setup. But I've got nothing to lose, at this point, by telling the truth. Only things to gain.

even though he has said we shouldn't

The goal of the game is to lynch the informed minority (mafia) above all else. My lynch is the lynch of anti-town, but not that of informed minority (More like uninformed minority, as I like to dub power roles/third party roles).

Joking.. wow, so scummy.

Yes. It is.

Joking and later writing it off as a joke, huge scum tell.

Joking in the RVS, null tell.

We weren't in the RVS--it was the former.

...uh...sure. But Mastin is scum. Lyncher = scum. Scum = not town.

Depends on your definition. See my above point about the different definitions of scum.

Mastin wasn't telling the truth until he got caught.

My role, I was lying about.
My scum hunting intentions, I was telling the truth about.

He then begged for us not to lynch him

I don't beg.
I pointed out how my lynch wouldn't be a lynch of scum (by my definition of scum, anyway).

My lynch would be the lynch of the 100% confirmed "Not-mafia" player. Seriously, that actually--in a strange ironic way--makes me more clear than either Devestation or Red Coyote.

and that he'll help the town.

Well, what do you expect?

For me to be spiteful about Devestation, a most likely pro-town player, and go against the town?

They make up the majority; they'd lynch me for it.

I'm an honorary townie, in my mind.

I'm a townie who just has a different win condition, in my mind. That win condition is now impossible.
Leaving me with an option to choose who to win with.

I choose the town.

to just claim like that and roll over.

And what would I do if Devestation flipped town? Fight over the argument that Devestation was lying to get reactions?

I was outed.
There was nothing I could do to stop my death.
I most likely would've avoided a d1 lynch.

But survive n1, d2, AND get a lynch of Red?

Nope.

A lot of games with lynchers seem to have more than one,

Funny. My experience has it so that if there's a lyncher, there's no other, and probably not a Jester in the game, either.
(I hate it when fools are the target of the lyncher on EM. That's instantly two players, plus the scum, who want a player dead. Near-instant town loss.)

I think the wagon on me, for some reason, is larger than Mastin.

The goal's to scum hunt.
People voting for you find you scummy.

Simple logic, really.

I don't remotely buy that he just gave up.

Why would I lie?

Again, WHY WOULD I LIE?!?

I've lost.
There's nothing I can do to get my target lynched.
NOTHING.
I'm powerless.

I've got no way to escape it.
Even if there was somehow a way to dodge the lynch d1, and survive n1...nobody would believe I would be scum hunting by voting Red, even if I had a huge case against him.

So, again...
Why would I lie?

When lying would possibly get my target night-killed?

When lying might make it obvious to a player that I was lying? (For example, if Red were aware that he would be targeted for a lynch.)

Why would I lie, when outed, when I can't win, when all I can do is pray to myself that there's some way to become a member of the town?

I don't really know who his new target is.

"New target" implies I had an old one.
Nope, that's a Warlock.
Lynchers have the same target.

If he's half as smart as he thinks he is

(read his wiki)

Oh, hey. Somebody actually did that!
...But, umm...Where'd you get the idea that I think I'm smart?
I think I'm a good scum hunter, yea.
Doesn't mean I'm smart.

then he'll gradually try and lead us to the his real lynch target.

In setups with no masons, there was a strategy for lynchers, at one time:

They'd claim day one, with a target.
The town would leave the lyncher alive (sometimes even FOLLOW the third-party role. :/), and call the target clear. (I've used this strategy before, mind you.)

It worked, for a short time.

Didn't take long for the town to begin LYNCHING the lyncher claims day one. ("Lynch the lyncher claim day one!") It stopped being a viable strategy.

But in setups WITH masons...it worked well. The lyncher got masoned, their target was clear, both of the two could lead the town to a victory.

I'm putting everything I've got left into this being an option in this game.

It's my only chance at winning.

I should also mention that, should we lynch Mastin, it's generally a good thing that Day 2 will not become another act in the Mastin Show. I think scum can easily use Mastin as a magnet to distract from the real task at hand. I for one will want to do something other than worry about Mastin in Day 2.

It's called a vig. Only doesn't work if my theory is correct.

Why is Mastin still here?

People don't think a lynch of me would benefit the town, apparently.

---

Have to leave. Took an hour and a half to type this, and I only finished page twelve. :/

[Mastin]

This was typed up earlier, so some of these things might've been answered already. (Darn MS.net logging me out, and **** Internet Explorer for refusing to let me log back in!)

Why couldn't Mastin have lynched me?

Simple:
Devestation made it an either/or situation.

I had to change my vote from Dust to Devestation, because I had to say Devestation was telling a load of BS. I knew that with a claim like that, it'd be an easy lynch.

...But that's the problem.
An either/or situation, where one is lynched and revealed to be a JOAT/Rolecop of some sort...
Leaves the other as what the first claimed him to be.
AKA, a lyncher who needs to lynch his target day two.

There'd be NO WAY that I'd be able to push for a lynch on you, Red. IF I were to have survived the night, anyway. With the likelihood of at least a vig around, and the mafia knowing that I'm the lyncher, that's two people to potentially night-kill me. And then, day two, I'd have to avoid being lynched. And how would I get a lynch on you, when I'm busy trying to avoid a lynch myself?

I had to make sure, although I had suspected it, but if I die, and you WERE lynched after that, I'd still lose, because I wasn't alive. The mod clarified that matter with me in the confirmation stage.

------
Also, while I find my choice rather ironic, I hate it. I had heard very good things regarding you on here, MS.net, and you're close to impossible to beat in EM without a guilty report (which may or may not be believed).
(This is why I knew instantly that I had to claim a power role who could get a guilty--I had it all planned out, too. My wording, if I hadn't been outed by L-1 d1, would've been this:
I know it's going to be hard to believe, but...

I am the cop.
Red Coyote flipped scum

.
I confirmed with the mod yesterday that I'm 100% sane, so this leaves five options:
In order, most likely to lest,
-Red Coyote is Scum.
-Red Coyote is some type of miller.
-I was roleblocked, and that reversed the sanity given.
-There is some sort of mafia framer who framed Red.
-The mod lied about my sanity.

Yadda yadda, blabbering about why I chose you, voting you, all that good stuff. If I got the lynch, I could imagine people's reactions to whatever the mod would post for a death scene--even I don't know. I know I'd win, but I don't know what'd happen after that.
Ah, well. Sometimes, scenes play out horribly differently than the author had originally planned when writing a book. When you look too far ahead to the ending, chapters before it would happen, you're going to get less and less accurate over time.)

With the ramble about how I would've tried to kill you out of my head, let's move on to responding to all this stuff.

I honestly can't help but feel that this is honest.

Like I said, I've got nothing to lose, yet everything to gain.

Sure, claiming my target is a load of wifom, but sometimes, lynchers who are known for lying about their targets *coughsmecoughcough* will tell the truth to fool the town if they have reasons to claim without fearing the lynch.

But this is different.
I have reasons to fear the lynch.
I could be today's lynch, for all I know.

The best way to avoid this is to tell the absolute truth.

Lie about nothing.

If I held anything back, or manipulated the facts, it would only harm me.

So, I tell the truth.

Or its night where he is.

Actually, 7:45 in the morning. I was asleep, for another fifteen minutes, at the time. (And, umm, had some coffee, rushed a breakfast, and left before having time to do anything else.)

Then you got lucky that in 742 the almost lurkers (didn't contribute much to the discussion) weren't scum and the scum were more active.

Ace wasn't scum.
Ting (until flaking, was extremely active) wasn't scum.
Xtoxm wasn't scum.
Kronos was scum.
Jeff was scum.
I wasn't scum.

Yea, no. The active ones weren't the scum.

------
It is worthy of noting how Amiscum and Stevie are the only two I've seen use "commoners" in reference to a group.

This leaves me to believe that they, themselves, are not the "commoners" they speak of. In Amiscum's case, I definitely think it's due to him being scum.

For your bandwagons, you've said you've wanted people to bandwagon, then you've said that you don't like a bandwagon. .... Nope, no differing of opinion there.

I've already explained this multiple times--
I liked the Duscum bandwagon.
I disliked you bandwagoning with no reason, though.

I'll respond to the rest of Amiscum's posts later.

(Mastin, please, for the love of Pete, do not respond to every comment I make!

Aww, but it's so fuuuuuuuun...

I don't get the "-S^1+F" thing though.

"Sending out an SOS", the most common lyrics to Message in a Bottle (the song linked).
Minus the first S (S^1) in SoS, and add an F in it's place...

FOS.

Well, I thought it was clever at the time. :/

Do you honestly think that asking 20+ questions over one posts the way you did is focusing the game?

Yes. I think it did.

You don't think someone can cast a serious vote until a pre-determined amount of time has been met?

I don't think someone can cast a serious vote until after the RVS is over.
If they're seriously voting, then it's not a random vote.
If it's not a random vote, then they're not putting themselves in the random voting stage.

Simple logic. (Not the best explanation, but, well, it's been pointed out my logic isn't the best.)

What? To say he has an idea what side X person is and the refuse to discuss it?

At the time, yes.
If he thinks I'm a power role, to say it would be rolefishing, so he holds back.
To think I'm a VT even is still rolefishing, and again, has him hold back.

Why am I getting the feeling that anyone who criticizes your posts gets the same treatment?

Eh, if someone disagrees with a point I have, and I think that point is very solid, then they're basically disagreeing with whatever that point was made for/against.
If against, it's defending against my attacks on my primary suspect.
If in defense, it's a direct attack against me.

Which makes it look scummy.

I was suspicious of Ace in 742 because I saw him as chainsaw defensing Kronos. (It DID apply, Cabooscum, because I had a guilty and KNEW kronos was scum.)

Mastin, isn't this a two-way street? You use meta to make your points, but you've said multiple times that it "doesn't work" when trying to read you?

I can defend my actions as being part of my meta--
For example, I've tunneled twice as a cop in completed games (735, 742).

If someone tries to point out inconsistencies in my arguments from different games, I can cite reasons. (Being in more games in one than in the other, replacing in instead of playing from the beginning, citing inspiration for a change in playstyle [such as shortening up posts]...stuff like that.) I can use my meta to defend against those accusations as well.

Hence, why Metagaming me (in attack) won't work, but if someone metagames me in my defense, it does work.

No, it is not a two-way street.

It seems as though you've had a change of heart on Mastin, what provoked this?

I explained this earlier. I'll try to find the post.

Mastin, why is it that five of the six people voting you are scum?

I'll link to the posts with my cases against Duscum and Amiscum eventually, and the others are from cases scattered across pages. (I'll put those together into one case as well)

(if he's not converted by a possible converting role).

If I'm converted, you can be darn-sure that I'd claim as such.

but I don't know how comfortable I still am with your scumhunting.

Well, you're my target and before, I wasn't listing you as a scumspect. That means I was scum hunting legitimately in my posts.

Mainly because, obviously, you have no ties to either major faction.

But I WANT to be part of the town. :/

Okay it's page 1 and I'm already annoyed with Mastin.

It's a record. Before, my personal best was 763, two pages. Before that, 762, three or four. Yay! At this rate, people will be annoyed with me by my first post, and then by page zero, and then from page negative one!

do you want a trophy or something?

I tried several times to get one on EM. never worked... :/

BUT, I do agree that if Mastin is the lyncher he's lying about his target and purposely breadcrumbed Red Coyote so that he could say oh look I breadcrumbed!

That is your opinion. And I encourage people to have this kind of mindset in most circumstances.
But, well, have people even considered the fact that lynchers might claim their targets for the wifom of people knowing lynchers will lie? :/

Seriously, though, I'm not lying.

if you're the lyncher Mastin

Devestation confirmed this was true.

There's absolutely no way you're telling the whole truth.

[sarcasm]Yes, I'm lying about everything. I'm actually a mafioso who wins if he gets lynched, and have a target named Hewitt, who if lynched, will also cause me to win, making me a mafia-jester-lyncher.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, though.
I'm a vengeful lyncher. Red's my target; I wanted him to be lynched d2.

You're lying about something that is for sure, what it is...I have no idea yet.

I like bets.
Want to bet? I bet you $50 that I'm telling the truth. If I was lying, I owe you a lot of money, if I'm telling the truth, you owe me money. (Eh, call it my "betting system". The first bet, I know I can win, and then I use the money from my won bet to bet with others, and if I lose, the person who I won the original bet with will pay off the person I just lost to. )

So I'm incredibly uneasy about voting for you in case you're jester (because I think that's still a big possibility).

If I were a jester, Devestation would be lying.

I'm not that experienced in mafia, at least by respects of scum hunting,

I'm calling BS on this.

I would just like to throw out there that Mastin's actions totally contradict everything I've seen playing with him.

[sarcasm]Yea, because I'm a mafia-lyncher-jester, who is trying to fulfill one of his win conditions![/sarcasm]
Really, metagaming me won't work. :/

Why are you supportive of so many lynches?

The answer's obvious:
Red's my opposite in opinions.
I like to concentrate on only a few people for a lynch. (Tunneling a bit)

Red likes to keep an open mind.

What cases do you have against these players?

He made 'em in the post, methinks.

[Mastin]

NOTE:

I find that Duscum and Amiscum are more likely to be scum than OP (See THEORY on last page),
But they could also be roles a lot more likely to have the power to change my win condition.
I want that to go through, if existing.

OP's attacks make me think he's a little less likely to be scum,

But he has absolutely zero chance of being someone capable of changing my win condition, and he's the lead bandwagon.

It's selfish, but if I'm correct, then I won't have to be selfish for much longer.

Mastin Unvotes: Dust,
Mastin Votes: OrangePenguin

.

[Mastin]

...god, 6 hours and all that?!?

Get Red and I in a room together, along with Hewitt when behind, and let ourselves talk all we want at the same time, and the end result will be the living definition of the underworld.

[Mastin]

By The Way...I wasn't claiming cop. I said that was what I'd do IF I claimed cop, Zwet. You know that I'm outed lyncher, already.

[Mastin]

Otherwise, scum are just going to leave him and the lynchee to the endgame, and that won't be good for us.

It's called a vig. Unless there's a redirector (Bus Driver), I'm dead tonight. It's as simple as that.

[Mastin]

If there's a vig, the perfect target is an anti-town role--me. Why would I live to see tomorrow?

[Mastin]

Roleblockers. Mafia love 'em.

Dev's blocked for good, if truly a JOAT (and not a mafia rolecop). But that doesn't mean Dev's the only vig candidate.

[Mastin]

Just a thought, but what if Mastin is a Woodcutter/Hunter/Kamikaze/Rambo/Whatever you'd like to call it?

I'm confirmed lyncher.

So, yes, I'm so totally a serial killer-jester-lyncher with a one-shot cop ability, investigated my lynch target, Red, and found a guilty, and I shoot one person upon my being lynched as well as a "goodbye 'present'".

I'm thinking that, if he is, he is only able to kill the first or last vote on him, which is why he wants to be vigged instead of lynched. So he can take out our Vigilante.

That makes no sense. :/

We don't even know if we have a vig.

In a setup of this size?!?
We have a vig.

Plus, a Mafia Doc could also screw up that plan.

VERY rare role. Mafia BD's (Busdriver) are more common.

And, as Tar said,
I can't win 'til day two, anyway.

[Mastin]

I mark sarcasm (and by extent, sarcastic claims) with smileys, you know. :/

(Seriously, Devestation nailed my role perfectly.)

[Mastin]

My theory: Mastin and Devastation are Scum.

If that were the case, then we'd know that Devestation was lying about my role, hence, was mafia as well.

The Scum lose a player but the town loses a weapon.

Bomb is a role used strictly by the town.

I've NEVER seen a mafia bomber.

A vig for a scum is more than a good trade, anyway. There's more of the town than there are of the scum.

You are just like, begging to be lynched today and I'm totally not buying it.

I do not encourage votes on me, but accept them. I can't win with current circumstances.
------

Building a "Lyncher List" right now to prove why Red Coyote is my target.

[Mastin]

Name|Reason|Threat Level

1. Zer0ph34r | Far from actively scum hunting | Low-Mediocre
2. King | Active Lurking | Easy
3. Maturin24 | Not Active Enough | Low-Mediocre
4. Amished | Scummy for reasons listed | Easy
5. Mastin | Claimed Lyncher | Easy, but unless my lyncher target is myself (that'd be hilarious, but, no), not what I'd push for.
6. hewitt | Lurking | Easy
7. alvinz95 | Lurking | Easy
8. _over9000 | Pending replacement | Low-Mediocre
9. Dust | Reasons listed throughout the thread (I do support Dust's lynch wholehearted) | Easy
10. Devestation | Lack of content, hard-to-believe claim | Easy
11. AceMarksman | Always raises good points, normally looks pro-town | Hard
12. ryan2754 | Raises some good points | Mediocre-high
13. zu_Faul | Points throughout the thread | Easy
14. killa seven | Lurker | Easy
15. Phoebus | Lurker | Easy
16. zwetchenwasser | One-liners | Easy
17. StevieT92 | Raises some good points | Mediocre
18. Azhrei | Not contributing much, not the best logic | Low-Mediocre

19. RedCoyote | Has a famous reputation as one of the hardest opponents to beat | HARD

20. Knight of Cydonia | Lurking | Easy
21. Empking’s Alt | One-liners, scummy attitude | Easy
22. zoraster | Generally pro-town | Mediocre-High
23. Tarhalindur | Legendary | Hard
24. Caboose | Reasons listed throughout the thread | Easy
25. cateraction | Meh | Mediocre-Low
26. NanookTheWolf | Bit scummy (need to build case) | Easy
27. orangepenguin | HOLY *censored*, THIS GUY'S SO SCUMMY! | EASY

This is a rough graph of how hard it is to lynch people.

Look at my posts before I claimed--it was fairly obvious I was breadcrumbing cop VERY heavily.
AND my meta is exactly what I'd do if I were to be a cop as well.
So there's no denying I was trying to breadcrumb cop heavily.

There are only three people who I view as hard to lynch.
Only three who I'd think it'd be necessary to claim cop.

Because I wouldn't need to if I wanted to lynch any others--I give solid logic, the town believes me, easy win.

So only three players would make me go after a cop claim that heavily.

Ace,
Tarhalindur,
and Red Coyote.

They're (no offense intended, but this is what I had thought even before the game began) three of the best players here, and deadly, regardless of alignment.

This, assuming you believe the chart isn't a load of BS (check for yourself, though.), is yet more evidence as to why Red Coyote is my target.

[Mastin]

You said yourself that you were trying to breadcrumb Cop as well as throwing in lyncher.

I breadcrumbed lyncher in the RVS. Nobody would've thought about it, had I not pointed it out.

I breadcrumbed cop the minute we were launched out of it. I stayed in my cop meta via my tunneling; the evidence would've been overwhelming day two, if all went according to my plan.

And I've seen Villain Kamikaze before. And Rogue. And Town.

Not on this site, I don't believe.

[Mastin]

BREADCRUMBS. MEAN. NOTHING.

1: I tend to disagree--they're very important.
2: Then how about meta? That also worth nothing?
3: Does this mean you're not buying the list I made as being legit?
4: Do you disagree with the list at all?
4.1: What parts?
4.2: Why?
5: If you don't think Red Coyote is my target, then who do you think IS my target?

[Mastin]

Agreed.

But it DOES narrow down the list, by that logic, Amiscum.

It leaves three people.
One of them my target.
The other two not.

Avoid lynching one of those three, and you avoid my target.

[Mastin]

BREAD CRUMBS..mean nothing. Anyone can bread crumb. ANYONE.

They mean a good deal to me.

If someone can give many breadcrumbs that they gave to their role, and those breadcrumbs stretch far back, I'll believe them. (Never actually had to, as most of the time, I've been the one who's been breadcrumbing)

[Mastin]

Also, OP fails to comment on my Lyncher List at all. Interesting...

[Mastin]

Mastin - 8 (Caboose, Devestation, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King)
OrangePenguin - 4 (cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin)

I think that it'd take some sort of miracle to prevent one of the lynches from being one of the above. I'm at L-6 (Meh), OP's at L-10, I'm an anti-town role, OP's an extremely scummy player (although personally, not as scummy as Amiscum and Duscum are to me--I explained this before).

[Mastin]

Great reasoning. Way to insult me. Easy? LOL. Just look at the people on my wagon. cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin

Along with MANY FoS's from MANY other players, OP.

I am sure I can find them by searching back a few pages.

So two non-active posters, a 'meh' (whatever that means), and an anti-town player. I find hewitt's post truly confusing, since he also thinks you're scummy. So I am scummy for pushing your lynch (yes, I am and will push your wagon now), but he can be hypocritical about it?

He's listed as "easy" for a reason, OP. The given is lurking, which is valid. If there were more, I'd have no trouble finding it if I were to try and tunnel on hewitt.

[Mastin]

I was working on it. Patience is virtue.

You failed to comment on most of the list.

And also failed to comment on the three most important parts of it:

Tar,
Ace,
And Red.

[Mastin]

since I am not scummy

You've accused me of almost everything I've said as being BS, so I think it's time to return the favor.

bullshit

my wagon just happens to be pushed by a lot of scummy people

And to think:

You were one of the ones saying that *I* was scummy for thinking all the people who were voting/FoS'ing me were scum(my).

Hypocrisy, anyone?

I just had the nerve to go against the very pro-town player that is Mastin.

Yes. You did go against someone who was incredibly pro-town in his scum hunting techniques, who has posted plenty of logic, started discussion, got us out of the RVS, asked plenty of questions, started plenty of debates...etc.

Oh wait-- you're a lyncher?

If you say so.

Smart scum bread crumb all the time.

I'm not that smart.

But bread crumbs only mean something when a player is confirmed somehow.

Alright, then what about my breadcrumb of being a lyncher and RC being my target (two breadcrumbs on that!)?
Devestation confirmed me, yet you doubt that I was breadcrumbing the truth.

I'm calling not only hypocrisy, but absolute BS.

[Mastin]

My Honorary Townie sense is tingling:

OP's attitude when he has come under fire from a few attacks seems closer to panic than anything else.
He's become less logical than before (when his logic wasn't good [and was flat-out scummy in some cases] most of the time in the first place),
He's pushing hard for my lynch,
Despite his earlier claim of NEVER pushing for a lynch,
He's been hypocritical as of late...

It's harder and harder not to paint "scum" all over him.

[Mastin]

Speaking of which, as this game is a big read:

Mod:

I know it's a bit far away, but I should request it anyway.

Can we have a deadline extension?

Whoever ends up replacing Over 9000 will need to read the entire thread, and with this large read, that'll take a very long time.

Other players who're behind might also appreciate this courtesy.

[Mastin]

OP skips over this post entirely.

Convenient, no?

He's ignoring what he can't respond to.

[Mastin]

Anyway, to respond to OP's points,

1. I am not panicking. Unless you count 5 multi-posts as panicking. I thought I was being quite rationale.

The tone in your posts has become more defensive. I'd call that a form of panicking.

2. Less logical? Once again, I thought I was being quite rational.

Right, and I'm a lyncher-jester, who's also a survivor-serial-killer, and a two-shot cop, roleblocker, nk-immune cult leader.

You've been less rational than I have been, from what I have seen, your defenses have been weak, as have your attacks.

3. Yes.

Despite the fact that many people have made it clear they agree that I am not today's lynch--
The EARLIEST I can win is tomorrow. Which means the EARLIEST I am a threat is tomorrow.

4. You're an exception, since people still aren't voting you, despite evidence that you are a lyncher.

Right, I'm so totally convinced now that you're not in any way whatsoever covering your tracks for being earlier hypocritical and think of you as the most consistent player in the game. [/sarcasm]

5. Just annoyed, TBH.

The point was "hypocritical". How does being annoyed have anything to do with being hypocritical?

Key word: paint. Paint washes off. You can cover me with it all you want, I am still town underneath.

*laughs*
Nice defense.
"No, you're wrong; Ignore how scummy I have been. I'm town."
Like I'll believe that.

[Mastin]

Well, he can give us information.

I have.

-I've listed how I think Amished and Dust are scum.
-I've given theories on the setup, and given two opposing scenarios as to what the scum are doing. (Also possible are two scum factions, meaning both would be true, but doubtful)
-I think that you're also likely to be scum.
-I've given my thoughts on most players.
-I've semi-confirmed Devestation, as well as Red Coyote.

That doesn't mean he will.

I admitted my target,
I admitted that I was voting you instead of Dust for two reasons (first: Dust/Amished are more likely to be a role who can make me pro-town, second: You have more votes, making you a more likely lynch). I admitted to switching votes and bandwagoning. I've given theories that would harm my chances of winning.

That'd qualify, I'd think.

He knows how to tricky people, and the play it off as innocence. In his first game, I was an IC, and Mastin was scum.

*Shrugs*
I played SO BADLY in 688, that I don't count it--Alduskkel replaced in, and HE was the roleblocker. Not I.

He had this very scummy plan.

And I later realized it, refined my play, dropped it, and forgot what it was.

I was one of the few who defended him, when most jumped on him.

I was put at L-2. I was panicking. Had I showed it, I would've been dead meat.

So I hid my panic.
That doesn't mean I was smart--
I was extremely stupid that game.
I thought we were going to lose.
I only thought that the scum (I was not a player by then) would win about day three. No sooner did I have hopes.

He was scum, I fell for it, and the scum won, I think.

In the words of Alduskkel,

You [Mastin] weren't in this game that long and it was primarily me who played the Mafia Roleblocker. To take credit for the [Mafia] win would imply that you [Mastin] helped the Mafia win the game as much as me. Furthermore, when you replaced out you essentially stopped being a part of the game.

I didn't play that game, OP.

[Mastin]

Pfft..sorry. I responded to the one after that first, and then the hewitt post after it. Am I scummy now, because I am not responding to each and every post?

Yes.
You're leaving out key facts in posts, ignoring them, editing them,
And skipping posts until pointed out.
(To compare, I'm going chronologically, and quoting almost everything)

Except I never once called anything in this game BS. Don't put words in my mouth. I even double checked.

Eh, the quote was from Hewitt. But I do find that your constant doubt of me to be finding most of what I say, 'cept the claim, to be BS.

The people voting you weren't all scummy.

This is a matter of opinion--people can give all kinds of differing evidence, show a person as scummy as they want--
It's still only their opinion.
If others are convinced, it becomes theirs as well.

Yea, I stick by the point that it was hypocritical of you and you're trying to defend against it with this BS.

The people me, for the most part, have poor reasoning

I believe the same for those who voted me. I've shown why on multiple occasions.

Does that make it any more true?
Maybe.

Again, this is mostly an opinion.

Well, you said so...

I'm a lyncher by role.
Not by attitude.
I'm a townie at heart.

Well, THAT was the truth. Which was why I thought you were scummy, when you went around calling people scum for thinking you were scum after you said you were.

Ignored the final line, calling it hypocrisy.

Maybe cause I am defending myself? Wasn't one of the reasons I was "scummy" in the first place was because I refused to defend myself. I guess I am just a hypocrite and can do no right.

Thanks for pointing out the reversal. Yes, it makes you more scummy.

You're the only person who has responded to my defenses, for the most part.

Yet I'm not the only one who's pointed out how scummy you've been.

Several people have chimed in the past few days, and said they thought I was town.

Oh, really?

Point out them all, and what post.

Well, those people are wrong.

Great defense, OP. You've now convinced every player on MS.net that I'm the lynch today for this game. [/sarcasm]

The earliest you can win is tomorrow?

Yes. Meaning that we'd have all of day one to scum hunt (today), and night one to vig other scummy players or me. If I'm not dead via a vig, then I could still be a lynch d2.

So why not get rid of the threat before it is a threat?

Because when the threat becomes a threat, he can be eliminated that day.

Doing what you yelled at me for not doing is not hypocritical!

Yes, yes it does.
It shows fear at my case against you.

You can't call me scum for not defending myself and not pushing your case, and then call me a hypocrite when I do.

If you weren't worried about it, then why'd you change it?

You said I was being hypocritical. I haven't been. I have just been annoyed.

I've pointed out all of the hypocrisy in your posts, which you post VERY poor defenses for.

Thanks

I need to remember to mark ALL of my sarcasm with [/sarcasm] tags in the future.

I don't expect you to believe it.

Can you expect others to, though?

You're a lyncher.

I prefer "Honorary Townie".

You don't matter.

More hypocrisy--

Well, he can give us information. I am not stopping him. He posts way more than the majority of the players, so we can get a lot from him if he offers it.

You were saying that I might not be doing this, sure, but you weren't saying I wasn't.

You are wrong.

Roles do not always reflect how correct an opinion is. My role doesn't mean I'm any less correct than you in a debate.

It's hard to ignore what isn't there.

This implies that it's easy to ignore what IS there. (Because if it's hard to ignore what isn't there, it's probably easy to ignore what is there)

I am town.

We have only your word on that.

What I do care about is the rest of the town.

Then LISTEN to their logic!

[Mastin]

I would just like to ask a question Hewiit: who do you find pro-town?

anti-town?

Well, if by "anti-town", you mean by role, there's at least one guaranteed answer.

this whole lyncher thing turns out to be a farce and he's say, jester.

There's a policy on MS.net:

Even if someone IS a jester, they're lynched, anyway. Unless there's someone who's likely to be a vig (via multiple night-kills), the Jester is almost always lynched.

Just what I've seen most players say on the matter.

(Dang, so many polls could be made from this game--What's the definition of scum, what to do with Jesters...)

[Mastin]

Agreed.
Which is why they'll shoot me.

But if there is very doubtfully a vig to take care of the jester (and sometimes, even then), the town lynches them.
(Dang, it's so hard referring to myself as NOT part of the town.)

[Mastin]

I would support the vig killing you =)

While I, obviously, would prefer for that to not be the case, I do support it, and would be surprised if this were not the case.

. If you were a SK, do you expect us to keep you alive, if you said you were a townie at heart, and would play as a vig?

Remember the example I gave of what my claim was along the examples of?
Yea, a serial killer claiming day one, in the hopes of there being a psychiatrist to cure them, but shooting as vig in the mean time.

No, we lynch you.

Not on day one, when I am of no harm to the town.

Your argument about finding mafia today, saving you for tomorrow - why?

Because if we find mafia today, that's very, very good, better than the lynch of a lyncher.
It also allows us to test the setup:
See if there's a vig.
If there's a role that can prevent me from permanently being the lyncher.

It has many potential advantages.

If we keep you for tomorrow, there is a HUGE chance we'll mislynch.

Mislynch on me? That seems like a contradiction...

If we kill you now, that takes care of you, and then tomorrow, we can focus on getting scum.

Explain to me EXACTLY how that is any better than leaving me alone today and getting scum today.
You have equal chances tomorrow of hitting scum as today. Why wait a day?

At that point, there'd be night kills, lowering the player count even more.

So?
Lynching a player, pro-town or mafia today, plus the bodies during the night, would give FAR more information than a lynch of the lyncher day one, and the body count n1.

But our chances of finding scum would be higher, especially with a distraction like you gone.

Do you know what this argument reminds me of?

The people who suggest a no-lynch day one in a Newbie Game.

"If we no lynch, the scum kill one of us, making it less likely that we'll hit town in our lynch."

Yea, no.
Never works out.

I like how you twist confirming Devastation into a pro-town thing done by you.

I very easily could've pushed for Devestation's lynch and receive it. I instead did the math and found that it wasn't as favorable as originally thought.

Because of you, we'll likely lose a very important pro-town role.

It was not me who claimed.
Devestation was at virtually ZERO risk of being lynched.
And chose to willingly claim with a result other than mafia.

On someone who would've played this way as a pro-town player.

That is not my fault.
Way to twist the circumstances and shift the blame on me.
Devestation claimed, not I.
It's along the lines of a cop claiming day two with only one innocent in a Newbie Game--potentially useful, yet in reality, far from the best course of action to take.

Your entire 391 is wrong.

Point by point, show how it's wrong. Else, this claim is BS.

You say you've been pro-town

I have.

but many of those are just accusations

THAT'S WHAT THE GAME OF MAFIA IS!
Accusations.
Discussion from accusations, and accusations from discussion, to scum hunt, to find the scum through discussion, and point out how with accusations.

Explain how scum hunting isn't pro-town, please.

All of us can accuse people.

And when they give reasons, solid reasons, for their accusations, it's scum hunting.

But your refusal to listen to anything I say

I've listened, alright.

I just don't like (AT ALL) what I am hearing.

and continue to call me scum for everything I do is not helping your case.

If you do something I see as pro-town, I'll point it out, OP.
So far, I've seen nothing but bad from you.

In your eyes, I can't do anything right.

You can.
You just haven't.

In my eyes, of course.

I post a joke in the RVS

It was FAR from the RVS. We were PAGES into discussion at the time of the vote.

I don't defend myself against your ridiculous accusations

It's scummy to not defend against the accusations in the first place.

I defend myself - I am even scummier.

When you HAD been ignoring my attacks, yet suddenly begin to defend against them, that shows--to me--that you're worried about them.
That they carry weight.
That they mean something.
That they're a threat.

That you are afraid of them convincing the town to follow me.
And afraid of being lynched by extension.

I don't push your case - I am scum.

Yes. It's scummy to not push a case. I said I'd do research into your meta about this, though.

I 'push' your case - I am even scummier.

If it weren't for the fact that your response to the above was that you never push cases, then I'd say that you'd look better for pushing it.
Yet after saying you haven't pushed a case,
And then you suddenly do...
You're far from convincing.

I can't win in your eyes

You could. You could be pro-town, point out all perspectives, and form a conclusion from that. You could have chosen not to do something that you said you never do. You could do a whole bunch of things differently, and that would change my mind.

You haven't.
And I severely doubt you will.

so why am I bothering arguing my case with you?

Simple, really.
1: You want me dead,
2: You don't want to see yourself dead.

I even read all your posts now!

They're shorter. If they weren't, then I'd be calling you out for that as well.

You wonder why I am annoyed.

I never stated this--
I stated that I thought you were being hypocritical, and that your "I'm annoyed" explanation was far from an adequate defense.

If I misspell a word and improve upon it, does that make me a hypocrite?

This has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. Misspelling a word? Really?

If I truly was scummy as you said I was, I'd be lynched.

And I believe that you survive because,
1: It's late at night,
and
2: Many still want me dead for my claim.

At the very least, I'd have more votes on me than you.

We've been over this before.

People did say they thought I was town.

I asked you to show who said it, and provide the posts where they did.
You've failed to do so.

I am not going to bother pointing this out to you.

Then why mention it at all?

Okay orangepenguin that was a complete, by the book, appeal to emotion right there.

If it wasn't obvious by my arguments above,
I'm saying that this is quoted for truth.

[Mastin]

OP have you ever heard of doctors?

Heh. It's getting too late over here for me to think. This completely slipped my train of thought.

(assuming that I don't get targeted by an unblockable)

You're more likely to be killed via a redirected kill than by an unblockable kill. Redirectors are fairly common.
Unblockable kills, not so much.

[Mastin]

and now is appealing to our sympathies and the chance that he could be masoned tonight.

I don't know what the setup is,
But I do know I can't get Red lynched.

If I'm not converted to the town, I lose. Not really much else to say on the subject other than that.

I share some of the concern that he's really a Jester.

We lynch Jesters. Give 'em what they want; they're anti-town and don't end the game.

Most of the time, on EM, we lynch the lyncher claim, mainly due to them not being believed.

But that's different--that lyncher can win day one. Dev confirmed that I can't win 'til day two, and I'm reinforcing this as the truth.
We can wait 'til tomorrow. It tests the setup. It doesn't waste the vig shot, or anything, and it might grant me the power to win with the town, even if I die during the night.

Whether he says he's lost or not,

No frakkin' duh. If I'm lynched, then I can no longer lynch my target. Hence, have lost.

This seems the smart thing to do.

Key word:
Seems.
Is it?
Not in my opinion.

I'm willing to accept that I lost, and am willing to die.
I want to test the setup and be given one night for it, at least, though, to live and hopefully help the town as much as possible, perhaps even become part of it.
You can always lynch me day two.
Nothing stops you from doing it.

It avoids problems down the road.

Again, we CAN wait 'til tomorrow. My death day one would be less beneficial than my death n1/d2. It tests the setup, it gives the town information (almost typed "us" again. :/)...
Take these two different scenarios:
1: We lynch day one, scum hunting. What I propose.
I survive the night.
Two or so deaths. Three total.
I don't change win conditions, and am lynched. Four.
Two deaths.
Six.
Day three, you have six bodies. Lynch again. Seven.
Two kills. Nine.

It's statistically no different than lynching me d1. One body.
And two deaths.
Three.
And a lynch, the lynch that I propose should be on day one. Four.
Two more.
Six.
And another lynch, Seven,
And two more night-kills.

You get the idea.

You waste nothing by letting me live a day.
You might gain a great deal by letting me live, though.

I just don't think it's worth our time to really consider this course of action given that it's day 1.

So, instead of testing the setup,
Of possibly having a player with a very good track record OFFICIALLY on your side,
You'd rather kill him day one and leave the setup untested?

---

Yea, summed up
-Lynch Jesters.
-As we have at least one day, don't lynch the lyncher.
-Lynching me today loses valuable information that keeping me alive could gain,
-Lynching me tomorrow makes no difference in the outcome of the game.

I think that's the best way of saying it.

[Mastin]

Also:

Why would I, as a Jester, want to stay alive today, yet advocate for my vigging?

That'd be a reverse Jester, which is definitely not a role I'd expect in any Normal game, even with unusual roles already proven to be in the game.

[Mastin]

and do a great job of scumhunting.

Hmm, my efforts include...

-Attacking a player who wasn't contributing, actively lurking. (Devestation, until the claim.)
-Providing speculation on the setup, and roles in it.
-Declaring people to be semi-clear.
-Got us out of the random voting stage.
-Scum hunted Dust and Amished, finding both to be very very likely scum, built cases on the others.
-Have scum hunted OP, attacking him heavily.
-Has attacked Nanook and Zu_Faul as well, with cases which I still need to build completely, but which some of it has been scattered throughout pages. (You don't have to search for it if you don't want to; I'll put together the full cases eventually [assuming I'm still alive]. They're around, but scattered over huge posts which I don't think anyone has the endurance to survive all at once.)
-Has defended from any points pointing to some lynches d1.
-Admitted to being a lyncher instead of letting the town most likely mislynch a JOAT,
-Has been very open about his role, revealed details that not even Dev knew (that I had to be alive to win if my target was lynched, who my target was...),

And so on.

If you're going to be "honorary townie", fine whatever, then make yourself useful and find scum.

I believe I have, Hewitt. The only way to know for sure if I did or not is to see one of these lynches go through.

[Mastin]

holy crap, you people type faster than I can read O_o

It takes me half an hour to type many of my posts. Surely, it takes less then ten minutes to read most of them, right? :/

Why does this sound like you giving a last desperate chance to get your target lynched?

Look, there's no way people will follow me day two.

-If I live through day one (I hope I do--I've pointed out exactly why this is good),
-If I live through night one (doubtful, if we have a vig),
-Then I will be the lynch day two.
-If I somehow am not lynched day two, then people will stay away from every lynch I have suggested as a precaution against letting me win. (Although I was telling the truth, and the paranoia was unnecessary, and that Red is my target)

[Mastin]

WIFOM

Hmm, true, I suppose.
Like I said, it's late. Not really thinking about these common things, such as wifom and all that.

But you DO know that I can't be lying unless Devestation is also lying, and somehow was so lucky in targeting the Jester, and put amazing detail into a false result, to get me lynched, in your scenarios where you are thinking I'm the Jester, correct?

Dev confirmed me. If one of us is lying, both are.

[Mastin]

Game posts: 711
[0.04% of total / 3.16 posts per day]

I blame this game. It was just under three less than 24 hours ago.

Really, I swear...if I get even .1% of the total, then I've become worse than Zwet (And Empking. And all the others who post one-liners :/). <_<
------
Wow, that's kinda scary.
A third party role is showing far more devotion to the game...than almost any other player in the game, whose alignments are unknown.

That's kinda pathetic, if you think about it. :/

[Mastin]

so you are either both lying or you're lying about your target. That's what it basically comes down to for me. It's much more likely that you're just lying about your target though.

Ahg.

I can't wait 'til the game's over if I die as a Lyncher, so that the mod can confirm that, this whole time, I've been holding NOTHING back and that I'm telling the truth about Red being my target. :/

[Mastin]

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject: 110

PostPosted: Wed May 20, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject: 418

...Is it sad that I make up over a fourth of the posts in this thread? Considering my role?

I really, really hope there's something that can convert me. Doesn't seem fair that the lyncher would post the most and not get rewarded for it. :/
------

On a related note:

WAKE UP, PEOPLE!

Do start considering everything that has been said so far. It's a very vital game point, and the choice might (though very doubtful. I'm not that important.) end up influencing if you win or lose the game. Ponder what I've said, who I've suspected, what I've insisted to be the truth, and whether you believe I should be lynched, despite me having tried my hardest to contribute my all, to be the "honorary townie", or we should scum hunt. Try to find the real scum, the mafia.

[Mastin]

I wouldn't being playing smart if I trusted you at your word now would I Mastin?

You'd be playing stupid, really.

It's frustrating.

By my own admition, it's best to distrust the word of the lyncher claim.

Yet I know I'm telling the truth.

You can see the problem in that, I'm sure.

[Mastin]

One-liners, too, on top of that, Hewitt.

But I've put everything forward that I can think of in my defense. The math, the scenarios, the setup, the advantages, my scum hunting techniques, my honesty thusfar on the role (revealing what even Devestation didn't know), etc. The only thing I can't prove is my target. And that's frustrating.
If I could prove, without a doubt, 100%, that Red were my target, then I'd cease being a threat to the town AT ALL. Neither myself nor Red would be lynched, we'd continue on with three semi-clear players, we would scum hunt.

That's what I want, now.
Yet there's nothing I can do. Which is why it's frustrating. I've pointed out the breadcrumbs, I've been completely open about everything, despite how it harms my win condition...yet all of it still can't prove Red's my target. The Mod is the only one who can, and that would only be done if Red were lynched (which obviously won't happen).

[Mastin]

Even though we could "do better" with a lynch as Tar has stated earlier, we also could still do worse (lynching a pro town role such as doc, cop, vig, etc.)

This is true for EVERY day.

If you don't want to take the risk of hitting a pro-town player, you might as well no-lynch to make a lynch more likely to hit scum.

As pointed out, that same logic is the same logic newbie players pushing for no lynches in a Newbie Game use.

No. Absolutely, 100% not. We do not lynch Jesters.

Let's put it this way:

A jester is outed, yet kept alive.

Nobody shoots him during the night.

Two scum, two town, and a Jester are all that are left--
Mafia/Jester collab. win.

Jesters are basically a mafioso who, if people refuse to get rid of them, is unlynchable.

This scenario is analogous. We've got someone we COULD lynch day 1, day 2, day 3, or day 4... thus using that day's lynch. But Mastin is a strong day 1 lynch; he's a weak day 4 lynch.

Someone point out how bad the logic above was. I'm in a hurry at the moment and cannot do so.

But needless to say, I'm a strong day two lynch as well.

Why do you assume I'll live to day four?
There's night one, day two, night two, day three, and night three.

I can be lynched easily day two or three.

[Mastin]

Why I should not be lynched

:

(

Do not even

DARE

skim this!

)

Let's put together everything I can think of. ALL of it.

---

-One point against me is that we can lynch me day one, and scum hunt day two. And day three. And day four...

I gave the counter-math. How we can scum hunt day one, lynch me day two, scum hunt day three...it works out to exactly the same number of bodies,
Exactly the same amount of night actions sent/received all nights,
Exactly the same outcome,
with ONE exception:

Leaving me alive d1 will test the setup--do we have a vig who'll shoot me, do we have a psychiatrist for a lyncher, do we have a mason recruiter, do we have a role capable of making me town?

The math is here. People "conveniently" ignored it, because they didn't want to hear how they're wrong and I'm right--

Again, we CAN wait 'til tomorrow. My death day one would be less beneficial than my death n1/d2. It tests the setup, it gives the town information (almost typed "us" again. :/)...
Take these two different scenarios:
1: We lynch day one, scum hunting. What I propose.
I survive the night.
Two or so deaths. Three total.
I don't change win conditions, and am lynched. Four.
Two deaths.
Six.
Day three, you have six bodies. Lynch again. Seven.
Two kills. Nine.

It's statistically no different than lynching me d1. One body.
And two deaths.
Three.
And a lynch, the lynch that I propose should be on day one. Four.
Two more.
Six.
And another lynch, Seven,
And two more night-kills.

You get the idea.

You waste nothing by letting me live a day.
You might gain a great deal by letting me live, though.

I DARE someone to counter that point.
How does lynching me day one influence what will happen?

It doesn't.
It's the same as what leaving me alive would do, except giving us more information if I am left alive.

-I ALSO gave reasonings as to why Red Coyote is my target. Meaning I am harmless if you stay away from him. This was ALSO ignored by most people, also rather conveniently--

Name|Reason|Threat Level

1. Zer0ph34r | Far from actively scum hunting | Low-Mediocre
2. King | Active Lurking | Easy
3. Maturin24 | Not Active Enough | Low-Mediocre
4. Amished | Scummy for reasons listed | Easy
5. Mastin | Claimed Lyncher | Easy, but unless my lyncher target is myself (that'd be hilarious, but, no), not what I'd push for.
6. hewitt | Lurking | Easy
7. alvinz95 | Lurking | Easy
8. _over9000 | Pending replacement | Low-Mediocre
9. Dust | Reasons listed throughout the thread (I do support Dust's lynch wholehearted) | Easy
10. Devestation | Lack of content, hard-to-believe claim | Easy
11. AceMarksman | Always raises good points, normally looks pro-town | Hard
12. ryan2754 | Raises some good points | Mediocre-high
13. zu_Faul | Points throughout the thread | Easy
14. killa seven | Lurker | Easy
15. Phoebus | Lurker | Easy
16. zwetchenwasser | One-liners | Easy
17. StevieT92 | Raises some good points | Mediocre
18. Azhrei | Not contributing much, not the best logic | Low-Mediocre
19. RedCoyote | Has a famous reputation as one of the hardest opponents to beat | HARD
20. Knight of Cydonia | Lurking | Easy
21. Empking’s Alt | One-liners, scummy attitude | Easy
22. zoraster | Generally pro-town | Mediocre-High
23. Tarhalindur | Legendary | Hard
24. Caboose | Reasons listed throughout the thread | Easy
25. cateraction | Meh | Mediocre-Low
26. NanookTheWolf | Bit scummy (need to build case) | Easy
27. orangepenguin | HOLY *censored*, THIS GUY'S SO SCUMMY! | EASY

This is a rough graph of how hard it is to lynch people.

Look at my posts before I claimed--it was fairly obvious I was breadcrumbing cop VERY heavily.
AND my meta is exactly what I'd do if I were to be a cop as well.
So there's no denying I was trying to breadcrumb cop heavily.

There are only three people who I view as hard to lynch.
Only three who I'd think it'd be necessary to claim cop.

Because I wouldn't need to if I wanted to lynch any others--I give solid logic, the town believes me, easy win.

So only three players would make me go after a cop claim that heavily.

Ace,
Tarhalindur,
and Red Coyote.

They're (no offense intended, but this is what I had thought even before the game began) three of the best players here, and deadly, regardless of alignment.

This, assuming you believe the chart isn't a load of BS (check for yourself, though.), is yet more evidence as to why Red Coyote is my target.

I stated why only three people would cause me to breadcrumb cop. And I HAD been crumbing; linking and pointing to 735, 742, mentioning the cop as the first power role in all my lists, etc. There's no denying that I did.
I also maintained my cop meta---
Take just a brief look at 735/742, where I tunneled heavily, even without results.

So, obviously, I WAS going to try and claim cop--
Why would I if my target wasn't an easy lynch target?

Then, there's my breadcrumbs early on. Like I said, only Tar, Ace, and Red could make me claim cop--and Red's who it is. The two breadcrumbs were

Heh. Glad to see you too, mastin.

Nice to be scumbuddies with ya, my friend.

And RC too!

His relation to this game is truly a twist of irony,

that he ends up entwined with my win condition.

And

Especially because I'm changing my claim:
I'm a lyncher. Red Coyote is my target; I want him dead, but I won't vote him due to how much I like him.

-Devestation CONFIRMED that I can't win 'til day two. Meaning that if I lynched my target d1, I'd lose. I'm NOT a threat today, AT ALL. I become a threat tomorrow, sure.

But I can just be lynched then

!

IF you somehow STILL don't believe that my lyncher target is Red, I'd volunteer to be the lynch.

-A lyncher is not mafia. The goal is to eliminate mafia above all else. We do that by scum hunting. Lynching me is not scum hunting, not lynching scum. It gives us NOTHING going into night--we gain nothing that we didn't already know. We knew I was lyncher, we knew Devestation was some sort of Rolecop, we knew I claim Red as my target, but Devestation could be a mafia rolecop, and people might not believe Red is my target.

-Red, if mafia, would've just lied--said he was a lynchee. Confirm me to avoid being the lynch. He didn't. He's telling the truth, hence, isn't mafia. Hence, he wouldn't be lynched, anyway, even if I had claimed someone else as my target.

-I pointed out how, while sad, I have contributed more to the game than any other player.

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:49 am Post subject: 114

We have, what, just over 425 posts?

Given the length of my posts, and the amount of them, can you say that I haven't contributed to the game?
Heck no. I've been pro-town, contributing my all to the game.

Game posts: 711
[0.04% of total / 3.16 posts per day]

That was less than three a few days ago. Meaning I've contributed a HUGE amount to this game.

-I've been open. I've revealed key details that were not known before, like that I had to be alive to win.

-I have given theories on the setup. Given my reasoning behind it.

-I have scum hunted. I've got a list of suspects, and have pointed out the flaws in logic by many others. I've shared my opinions freely.

-DESPITE WHAT IS SAID, I am still an easy lynch day two. Easier than day one. Because it seeds doubt into the minds of others, if I live, if a vig exists at all. I bet you that I could be speed-lynched day two, yet day one drags on and on.

-Though I am outed as an anti-town role, I'm contributing as if I were a pro-town player. I call it being an honorary townie. I've given new insight into the game, insight that other players can't/won't/didn't give.

-As a now-outed third party role, I can give a new perspective to the game that others who are unclaimed can't. As a third party role, I can share my opinions freely, knowing there's no consequences. That's something I can't do in any other circumstance.

-I am confirmed NOT SCUM. NOT MAFIA. Therefore, as my goal is also to see mafia dead, I'm one of only three people who you can say are at least semi-cleared. Of them, I'm actually the MOST cleared as NOT mafia.

-Again, leaving me alive gives us more info on the setup than killing me!

---

I'm out of time, again. I'll respond to the thread so far later. Just thought I'd give these points, in one post, as a defense to PROVE why we shouldn't lynch me.

[Mastin]

By the way,

(Do not even DARE skim this!)

In better words,
READ IT ALL.

[Mastin]

PROPOSAL:

If I reach L-3, I'd want any conversion role to claim. If they exist, then we can afford to not lynch me. Put the doc on the conversion role, have the conversion role convert me (obviously) and ask the vig to shoot me, just in case.

The outcome, when the bodies are revealed:

If I die town, then that means either we have no roleblocker, or conversions go through before roleblocking.

If I die as a lyncher (this is the second-most dangerous scenario),
Then we could have a roleblocker,
Or the "conversion role" was lying.

If I do NOT die, and yet, someone else flips mason,
-Then the mafia have a bus driver.

If I do NOT die, and yet, nobody flips mason (most dangerous due to the different options),
-The mafia probably has a bus driver and a roleblocker,
or
-The mafia has a bus driver, the conversion role was lying,
or
-There is no vig,
possibly others.

In other words, that I become a Guinea Pig for the town to test both mafia, and town, power roles.

Feedback?

We can discuss it all we want, but it'd ultimately be the role in question's decision.

UPDATING EARLIER THEORY:

We have day-talking mafia. It'd make sense, given the attitude in this game, and coordination, and sudden reversal of opinions. We have a confirmed day-rolecop, and might have day vigs, day docs, etc. It would make sense to have the scum have a slight advantage.

RE-POSTING AN OLDER THEORY:

We have two scum factions. I think one is attacking me, to get a lynch of a confirmed not-mafia player, and worse, a player who wants to see the scum dead as much as any other player. They want to look more pro-town by lynching a "confirmed anti-town player".

The other I can see as defending me. Wanting me alive, to use later on, along with Red, my target. This also makes sense; lynchers can win at the same time as mafia, via the lyncher voting their target (a most-likely pro-town player) and all the scum hammering in a lylo situation.

ALTERNATIVELY,

The scum are divided, 50/50, between lynching and defending me. They're not sure which would make them look more pro-town.

How does this relate to anything.

Fear to lynch pro-town players instead of scum-->Doing something else. Like no lynching. (Or lynching the lyncher. <_<)

I think it's important for you to point out "how bad my logic is."

It's in the numbers.

without backing them up all you want, but I hope it does little to change people's minds.

Oh, I'll back 'em up. It just takes time to do so. (For example, it took rather some time for the Duscum/Amiscum cases to be presented, yet I had accused them long before)

Will Mafia kill you? Very unlikely.

If I lead the lynch on scum day one, and the possibility existed that I'd both survive the night and become a full-fledged member of the town, would they leave me alive?

Doubtful.

But Vigil will kill you precisely for the same reasons we should lynch you today.

And in the process, would be confirming that we have a vig.
Lynching me today removes that.

Testing the setup, Zor, is very important to breaking it.

Speaking of which, I'll be doing research into previous games of Jebus. Look into what roles he's seen in games and whether he liked/disliked them. Check all previous mod experience, etc. This might help me determine if he'd be cruel enough to make sure that the ONLY way I could win is if Red were lynched.

Not later when we'll have more information at our hands and really should be focused on lynching mafia.

We have the same info.

I did some rough math earlier.

Give me a few hours, and I'll give you ALL the scenarios possible--


From one to two scum factions, a serial killer or not, zero to two vigs, and a fourth to a third of the players being scum.

And the math behind them.

The estimate given earlier was based off of how 2 night-kills is the average I've personally seen.

But I am confident that the math will support me when I do it.

if we do not lynch someone who is known to be anti-town (Mastin), then our chances of lynching a townie goes up significantly.

Actually, it's the opposite.
Lynch someone who's anti-town, and the chances of lynching someone who's pro-town increase.
Lynch someone who's pro-town, and the chances of lynching anti-town increase.

Take, for example, a newbie game, nine players.

A mafia is lynched day one.

That means that, of the seven alive day two, one is scum, and the other six pro-town.

A lynch of a pro-town player, however, leaves seven alive, two scum, and five pro-town.

So, yea, don't use this logic. It's flawed.

I think Mastin is lying about his lynchee.

I gave the list about why it's down to three.
But you can form your own conclusions.
Like who it definitely isn't--

Dust, I was pushing a lynch for.

OrangePenguin, the person with the most votes after me.

Mastin: can you link us to a few examples of games in which you were third part anti town and breadcrumbed early in the game?

Ace, my join date lies.

I'm barely an IC, with only six or so true completed games (688 doesn't count). Over half of those were newbie games. <_<

Yea, this is my first time as an anti-town role. Always a first time, eh?

This makes it sound like you have a personal vendetta against Mastin.

I had noticed, and pointed out if he wanted to hold a grudge, it should be against Alduskkel, who held the role of roleblocker for the primary duration of the game.

1) Defensive=/=panicking.

Oh, when I defend, I'd say that I certainly at least appear to be panicking.

2) Can you quote examples of this?

Yes. Not going to at this very moment (let me post this page, first, please), but I can.

Mastin is lying about his lynchee, and I think his lynchee is OP.

I'm pushing hard for OP's lynch. Yet Devestation made it rather clear (and I confirmed) that I can't win 'til day two.
That'd make me a rather stupid lyncher, wouldn't it, if I got my target lynched day one when I was supposed to wait 'til day two.

We need to lynch Mastin today.

We, as in, the mafia do.

You're kidding me. Unvote; Vote: Mastin

INTERESTING FACT:

Zwet was voting OP before Red, then Red based off of an obviously not-serious (due to me having been LONG-SINCE OUTED AS THE LYNCHER!) cop claim, and THEN goes to me.

If he seriously is voting me off of the lyncher claim...

Why now?
And not pages earlier?

Ace, why couldn't we gain any information from Mastin's lynch?

Because you already know my alignment.

If we lynched a pro-town player, we get LOADS of information.
Scum, even better, we get their reactions with other players, as well as players reactions to them, and that's one less scum around.

Lynch me?

My death.
A free night for the scum to pick off a person or two, maybe an extra night-kill or two.

I think by reactions to the lynch today could provide at least some information as to why people voted the way that they did.

We KNOW I'm a lyncher, Nanook.
Reactions to MY lynch mean NOTHING unless a player who reacted with me in any way is DEAD.

Technically speaking, lynching Mastin really wouldn't clear anyone but possibly Devestation

Nope--Mafia have rolecops every once and a while as well.

That said, lynching Mastin for a confirmation on Devestation really doesn't do us much good, in that regard, as likely, the Mafia will simply nightkill Devestation if he gets confirmed Town.

It's called a doctor.

It's hilarious seeing the town listen to him though.

It's sad seeing people not realize how your lynch is a lynch of scum, while mine is that of just an anti-town role, who is a pro-town player.

I am pretty sure he is lying though.

*sighs*
I'm tired of explaining why I'm not lying...

This is why I want lynched day 1 instead of 2, because we don't know for sure who his lynchee is

Look, I've made it clear:
There's no way I'd live to see day two if I wasn't lynched day one, anyway. There's such a thing as a vig. And if I DID live, just lynch me THEN instead of NOW.

But Mastin has twisted this to compare it to a no lynch

I'm stating that the fear of outing a power role/lynching a pro-town person is the same exact thing that causes people to suggest no-lynches day one in Newbie Games.

---

Page 19, and then I'll do the math given ALL variables.

[Mastin]

Oh, what do you know?

I'm at L-3 right now.

Defending what's been written on page thirteen, now.

[Mastin]

Oh, and something which I also plan to do:

Further increase my defense. In addition to pointing out how I could've easily pushed for Devestations (likely-) mislynch, I will Quote every time I've defended myself as being pro-town to give proof of it, and give examples why. It should give anyone who isn't tunneling on me a darn-good perspective on my play thusfar, and show EXACTLY why I'm not lying, I'm telling the truth, and how I'm not a threat to the town.

My thought is that there's been a lot of assuming lately. We assume there's a vig. We assume there are masons.

There are lots of variables to take care of, Zor. We don't have a night's worth of information. All we have is Dev's claim, my claim, and my target claim. All parties are going to use speculation to their advantage. (I have. I'm assuming there's a vig and praying there's a recruiting mason. Others are guilty of this as well, including you.)

but maybe Masons can too?

EM masons can convert any role except for mafia, silencers, serial killers, and cult. They kill the latter, and are killed by the former three.

It depends on the setup.

he'd still out a partner if a pro-town recruiter

Oh, I wouldn't give the name.

...But wouldn't you like to know that such a strong role was in the game as a pro-town player?

I definitely would. It's not like I'd tell them who it is.

I don't NEED somebody to out themselves to prove that OP is scum

This seems like you KNOW that OP *IS* scum.
Scumslip?

You do realize that I am voting for somebody, correct?

This seemed to have nothing to do with the accusation.

Okay, I'll dare. Just because bodies dead are the same in number doesn't mean the order is not significant. From a simple probabilistic viewpoint, it makes a difference.

Let's set up some scenarios. Let's just assume for the moment we have 4 mafia, 1 SK, and a vigil. They all shoot. Scum here refers only to Mafia and SK.

You're not going far enough, Zor.

I'll go further.

And in more detail.

I'll give the full math, between every combination of scum and kills I can think of, for four to five days, to prove how my lynch is not the best day one.

In fact, I'd suggest that scum hunting would be far more effective day 2, so this probabilistic look at things UNDERPLAYS the benefit of lynching Mastin today and scum hunting tomorrow rather than the reverse.

Again, you're not doing all the math. And you made a big assumption.

I won't.

and that's a small victory because you can serve to take us off track repeatedly.

I believe I've proven how my efforts of scum hunting are legit. Which isn't off-tracking you. (Unless you're scum, in which case, it might be throwing a wrench in your plans.)

And I think you underestimate the amount we can actually read into you turning up lyncher.

Funny, I think you overestimate it.

Are you really arguing that we shouldn't lynch you because this has taken a while?

That's ONE of the arguments.

Again, I do not buy this.

It's proven fact--I'm a lyncher, not mafia.
I've shown time and time again how I've been contributing, giving my theories, giving my insight, scum hunting, etc., even after being outed.

But I don't buy that your goal is to see mafia dead.

1: I call myself an honorary townie. I am acting as if I were just that--a townie, scum hunting.

2: If I continue to lynch scum, prove how I'm right, and was telling the truth about my target, then it becomes less likely that I need to be lynched, now, doesn't it? It also makes any conversions roles hesitant to target me more willing to, for it proves how I'm willing to change win conditions.

What more reasoning do I need to want scum dead?

And this is town negative.

Not really. It doubtfully would end the game, and the largest harm it'd do is make it so that the town is playing for second place.
On EM, I can understand how it sucks to share points with others--you only have ten hearts per day to play.

Yet this isn't epicmafia. We share a win with everyone on our team--be it mafia or pro-town, we always share wins with *number of members in group* people.
What's wrong with one other person, with a different win condition, sharing the sweet taste of victory, anyway?

Zoraster makes some decent points, and the probabilities don't lie.

Yes.
Yes, they do.

When a person only gives one scenario, then they can manipulate it to favor their stats.

DO ALL THE DARN MATH!
Nobody can know for certain if that scenario is true, unless they, themselves, are mafia.
Your sudden switch of stance, over one-sided math, is noted.

Also, an argument which always applies to those who use numbers:

SCREW STATISTICS!

If we rely on luck, sure, stats can be accurate.
We don't.
We SCUM HUNT. From SCUM HUNTING, we increase our chances of winning SIGNIFICANTLY.

I also like Amished's 457, as Nanook's post definitely looks like he has inside information.

If you think someone is scum who has information,
Push their lynch over the lynch of someone who's confirmed not-mafia, even if that person is confirmed anti-town.

To not do so definitely raises red flags.

"Cop result claim"

NOTE THE TAGS I PUT AROUND IT!

Also, while I find my choice rather ironic, I hate it. I had heard very good things regarding you on here, MS.net, and you're close to impossible to beat in EM without a guilty report (which may or may not be believed). Razz
(This is why I knew instantly that I had to claim a power role who could get a guilty--I had it all planned out, too.

My wording, if I hadn't been outed by L-1 d1, would've been this

:
I know it's going to be hard to believe, but...
I am the cop.
Red Coyote flipped scum.
I confirmed with the mod yesterday that I'm 100% sane, so this leaves five options:
In order, most likely to lest,
-Red Coyote is Scum.
-Red Coyote is some type of miller.
-I was roleblocked, and that reversed the sanity given.
-There is some sort of mafia framer who framed Red.
-The mod lied about my sanity.

Yadda yadda, blabbering about why I chose you, voting you, all that good stuff.

If I got the lynch, I could imagine people's reactions to whatever the mod would post for a death scene--even I don't know. I know I'd win, but I don't know what'd happen after that.

Ah, well. Sometimes, scenes play out horribly differently than the author had originally planned when writing a book. When you look too far ahead to the ending, chapters before it would happen, you're going to get less and less accurate over time.)

With the ramble about how

I would've tried to kill you

out of my head, let's move on to responding to all this stuff. Wink

Calling people scum and having a list of ~8 "scum"

Because that's how many are likely in this game. You should know this, with the 1/4-1/3 average. We have 27 players. Rounded up, when dividing by four, that's seven scum. With 1/3, that's nine. Average 'em out, eight.

What's the problem with that?

I don't see Mastin trying very hard to be productive.

It's funny, how people ignore ALL THE GOOD that I've done, AND POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, and are pointing out all the bad, in their obvious tunneling.
I'll check players who posted against me tunneling, and see how many results I find of them having switched to me, in tunneling themselves.

Use meta on me later or do whatever.

...When was this point brought up?

...AT ALL?!?

---

To-do list:

-

Defend self up to what has been posted thusfar

(Done as of now),
-Get one gigantic post with everything I've said in my defense in the game,
-Do the math to show why keeping me alive today is more helpful than not,
-(Low Priority) Read up on Jebus's games to see if I can come to a conclusion about the setup,
-(Optional) Point out (again. Again, again, again) how many times I've been pro-town, and in what ways it was, throughout the thread.
-(Optional) Build up all (minus Devestation, of course) the cases I've promised.

[Mastin]

I wasn’t joking when I said I’d do all the math. Posting what I’ve done so far.

We have 27 players—that’s fact.

Now, assume one scum, no other killing roles. (I DID say ALL)

1/27-->3.7% chance of lynching scum day one.
One night-kill.
Two bodies, 25 alive.

Day two.
We lynch me, the outed lyncher. 0% chance of lynching scum.
Mafia kills again.

Day three. 23 alive.
1/23-->4.35% chance of lynching scum.
Lynch.
Night-kill.

Day four. 21 alive.
1/21-->4.76% chance of lynching scum.
Lynch.
Night-kill.

Day five. 19 alive.
1/19-->5.26% chance of lynching scum.

18.07 % chance of finding scum within five days.


We lynch me. The outed lyncher. 0% chance of lynching scum.
One night-kill.

Day two.
Two bodies, 25 alive.
1/25-->4% chance of lynching scum.
Mafia kills again.

Day three. 23 alive.
1/23-->4.35% chance of lynching scum.
Lynch.
Night-kill.

Day four. 21 alive.
1/21-->4.76% chance of lynching scum.
Lynch.
Night-kill.

Day five. 19 alive.
1/19-->5.26% chance of lynching scum.

It worked out to 18.37 % on my calculator.
18.37% / 5-->3.674 % chance of hitting scum per day, on average.

But this is NOT due to me being lynched d1—This is due to how the chance of lynching scum increases every day by statistics. Every day, less players alive. And the following day, that means a greater chance of hitting the scum. Lynching me produces the extra .3% due to one factor only:
The dead body n1.
One less person alive to be a suspect.
My death, a ZERO percent chance of lynching scum, in both scenarios, adds nothing.
It’s the body count that matters. The body dead n1, instead of two bodies, actually seems to decrease the chance of hitting scum.

Same probability in both scenarios, in my mind, despite what the statistics say. Logic and common sense to me say that, with more confirmed not-lyncher bodies dead, the chances of finding scum drastically increase compared to half that number of not-lyncher bodies dead, and the lyncher. I could be lynched any day and have the same outcome.

Just to be sure. Let’s run the math with 26 players instead. Because we know I’m not scum.

1/26-->3.85% chance of lynching scum day one.
One night-kill.
Two bodies, 25 alive.

Day two.
We lynch me, the outed lyncher. 0% chance of lynching scum.
Mafia kills again.

Day three. 23 alive.
1/23-->4.35% chance of lynching scum.
Lynch.
Night-kill.

Day four. 21 alive.
1/21-->4.76% chance of lynching scum.
Lynch.
Night-kill.

Day five. 19 alive.
1/19-->5.26% chance of lynching scum.

The Math, 18.22%
18.22 / 5-->3.644 % chance of hitting scum per day.


Now, that puts it even closer to even. 0.15 % difference. Per day, it’s even less, at .03%. Because it’s a far more accurate statistic, due to people KNOWING I am not scum.


Two scum. No other killing roles.

Day one.
2/26-->7.69% chance in hitting scum.
Assume scum not lynched.
Night-kill.

Day two, I’m lynched.
Night-kill.

Day three.
2/23-->8.7% of catching scum.
Night-kill.

Day four.
2/21-->9.52% chance of hitting scum.
Night-kill.

Day five.
2/19-->10.53% chance of hitting scum.

All this assumes no scum is lynched. Yet every day, the stats add up, making each day more likely to hit scum.

The math, 36.44% total of possibly hitting scum.
36.44 / 5-->7.288 % chance per day of catching scum.

Day one.
I am lynched.
Night-kill.

Day two.
2/25-->8%
Night-kill.

Day three.
2/23-->8.7% of catching scum.
Night-kill.

Day four.
2/21-->9.52% chance of hitting scum.
Night-kill.

Day five.
2/19-->10.53% chance of hitting scum.

36.75%
.31 % extra. Not much.
36.75 / 5-->7.35 % chance per day.
A difference of 0.062 %. Again, not much.





Let’s also do the math for leaving me alive, on ALL days and see how that works out.

Again, starting with the one-scum scenario.

1/26-->3.85% chance of lynching scum day one.
0% chance of lynching my target.
One night-kill.
Night kill-->1/25-->4 % chance of being my target.

Two bodies, 25 alive.

Day two.
1/24-->4.17 % chance of hitting scum.
1/24-->4.17 % chance of lynching my target.

Night kill-->1/24-->4.17 % of being my target.
Day three. 23 alive.
1/22-->4.55% chance of lynching scum.
1/22-->4.55 % chance of lynching my target.

Lynch.
Night-kill-->1/22-->4.55% chance of being my target.

Day four. 21 alive.
1/20-->5% chance of lynching scum.
1/20-->5% chance of lynching my target.

Lynch.
Night-kill-->1/20-->5% chance of being my target.

Day five. 19 alive.
1/18-->5.56% chance of lynching scum.
1/18-->5.56% chance of lynching my target.

The Math, 23.13% chance of lynching scum.
19.28 % chance of lynching my target,
17.72 % chance of my target being night-killed.

23.13 / 5-->4.63% chance of hitting scum per day.
19.28 / 5-->3.86% chance of hitting my target per day,
17.72 / 4-->4.43% chance per night of my target being shot.

THOSE look like much better odds to me. And this doesn’t even take into account who I claim to have as a target, and the fact that ANY night, I could be night-killed.

---

There's a LOT more to come. I've barely even scratched the surface. This will take hours to complete, and when I'm done, it'll show you why lynching me today is bad. For now, the best I've got is the last scenario.

Oh, and HUGE

-S^1 + F

(eh, can't find the link quick enough) to Ace, for bandwagoning on the Math, when I SPECIFICALLY SAID to wait for ALL the math.

[Mastin]

In fact, I'm not even fully buying the lyncher claim.

Again, that would make Dev a liar, when Dev put great care into the details of what role I am.

If Dev's a role cop of some sort, wouldn't Dev just out me as a Serial Killer?

And also, why do people think that Dev would be clear?
Mafia have rolecops just as often as the town does.

[Mastin]

Keep in mind that, to do all the possible scenarios, it will take hours.

From one to nine scum, no other killing roles.
From one to nine, with a serial killer.
From one to nine, with a serial killer and a vig.
From one to nine, with a serial killer and two vigs.
Two scum factions from two to five members each.
Two scum factions from two to five members each, and a serial killer.
Two scum factions from two to five members each, a serial killer, and a vig.
Two scum factions from two to five members each, a serial killer, and two vigs.

Crossfire between all killing factions.

Different days for me to be lynched, if at all.

It's a HUGE amount of math.

But I'll do it all. I will, to prove Zoraster's math wrong.

To prove how lynching me today is NOT the best course of action we can take.

---

To make it official,

HUGE

-S^1, + F

, Ace

,

For having defended me, then blindly switching to me, AFTER I HAD SAID TO WAIT FOR

ALL

THE MATH AND NOT JUST ZORASTER'S SMALL SAMPLE!

[Mastin]

I believe you've said it yourself that there is more than enough information in day 1, (19 pages worth, 5-6 of them belonging to you Mastin).

1: As I pointed out, no anti-town player contributes THAT much to the game early on. Anti-town role, sure, but they're definitely not going to be anything other than a pro-town player with that much content overall.

2: We gain less information from a lynch of me, whose alignment is already known. What're you going to do, analyze my reactions with others? Their reactions towards me? It's nothing you don't already know.
We gain far more information from the lynch of a player whose alignment we don't know. We get to see how others reacted to them, how they reacted to others, and also gives us better insight as to who dies during the night, why they were targeted, who likely shot 'em, etc.

I applause your effort to claim honorary townie

Roleclaim: Honorary Townie

.

I can be extremely open about my opinions without consequences. The scum most likely do not want to kill me. I scum hunt like a normal townie, I give opinions like a normal townie, and I give insight to the game like a normal townie...except for deeper. I show great logic, and back it up where a regular townie would be afraid to do so for risk of looking scummy.

but I just don't feel I can trust you regardless of what you've just posted.

After all of this...after I've proved time and time again how I want to help the town...after having claimed several times, and given proof, of my target, and how he won't be lynched...you still don't trust me.

I can't help that, Nanook.

But I could've let Dev die. Bank all my hopes of people believing me day two when saying Dev was lying. I didn't. I admitted to who I was, perhaps my greatest contribution to the game. I semi-cleared a suspicious player (Dev), semi-cleared a player we hadn't heard much from (Red), and I cleared myself from being mafia. When none had been true before.

I can't do much more than what I have. Give the math, research what the setup likely is, give theories as to what the scum and what the town can do, and scum hunt. That's no more than what any pro-town player can do. And I've done exactly that.

What more can I do?

Also in regards to knowing if OP is scum .. You read that statement how you wish, but from my perspective I believe it still to make perfect sense in how it related to the question I was answering.

This seems more like an admition than a defense.

I don't know if OP is scum, if I did it would be him who I'd be voting for.

Unless you're partners, and don't want to buss him.

I believe the term tunneling was coined (this is new for me, just heard of it since getting back to the site over a year).

You seriously haven't heard of Confirmation Bias?

It was around well before I joined in October. At least a few months.

You want us to out more PRs for your sake?

No, for the town's sake, to test the setup, test the power of the scum and the power of the town.

For example, tomorrow you come out and claim masoned. If we have real masons, they have to make a choice: CC you and call you out but out themselves?

Zor...If I were to lie, I wouldn't have claimed today. I would've claimed to be the cop, and watched as Devestation was lynched.

No.
I wouldn't lie day two about being masoned.

If there are no masons, no one ccs, and town has to make a choice of whether to believe you or not (which is the same thing that probably happens if there are other masons).

Again, I won't lie.

The thought had occurred to me.

That lying was the best hopes.
I could lie, say I'm masoned, claim that my target was someone else, and lynch Red for scummy comments and easily accepting that I said he was my target.

I wouldn't.
And if I lived, I won't.

I am not going to lie.

I haven't once lied since I claimed.

I've shown exactly what I would've done, shown the breadcrumbs and meta, pointing to my lyncher target STRONGLY being one of only three people...I can't be more honest that that, Zor.

But the last tells us very little. There are a plethora of reasons you wouldn't die and no one would flip mason.

If it's the last, then we gain no information.

If any other, then we procure a great amount of information from the night.

And I think we have both scum and nonscum on Mastin and off it.

Precisely why the lynching of a person whose alignment is known has a negative impact on information.

You say it's in the numbers and you say it'll take time.

There are millions of variables.
I will have to do them all, and it might take days. Doesn't matter. I have the determination, and motivation, to prove that your math is incorrect. I will do as much as necessary to prove it, I will take as long as needed to prove it without a doubt, and that those voting me off of it (Ryan, Ace) are being misguided.

But you're going to have to do better than that.

I've posted my defense several times, and proven how I've been scum hunting. Add the complete math (which I've only done a fraction of, mind you), and you get one of the best defenses ever seen on MS.net. If that isn't enough to convince you, you'd either be lying scum, or tunneling town to disbelief.

It'll just take time to finish.

Really, we have a LONG time 'til the deadline.

Players can WAIT for me to do the math.

We can argue about which assumptions to make, but the numbers will be similar either way.

I'm going to assume the worst case scenarios first, of no scum deaths in lynches and night-kills. That gives the worst case scenario for win percentages, and the best-case scenario for numbers.

And we can test the setup without using you.

Not nearly as well. I volunteered as a Guinea Pig. No other person's death can give as much information as mine, during the night.

(NOTE: Key words:

During the night

. During the day, my death is what gives the LEAST amount of info.)

I've already done numbers

For ONE VERY SPECIFIC SCENARIO, yes, you have.
BUT ONLY ONE.

and they clearly support my statement

Numbers are so easy to manipulate to support your cause. Even if the math is correct, it's the given numbers that are in question. (Five total scum, a vig, etc.)

although you have not directly addressed them.

At least in my head, the math itself works out, to me. There's nothing to address about it. All I can do is counter it, show how in most circumstances, you're incorrect about the math favoring a d1 lyncher lynch.

I don't think that changing the number of scum teams, vigils, etc. will cause a difference in the end result (i.e. lynching you today is superior to lynching you tomorrow), but I'm willing to look at the math.

Again, it'll take time. Lots of it. I stand firm by the facts that the math will support me.

but those who ignore statistics are ignoring a major tool.

People who use statistics alone are the exact same people who suggest no-lynches day one, or policy lynches of certain players like Zwet/Emp, on occasion.

But if scum hunting on day 2 give us a more statistically probable chance of catching scum, then it's a strong indication that's a route we should pursue.

Again, I disagree.

A flip day one of another player gives us their reactions, and the reactions of others to them. Plus the night-killed people, who likely killed them, who the night-killed people interacted with and who interacted with them, etc.

My flip day one gives us nothing about interactions with the lynch,
And only the night-kills.
Nothing else.

I don't think I've manipulated the numbers at all.

Giving a specific scenario instead of all of them qualifies.

certainly, but it will not change the result.

Oh, yes it will.
I'm barely at the surface, and I already gave one (albeit risky) scenario where the numbers favor keeping me alive for a greater chance at hitting scum.

---

Posting what I have.

[Mastin]

Mastin: That Fos is OMGUS and you know it.

No. It is not.

You were defending me.
DEFENDING.

Now you've suddenly switched stances, over ONE

very

specific scenario, EVEN AFTER I SAID TO WAIT FOR ALL THE MATH,

IN ORDER TO PROVE ZOR WRONG

.

And THAT is INCREDIBLY scummy, Ace, to no ends.

but I do feel that zor's math spelled it all out

Of course it did. It was one very specific scenario. That's why.

and your math with the speculation about the setup isn't as valid as it leaves too much for chance.

Zor's math is ALSO speculation about the setup, and ALSO leaves JUST AS MUCH to chance!

Hypocrite, much?

Yea. Seems that way to me.

---

Something which I'll also have to factor into the math:

Dev, a rolecop, a semi-clear.
The possibility of the vig being lynched, instead of caught in the cross-fire.

Lots.
And
Lots.
And
LOTS
of math.

But I will do it, nonetheless. I will do whatever it takes to show you why Zoraster is wrong.

[Mastin]

First of all, your math does not in any way dispute my numbers. Your math says the difference is "small" (although you use one and two scum so the result will be small as will only having one night kill), but it doesn't come out with a different result.

YET. (And it DOES come out with a different result in the last--a far higher chance of hitting scum if I'm left alive, with an insignificant risk of hitting my target, especially when I claimed my target, and gave proof as to why he is truly my target)

I said I'd do ALL the math.

That isn't even CLOSE to all the math.

That's probably only 1/1000th of the math that can be done.
I'm working my way up.
And will do dozens of different calculations for the same setup.

I will show you why your math is wrong, even if I haven't done so thusfar.

My question is "so what?"

So, the body count makes a HUGE different in scum hunting, ESPECIALLY when considering WHO the dead bodies are, and what roles they have.

with statistics is about whether or not lynching you day 1 or day 2 is a better option. This is why I have stated that it's preferable to lynch you day 1 vs. day 2.

And I will give multiple options.

Day one lynching.
Day two lynching.
Day three,
Day four,
Day five,
And never being lynched.

I'm 99% sure, a confidence level I don't even claim to have when cop with a guilty (that's 95%. ), that I can prove that it is best not to lynch me day one. I already gave one scenario which proved why leaving me alive gives a far greater chance of nailing scum, with minimal risk, where to lynch me gives far less.

If, on the other hand, the debate is between whether we lynch Mastin AT ALL, then I have very different responses.

The argument is when it is best to lynch me, if at all.
I said that the safest bet was day two.

But I will give statistics for five days in a row to prove why it's best to not lynch me today, day one. If that points to day two, yay, I was right. If not, meh. It still won't point to day one.

So which is it? Are we having an argument about whether to lynch you day 1 vs. day 2 or are we having an argument about whether to lynch you at all? Because this is important.

It's both.
Again,
When to lynch me, if at all.

Don't you see how this is a negative result for town?

Not really. I, personally, consider that the chance of my target being night-killed removes that much percent from the chance of me getting a lynch on my target. (Which would leave less than 3% chance of me getting my target lynched total, and over -1% chance per day of me getting my target lynched.) I failed to mention it due to the fact that others might obviously disagree with me on that matter.

Of course, there are more scum around, so the likelihood of lynching scum is higher, but a 19% chance of losing the game outright over five days?

And in the given scenario with one scum, over 20% chance of winning the game in five days. Increase the number of scum (I was about to do that math, too!), and you increase the percentage drastically, yet keep the lyncher percentage the same.

do we really want to try and foil Mastin every day we want to lynch?

You already know my target. I've made it quite clear that Red is my target, and given evidence to support it.

Last, consider his charge that my logic was bad because of my math.

THAT is a twisting of my words.
Your math is good.

The SPECIFIC SCENARIO is NOT, though.

Then he uses, to prove that the differences are insignificant, an unrealistic setup -- which, by the way, reaffirms that my math was right and holds true whether you're talking 1 scum or 4+sk+vigil.

1: I said I'd do all the math--no matter how unrealistic the setup would be. I intend to follow through.
2: It didn't, if you were paying attention, reaffirm your math. It casted severe doubt on your math being accurate, for the reasons I listed throughout that post.

Rather than show all the math, Mastin, why don't you show us the math in the scenario that you think most helps your case (so long as the setup is within the realm of possibility)?

Because the only way to know what scenario best supports my case is to do the math for said scenario. And if I were to do that, then I'd be hypocritical, anyway, for I'd be using math that ONLY supported my argument, and none that did NOT. And I made it rather clear that to do so would be scummy.

---

How many more times must I defend myself from this?

[Mastin]

The discussion about whether to lynch you at all is a very different discussion and involves the question of "is it worth having a higher chance at getting scum if there's also an infinitely higher chance of losing by lynching lyncher target?"

You've got it backwards.

Every day, the chance of hitting scum DRASTICALLY increases. Every night, the chance of my target being night-killed EVEN MORE DRASTICALLY increases. Look at the math again--

The Math, 23.13% chance of lynching scum.
19.28 % chance of lynching my target,
17.72 % chance of my target being night-killed.

23.13 / 5-->4.63% chance of hitting scum per day.
19.28 / 5-->3.86% chance of hitting my target per day,
17.72 / 4-->4.43% chance per night of my target being shot.

The chance of my target being shot, per night, is just below the chance of us hitting scum every day, and WELL above the chance of me getting a successful lyncher target lynch every day.

4.63,
3.86 (LOW!),
4.43 (.2 lower than hitting scum).

And that's only with one scum.

Again, with more scum, the chances of hitting scum DRASTICALLY increase, while the chances of hitting my lyncher target DECREASE.

Getting a 5% advantage to getting a scum in exchange for a 19% chance of lynching your target is less than optimal.

No. It's OVER 20%, not five.

And I'll argue the existence of a lyncher alive only makes that chance of finding scum smaller.

How so?

I'm confirmed not scum, which is AT LEAST one less person.
My claimed target, if believed, is semi-confirmed (my statistics did not take this into account), making Red drop out,
And the person who outed is not counted as confirmed, but only semi-confirmed, as well.

These were for later on.
Later-on math in the possible scenarios.

But added together, even just one (yet alone, two probable and one confirmed!) person not scum is a SIGNIFICANT advantage.

Anyway, I didn't cherry pick my scenario.

Nor am I. I'm going to show ALL of them, if it takes me a week to do. We're far from a deadline; people could wait if they were truly pro-town and wanted to see the math.

To my mind, much more likely than the 1 or 2 scum scenario you've painted.

Let's bold, italicize, and underline it with caps, one more time, to make it clear:

The math I've posted so far is a

FRACTION OF ALL THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS

, AND I MADE IT RATHER CLEAR THAT I INTEND TO DO

ALL

OF THEM, AND THAT WHAT I POSTED WAS JUST A MERE

SAMPLE

OF THE SCENARIOS

.

My time could be spent elsewhere.
Instead, I'm debating this with you, and readying myself for perhaps the greatest math project in MS.net's history.

Simply coming up with the most helpful numbers for your case in at least a plausible setup can do wonders for the town's understanding of the probabilities. That includes my understand as well, by the way.

Yet it also shows a bias on the matter. It means I'm only giving the numbers that support my cause, SOMETHING I ACCUSED

YOU

of doing.
I'm not going to be a hypocrite, even if it decreases the chance of me being lynched.

[Mastin]

Yeah, the argument keeps being brought up. And?

This fear of lynching a townie is such a scummy sounding argument to me. The town cannot be afraid to lynch, period. We'll lose if we let the fear of lynching power roles keep us from taking risks.

Quoted for truth.

it's preservation based on the sake that me and Dev are the closest things the town has right now to being clear.

Actually, Red, that's me.
Dev could be a scum rolecop,
And you could be scum who I happened to have the luck of targeting. (Extremely doubtful, though)

I, however, am 100% guaranteed not scum, making me 100% clear.

I think few people on the Mastin wagon disagree with the fact he's a Lyncher, because it's likely that he is. Obviously we don't want to lynch a town member, but lynching someone else, even if they are town, will cause them to flip. If we know whether or not said person was scum, we can base further opinions we have tomorrow and the day after that on what that player said and did today.

If we lynch Mastin, and he comes up Lyncher, all we'll get is that Dev is basically a confirmed JOAT, and the same back and forth about who Mastin's target was.

If we lynch someone else, we not only get the information from that lynch, but we create a chaotic WIFOM situation for all anti-town roles at night by leaving Mastin alive.

This, I am also quoting for truth. I've made this opinion clear several times, and I am frustrated at how it has been ignored.

I don't know if that's the reason, but I agree with this logic 100%.

The sheer number of positive possibilities of leaving you alive outweigh the negatives to such a degree that I'm confident the scum/third-parties are rooting for a Mastin lynch today. zora can flash all the statistics he wants, there's no way to account for the sensibilities of players with killing powers that have to make a serious decision during the night. You can't simply say mafia has X percent chance of shooting someone, we don't know who the mafia is, we don't know if they're risky or conservative, we don't know whether or not there is a Mason, we don't know.

How do we aquire the knowledge to understand these things more clearly? By lynching people who aren't investigated by the JOAT.

And this as well...

Yea, are you seeing the picture?

It isn't just my opinion, anymore. Others have weighed in, and agree with me on the matter.

No one is saying that Mastin will be for sure town tomorrow, and I'm certainly not saying Mastin should be kept alive indefinitely.

The idea that we won't be able to lynch Mastin tomorrow, or any other day, because of potential reports, is ludicrous. Assuming we have a Cop/Tracker/Watcher, assuming they get a guilty report, assuming the supposed guilty doesn't counter them... so many assumptions.

In any case, not getting any new information from the D1 lynch could seriously hinder this town, especially after we may have just lost our JOAT's usefulness.

And this.

Like I said, roleblockers.
Mafia love 'em.

They override any other actions, based off of the order Jebus posted in the first post. (Unless they're unblockable, of course.)

And if not, redirectors, godfathers, possibly no doctors (though the last one is extremely doubtful) might cause this to happen.

Mastin: We have better odds on hitting mafia day 2 than day 1.

Only by the math thusfar posted by Zoraster. Given time to type it up, I can prove how Zor is wrong in this matter.

Anyway, I'll do a big ol' summary post tonight

You better be DARN sure not to put me any closer to a lynch. I'm already at L-2, due to people ignoring half of what I say to support their own arguments.

But we DON'T have to take that risk today because we have someone who definitely is NOT A TOWNIE. How was that not obvious?

Thing is, we can take the risk today, and lynch me tomorrow, if I survive the night.

---

Done with page 19, and I'm sure by now, there's a response on page 20 waiting for me.

[Mastin]

Well, there are trends. For example, I know that if you add another mafia to your calculations, the numbers will shift, but it won't make it a statistically better call to lynch you d1 versus d2.

Disagreed. VERY strongly disagreed. The changes in the statistics can be HUGE with a simple adjustment to the setup, like adding a roleblocker, subtracting a mafia, adding a serial killer, etc.

Even simply adding one mafia will change the stats.

If you're going for your best case, I doubt the right way to look is simply to add more mafia to the situation.

Of course not. But it does give a fair comparison.

But if you find that by calculating the chances of cross shooting between, say, 2 scum teams of 3 each and 1 sk, makes it come out so that it's actually advantageous to lynch you d2 versus d1, then you might start to look at whether adding a second SK will make that difference even bigger.

Or a vig, or two vigs, or two scum factions, or maybe even three...
You get the idea.

ANYthing can change the statistics.

And I intend to show them all.

Then, if when you post it people say something like "well, that's just an isolated example" you can say, "no. it's also true to a lesser extent in Setup X, Y, and Z."

Well, why wouldn't I just give the setup, and then Setups X, Y, and Z in the same post, then?

Frankly, it's not hypocritical.

It is to me. And I'm the one typing up the math, so...

If the charge against me is that I handpicked my example, and then you turn around an show even one plausible example that shows the opposite result (rather than just a smaller similar result as you've done so far), then my statistics are weakened considerably.

A-hem.
I DID post a scenario with the opposite result (although it's not a lynch me day two one). I posted some similar results to yours, sure, but also gave reasoning as to why they're not an accurate measurement.

This is because my argument is that my statistics are representative of a universal result.

If that were the case, then I'd already have proven you wrong.

The 20% chance that you get your target lynch loses us the game.

1: It's 19,
2: You yourself said that the town doesn't lose--you say that you'd play for second place, an opinion I disagree with. (I say that a lyncher win on MS.net is just one extra person who wins, who wouldn't win, otherwise. One extra player winning doesn't really mean anything. On Epicmafia, I can understand wanting to get rid of any anti-town role who could steal points and cause you to lose, but MS.net isn't point-based.)

---

This will get old, fast. But it's not like I have a choice, or anything. You'll NEVER see me EVER just curl up into a ball and die. I'll prove that the statistics are wrong, even if it's the last thing I do. (...Considering I'm at L-2, this might hold true. )

[Mastin]

I said 5% advantage. That's the difference between 23% and 18%.

Ah. I thought you were thinking of the 4%/day compared to the 19% total.

Still, a 5% increase in the chance to win, when the increase of a chance to lose is less than 2% (calculating in the chance of Red being night-killed being subtracted), is WELL worth it.

We're simply not going to resolve this at this point.

If we do not right now, we never will, due to, well, you know, ME BEING DEAD. <_<

I don't believe you've stated your real target.

And I've given all the proof I can as to why he is.

I don't think any amount of "proving" it at this point will make me believe it.

If Red isn't my target, then WHO IS?

Give someone who you think is my lyncher target, or I'll call it BS.
Give someone who you think is my lyncher target, so I can prove (again) how they are NOT my target.
Don't give someone who you think is my lyncher target, and--as I said--I'll call BS and basically, strawmanning me. For I can't defend against an imaginary attack, for it wouldn't exist.

Therefore, RC is (sadly) not close to clear.

Hence, "semi-clear", like Dev is.

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-20

Mastin - 12

(Caboose, Devestation, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, zwetschenwasser, ryan2754, Phoebus, AceMarksman)

OrangePenguin - 4

(cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin, Azhrei)

Zwetschenwasser - 1

(zer0ph34r)

hewitt - 1

(RedCoyote)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

Not Voting - 6

(Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Seeking a replacement for over_9000.

---

Change the stats, yes. Change the result, no.

Again, I disagree. It can have a significant impact on the outcome. It can change the results a great deal.

But the chance of hitting your lyncher target is much, much higher as well.

And the chance of the mafia nk'ing Red (my lynch target) is even HIGHER THAN *THAT*.

Again, I showed you how I believe that the higher the chance of my target being night-killed, the lower my chances of getting the lynch through.

Also, as the amount of scum in the game increases, the number of possible people to be night-killed SEVERELY decreases, leaving the odds FAR higher with a greater number of scum.

This is why I have the duality listed. D1 vs. D2.

Again, I hope to prove you fundamentally wrong by showing all the math for all possible scenarios.

It's why the discussion whether to lynch you, period, is a far different question.

The discussion isn't whether to lynch me d1, or d2.
It isn't whether to lynch me, or not.

It's about WHEN to lynch me, IF at all.

I'll continue to push your lynch.

So, while I'm busily away, typing up the math, you'll continue to attack a then-helpless target?

Not helping your case.

The town does lose.

Not in my mind. I'd rather see a Jester dead than alive, wrecking havoc.

where I have two choices: one that gives me automatic 100% chance at second and one that gives me a 5% chance at first and a 95% chance at third, I'll take the latter every time.

Latter--the last option.
So, you'd rather have a 5% chance at victory, rather than a 100%?

This theory that a lyncher win doesn't make town take second place at best is self-serving hogwash.

No. It's a personal belief of mine.
I'd say the same if I were truly pro-town.

Not to defeat scum

If scum live, you lose.
So, yes, it's to defeat scum.

UNLESS you yourself are scum.

This seemed like you don't want scum dead.
Scumslip?
Sounds like one to me.

Finally, I'm not interested in EpicMafia.

It is a valid case. Comparing play to another site is valid. It helped me determine that Caleb/ppp in 742 were innocent, when Caleb claimed epicmafia experience.

THAT was the determining factor in me thinking Caleb was innocent, in addition to the guilty on Khan.

---

I have to leave, now.

[Mastin]

I find the first only somewhat likely.

Even over a 30% chance of there being a mason recruiting me is a probability that I'd be willing to take--

That thin percentage, gambiting on the setup, is the reason I claimed. I could've easily gotten a Devestation mislynch. VERY easily. As was pointed out by several players, the claim looked like a load of BS.

I didn't.
I've put all of my cards on the table, in a desperate gamble. I put every single last chip of mine in, ("All In", in Poker terms. ) and am not gambiting on my enemy's hand strength--I'm gambiting on the chance that, in all the 30 or so cards remaining, the last one shown will win me the hand.

In less metaphorical terms,
I've put all my hopes on a role that might not even exist, and I did it willingly when better options might have been available.

But that doesn't mean they were. I do not regret claiming my true role. I've given reasonings several times as to why this is something that could be an advantage.

My unbiased thoughts,
Three semi-confirmed players (HUGE danger to the scum),
Setup-testing (vig, masons), etc.

And I stick by them, and will 'til the end.

I've been as pro-town as possible. I dare say it, but I've been more pro-town than any other player alive. My post length, and post number, and post content, make this very hard to debate with. (If I'm not the most pro-town player for all my theories, scum hunting, and DARN SOLID POINTS, then who is?)
I've been the honorary townie that I promised I would be.

All in the hopes of there being masons, capable of recruiting me.

When they might not even exist.
If there's another possible role to cure me (like a lyncher psychiatrist, a role I've never seen before and am only speculating at the existence of), then I'm gambiting that they will as well.

I've been extremely open and honest, to the point of being harmful to myself. I claimed the complete truth, including my target, Red Coyote. I've given all the possible power I hold into being as pro-town as possible.

All in the gambit that there are masons, or a lyncher psychiatrist.

Which is less than 40% chance of existing, in my mind. Yet I did it, anyway. Hoping, praying, to be correct, that the 40% was what we had.

I'm pretty sure the second is just not true.

When I'm a likely lynch d1,
A likely vig n1,
A likely lynch d2, d3, and so on...

What gives me the motivation to lie?

Confirm the fears of others that I have other motives?

Yea, that's what'd happen.

So I don't.

I tell the truth. About EVERYTHING.
I have motivation to tell the truth:

Make the town believe my intentions are pure.
I've put the evidence why Red is my target forward, AND I have several times given reasoning as to why I have NO motivation to lie about my target, and every reason to tell the truth.

However, also consider the dangers here that I've mentioned. D2 comes around and Mastin fake claims Mason. He knows he hasn't be masoned, so he suspects there aren't masons and this is his best chance to stay alive. So now he's either "cleared" himself (and you) in a fake way or masons have to come out and disown him. Now we have the masons outed.

Fake claiming mason would get me lynched.
Period.

I wouldn't do it.

I'd claim what happened.
If I wasn't masoned, so be it. I'd die.

If I was, I'd claim it.

Again, why lie if I have all the reason in the world to tell the truth?
For the wifom involved?
Yea, right.

No one knows which is why Mastin is so freaking dangerous to keep around.

Wrong.
We ALL should know.
I've given, several times, the proof of why Red is my target.
-The TWO breadcrumbs,
-Staying in my cop meta,
-Breadcrumbing cop,
-Assessing the threat level of other players, and finding only three serious threats,
-Being truthful when I could've lied before,
-Being pro-town, proving why I'm right, etc., and have shown legitimate scum hunting interest.

I've told the truth about EVERYTHING so far.

I semi-confirmed Dev instead of leading a lynch of Dev.

I told the town that I wouldn't win if I died and my target was lynched later, something not even Devestation knew about.

I've yet to tell a lie,
I've quoted good reasoning several times...

What is there left to discuss? When I've given more than enough proof that Red is my target, how can you blindly ignore this?

Thinking that I'd want my target lynched d2?

When I've clearly given reasoning as to why I'd die n1, or be lynched d2, or whoever I suggest the lynch of effectively becoming unlynchable, WHAT REASON DO I HAVE TO LIE?!?

I've given SEVERAL reasons as to why I want to tell the truth, I've given more reasonings as to why I AM telling the truth...

Anyone ignoring it is either mafia who doesn't want to accept the thought of three semi-clear players,
Or is severely tunneling town, something with will only harm their chances in winning.

Not only is it dangerous because we might lynch his real target, it's dangerous because we'll have to view every lynch possibility through the lens of "is this guy Mastin's target?"

These two are one and the same.
And viewing it through the lens of "is this guy Mastin's target" is a very good thought process, you know. It gives insight into the game to think about what I'd do.

And anyone not concluding that Red is, indeed, my target, should be kept under close guard, as I've proven time and time again how he's my target, how I've got nothing to hide, and everything to gain by telling the truth.

But if you want my best guess based on game play to this point, it's Dust.

I've labeled both Duscum and Amiscum as scum since near the beginning of the day. I only switched to OP for a few reasons:
1: OP was acting scummier,
2: OP had an ABSOLUTE ZERO chance of being the vig (he'd just accept shooting me n1 if he were), the mason (he'd recruit me), or the psychiatrist (he'd cure me).
3: OP had more votes, and is a more likely lynch.

What if OP hadn't been scummy?

I would've pushed for Duscum's lynch.

Again, this is no different than OP:

If Duscum were my lyncher target, I'd be a lousy lyncher, targeting him day one. What if people had supported me?
Seen Duscum as scummy?
What if they thought that Duscum's actions were scummy, due to my points?

I'd lose.

Any logic that applies to OP being my lyncher target (which we proved was BS) also applies to Duscum.

No, Duscum isn't my target.

Red Coyote is.

If we decide to lynch Mastin tomorrow, we've thrown away a good opportunity.

One flaw:
It's called a vig.

I wouldn't live to day two.
It's really as simple as that.

If I did, then go ahead; lynch me. I wouldn't stop you, for I admit that, even though I've told the truth, there's the chance that I get my lyncher target. (Like putting Red at L-1 and allowing me to hammer.)

Also,

Those night kills lead to some great information as well.

1: Night-kills, AND a lynch day one, provide FAR more information than lynching me day one and night-kills. You get other players' reactions to them, their reactions to others, etc.

2: We gain MORE information by leaving me to the night actions. If I die, there's a vig. If I die as a mason, even better, there's a mason recruiter.

Yet you've bashed this logic countless times as being not legit, or have ignored it.

I'm calling inconsistency, on this one.

I'll agree that lynching Mastin doesn't provide quite as much information as lynching someone else.

So, DON'T DO IT.

The town needs one thing above all else: Information.
The course of action providing the most information is almost always the correct one.

But it's a great reason to lynch him today rather than tomorrow.

So, you are basically saying BECAUSE lynching me day one gives us less information, we should do it?!?

NO pro-town player should EVER want LESS information.

------
By the way...with what I've seen as scumslips, inconsistencies/hypocrisy, ignoring many of my points "conveniently", tunneling on me, turning an eye away from my own logic, etc., Zoraster has moved from misguided townie into my scum category. I just don't see how any pro-town player could do such terrible courses of actions.

Mastin is an anti-town force.

I might be an anti-town force, but I am definitely not an anti-town player. I've been pro-town, have made good points, etc. I know it's painful for people, but a huge request:

If my lynch goes through,

CHECK THROUGH MY POSTS

.
Look at my theories.
Look at my suspects.
Look at the logic I used

.

And you'll see how right I have been over the course of the game thusfar.

In addition, look for those who were scummy, who pushed for my lynch, who reversed opinions after Zor's single post, and tunneled on me.

You'll catch at least half of the scum, I can say with almost 100% certainty.

I'm that confident.

*By the way, does anyone have a single game where Lyncher was saved by a phsyiciatrist? http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ychiatrist is the entry for psychiatrist and it's only about SKs. It's my toughht the term Psychiatrist is just added to mason each time to make it sound like there's even a higher probability that he'll be turned town... which isn't true.

I've never seen the role...but recruiting masons are a VERY powerful force. For balance reasons, Jebus might've used an alternative converting role to make me town, and psychiatrist is the one that comes to mind.

And you can dismiss statistics all you want, but they're still an important part of the discussion.

Statistics are a supporting element of an argument.

Not the driving force.

Those who bandwagoned me off of statistics are extremely scummy, especially when it was only one scenario. (Also, keep in mind that in a setup of this size, we probably have at least seven scum and likely a serial killer--Zor's stats were for only five TOTAL, meaning four scum and a serial killer, along with the vig. Which tips the scales VERY heavily against me, as I was going to show in my math)

But the question is whether the relative statistical difference between the two is reversed given scum hunting? My thought is that the difference is actually larger given scum hunting.

Again, I'm 99 % confident that the math will favor me.

1. Mastin will likely claim Masoned tomorrow regardless of whether he actually is.

I've proven why it would be suicidal to do so. I considered it, but I concluded that to do so would NOT be beneficial to the town.

2. Dismiss statistics if you want, but do so if you have solid reasons for it.

1: Statistics support an argument, not drive it.
2: Statistics fail to account for other roles, like doctors, roleblockers, cops, and most important of all, scum hunting.
3: I've given solid reasons thusfar to dismiss statistics, if you look over my posts recently.

3. Lynching Mastin today is superior to tomorrow, in no small part because of point 1 but also for a host of reasons discussed ad naseum in this post and others before.

I've given all my reasons, besides the math, as to why this is not the case. I can have the math well within our deadline, too.

---

More later.

[Mastin]

and would honestly like to get to the next day, with Mastin gone, so I (and presumably others) wouldn't have as many headaches. You can be suspicious of that all you want, but his constant and overly long posting quoting EVERYTHING is just really getting me annoyed.

Wanting me dead because of post length is no better than policy lynching a player who posts one-liners.

In fact, it's much, much worse.

You basically are admitting to wanting to lynch the person who's contributing the most, even if the post length is annoying.

And things like that make you incredibly scummy.

First of 2 more points I thought I had laid out clearly but now must clear up. That statement was meant to be taken in the context of a single day.

For example:

A nine player game where there are three scum and six town

Normally, the chances of lynching scum, more or less randomly, which is usually the case, one day one is 33.3% (3 out of 9).

A scum is outed day one (while not technically 'scum', this one represents Mastin). They decide not to lynch the scum they found on Day 1 (it's weird, but it's the same argument currently going on in this game) and instead try to lynch a different scum more or less randomly. They now have a 25% chance in lynching a scum on day one (2 out of 8, discounting the scum they found and, for whatever reason are not lynching).... 25%

33.3%>25%

The way you are putting it sounds like you are advocating lynching pro-towners so the chance of lynching anti-towners goes up, which you cannot possibly be advocating. What you are saying is mathematically true when taken over multiple days, but that doesn't matter because it is irrelevant to the game of mafia.

The flaw in your argument is really rather simple, King:

I'm not mafia.

Hence, not lynching me INCREASES the odds to ABOVE 33%, making the chances of lynching mafia HIGHER in your given scenario.

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-20

Mastin - 12 (Caboose, Devestation, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, zwetschenwasser, ryan2754, Phoebus, AceMarksman)
OrangePenguin - 4 (cateraction, Maturin24, hewitt, Mastin, Azhrei)
Zwetschenwasser - 1 (zer0ph34r)
hewitt - 1 (RedCoyote)
NanooktheWolf - 1 (Amished)

Not Voting - 6 (Everyone Else)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

Seeking a replacement for over_9000.

Be darn sure with your votes. L-2, and all that. Voting for me will lead to a lynch, prematurely, and will only make yourself look more scummy.

I REALLY have to leave, now; be back tomorrow.

[Mastin]

BOLD STATEMENT:

If ANY of the people on my wagon claim ANY of these roles after I'm lynched, lynch them:

Vigilante,
Psychiatrist,
Mason.

For they'd just target me during the night, hence, wouldn't have pushed for my lynch.

And mafia are more anti-town than Mastin. And using our lynch for information rather than getting rid of a Lyncher who can't win today will give the town more to work with tomorrow. I can only say these things so many times.

This, I can also quote for truth.
A lot of what Red Coyote says, I can quote for truth.

The reasoning:
1: He's very doubtfully mafia,
2: He actually, well, you know, RAISES SOME VERY SOLID POINTS.

I'm worried about him winning tomorrow or the next day if left alive.

Again, missing role:

Vig.

Any vig should shoot me n1. If I live, we either have no vig, the vig was redirected, or some crazy doctor was on me to prevent an anti-town player from dieing. (Don't know why they'd do that, but always possible.)

Even more so, though, I'm worried about him simply throwing town off in multiple ways by his mere existence.

1: You referred to the town in the third person. Implying you are not part of it. Scumslip?

2: How?

How on earth would me just being alive throw the town off?
By casting doubt for whoever I'm pushing a lynch for?

I've proven multiple times why that's a load of BS.

And how do we know who Mastin's target is to clear them? Without a mason, it's impossible. Even if Mastin tomorrow says, "whoops. you caught me. RC wasn't my target. Person Y who just died was my target, but now I REALLY can't win" we have to question the veracity of the statement.

Funny story, that. I've had it happen. Lied about my target, lived, and seen my real target die. I was left the hammer between two mafia and two pro-town players.

I chose the mafia. Town won, thanks to me.
(Mainly due to how lynchers still get 30 points when collaborating with the town. )

Too bad you can't link EM games from months ago...
But it's still a true story.

Red might've seen it happen as well, from time to time.

And, in simplest terms:

I claimed my target.
This won't change.
Why, when I've told the truth, would I change my claim to be a lie?

I wouldn't.
Lynch all liars, and all that good logic stuff.

(By the way, anyone who applies lynch all liars to their arguments, please do remember to apply the opposite as well--DON'T lynch the people WHO TELL THE TRUTH! Like flat-out claiming to be the lyncher. <_<)

Let me be clear though: the risk of outing masons less concerns me than the risk of Mastin claiming Mason and there being no other masons. Both are certainly negatives though which is why both are discussed.

Look, even if I wasn't masoned and claimed masoned, I'd still say Red was my target.

It'd have no outcome on the game itself.
Yet I wouldn't claim mason.

The risk of being outed as a fake, the risk of having to claim a partner and not being able to deliver (they'd deny it), the risk of being caught in a lie when I've been very honest, very open, would simply be too great.

So I wouldn't lie.

As I had done before, as I have been doing, as I will always do until I die this game, I'll continue to tell the truth.

And it worries me because I'm here to play the complete game. Not just live day to day.

Again, this does NOT seem like the wording of a pro-town player. It seems like something scum would say.

1.

If we lynch Mastin today

, tomorrow we can lynch without worrying about lyncher. Moreover, we can do so with additional information: the nightkills. If there are cop reports or whatever, all the better.

But this is not necessary.

1: The bolded and the underlined.

If it's not necessary to lynch me today, why do it, Zoraster, in the first place?

I'm calling inconsistency, right there.

2: We get MORE information from leaving me alive---
A: The alignment of the lynched,
B: The interaction of the lynched to others,
C: Other people's reactions to the lynched,
D: The night-killed players,
E: The reactions of the night-killed players to others,
F: The reactions of others to the night-killed players,
G: Testing the setup on me, who wasn't lynched day one.

If you lynch me day one, only D, E, and F remain.

---
Also,
If a cop got a guilty n1, wouldn't it be safe to assume that said guilty isn't my lyncher target?

That would mean the day two lynch would be safe as well, leaving--if I somehow survived n1--me to be shot at n2 and lynched d3 instead.

2. If we lynch Mastin tomorrow, we have to lynch today. We do so without knowledge of those night kills.

And then get knowledge OF the night-kills, to use day two/three. (Three, if I'm speedlynched day two, which also gives MORE bodies n2 as well, for even MORE information!)

Thus, we've lost the opportunity to lynch based on additional information.

No, that's MY lynch day ONE.
We GAIN a whole LOT of information by leaving me alive, and lose ABSOLUTELY NONE. Tell me, what do we lose information-wise if I'm left alive?
Who my target is?
My lynch wouldn't change the fact that I already told you the truth.
Dev's claim?
We know it's true, but Dev could be a mafia rolecop for all we know, so it doesn't clear Dev.
Who the scum are?
HECK F-ing NO--the bandwagon day one would be great information.

We lynch Mastin today, we miss out on the information we would have gained from the lynch that would have occurred otherwise. We lynch Mastin tomorrow, we miss out on the information THAT lynch would have given us.

But NOT lynching me d1 gives MORE information, which is something any pro-town player would want.

The fact he can't win today is irrelevant.

No, it is not.

If someone claims backup cop d1, the scum aren't going to nk them--they're going to kill the real cop, and THEN kill the backup cop.

You kill a player with an opposite alignment when their powers activate.
Not before.

In fact, it seems logical that we should want to eliminate Mastin BEFORE his power activates.

Logical my *censored*. Lynching an anti-town force when their power activates is good, for that means they don't get the chance to use it. Lynching them BEFORE then, though--while it prevents them from using it--it also eliminates the possibility of catching OTHER anti-town forces.

And yes, I agree mafia are more anti-town than Mastin.

So lynch them day one instead and leave me for tomorrow

![/i]

That's why I'd rather get rid of Mastin today and focus on those more anti-town elements tomorrow.

Besides the statistics, Zor,

What makes you want to lynch me, instead of focusing on the anti-town elements tomorrow?

Give me another potential setup, and I'll do the statistics for that as best I'm able. The results will probably be similar whether you have two scum teams, 2 vigils, etc.

Alright.
Do the math:

1 scum team, 7-9 members,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs.

1 scum team, 7-9 members,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,
0-2 roleblockers,

1 scum team, 7-9 members,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,
0-2 doctors,

1 scum team, 7-9 members,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,
0-2 roleblockers,
0-2 doctors,

Yet take into account THREE semi-cleared players to remove from the pool of lynches. AND the chances of my target being shot.

Oh, there's more.

2 scum factions, 3-5 members each,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,

2 scum factions, 3-5 members each,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,
0-2 roleblockers,

2 scum factions, 3-5 members each,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,
0-2 doctors,

2 scum factions, 3-5 members each,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,
0-2 roleblockers,
0-2 doctors,

AGAIN, with three semi-cleared players removed from the lynch pool, and the chance of cross-fire, AND the chance of my target being night-killed.

That's a LOT of math by ITSELF.

Yet all are likely scenarios that we are in.

Pray, can someone tell me where this idea of masons recruiting people came up?

Because I'm mostly from epicmafia, where they're common, and I'm resting my hopes on it being the same here. (When, in truth, I find it to be less than a 40% chance.)

if you're all being hypothetical... that's pretty unproductive

Zor's stats are hypothetical. People don't seem to have a problem with that, do they?

Mastin: While I know that this sucks and is unlucky for you, it's the most pro-town course of action.

Oh, and by the way...Did I mention how this REEKS of Ace wanting to appear to be pro-town, yet knowing he isn't?

Yea, well, I am now.

In the immortal words of Goldfinger: I don't expect you defend, Mr. Mastin. I expect you to die.

Okay, I admit it:
I laughed. Nice quote.

More seriously, I don't understand why feeling fairly certain that RC is not your target and not knowing who your target is otherwise are inconsistent. Yes, it's hard to impossible to defend this charge, Mastin. I don't believe there's any way for you to do so or I probably would have pushed you to prove it in that way.

To not believe me when I've given lots of evidence brings in a load of fallacies, which translate to scum tells.
Burden of proficiency,
Confirmation bias...

Long list.

---

That's what I missed of page 20.

[Mastin]

You're really stretching here.

Not in my eyes, I'm not.

My point is that my goal is not to defeat scum. It's to win.

And in order to win, you have to lynch scum. To not just directly say this is the case is to scumslip, by saying (albeit indirectly) that your goal isn't to defeat scum.

Of course, in order to win, you have to defeat scum

"You have to win",
Not,
"I have to win".
Talking about a pro-town player, again, not from a first-person view.
AKA, a scum slip.

But that is not the ONLY criterion of winning in this setup.

I'd ignore a lyncher/jester claim and leave them alone if I thought they weren't scum.

As a pro-town player,
MY goal is to lynch scum.
Nothing else matters.
If a jester's scummy, so be it; let them die.
If a lyncher's scummy, good for us.
If the lyncher's target is scummy, meh, so be it.
If a mafioso is scummy, yay, we are that closer to winning!

The other is to avoid lynching the lyncher target.

1: This ignores the possibility of other third-party roles,
2: I've stated how I disagree with this several times.

You're the one who is insisting on doing dozens upon dozens of scenarios. No one has asked for this.

This wasn't the point. The point was that you were attacking me while I wasn't here. Meaning that players could just bandwagon me in that time without me knowing it, because I would be busily away, typing up a very pro-town comment.

To me, it feels like the reason you insist on doing all of the scenarios you can think of is because (1) it can help you delay being lynched

Of COURSE it delays me being lynched. If I do the math, then it'll show how it's best not to lynch me day one, which means I wouldn't be lynched day one. That's kinda the point of doing the math.

(2) it can prove that you're working hard

1: There is no need to prove that I'm working hard--the proof is already in the fact that well over six of our 22 pages belong to solely me.
2: There is nothing wrong with working hard.

perhaps garnering some sympathy support.

I don't need sympathy.

What I need is for people to
1: Stop tunneling,
2: Realize how the scum don't want three semi-confirmed players,
3: To scum hunt instead of bandwagoning.

If that can only be done via sympathy, sure, I'll try to garner some sympathy support.
But, seriously, it wouldn't. People should realize these things on their own, without my help. When they don't, they either
1: Are tunneling,
2: Are scum,
or
3: Need a shove in the right direction by MORE solid arguments from me.

Or, if I'm particularly cynical, perhaps so that you can win some sort of scummy award later on.

I'm rather the candidate for the Cassandra award, aren't I?
(This, if it wasn't obvious, wasn't truly serious. I would hope that my fight is NOT for a hopeless cause, the point of the Cassandra award.)

So, call yourself helpless if you like

If I'm not online, (or, worse, online yet doing another critical activity) then I can't defend myself. Hence, would be helpless.

but you've chosen this course of action.

And I have shown exactly why it was best, and why it should pay off, if anyone were actually LISTENING to everything I say.

---

Have to leave now; will be back later. I intend to do more of 21. (Some points on there I really need to elaborate on)

[Mastin]

(Note: Remember how I said there are two types of lynchers? One doesn't know the role of who they need to lynch, but know the person, the other knows the role, but not the person who has it. The second I referred to as the second lyncher type--uncreative, I know. For this entire post, consider this type to be, effectively, an anti-lyncher)

THEORY:

It hit me.
The possibility at first seemed remote...

But then it began to make sense.

Zoraster, talking about the town as if

he wasn't a member.

Playing for

second place

.
Tunneling on me, the claimed

lyncher

.

Remember when I discussed earlier about the concept of the Anti-lyncher?
A person, whose soul win condition, is to get the lyncher lynched?

I thought if we had one, it would be Red Coyote...
But Zoraster's play--while the same play I'd expect from scum--fits into this pattern...perfectly.

Discuss this, please, while I go type up a post on page 21 + 22.

[Mastin]

Too many long posts since I last posted.

That isn't my fault. If I didn't have to defend myself, then I wouldn't make long posts. It's as simple as that. Since I do, since I'm close to a lynch, since people are refusing to listen to many of my excellent points, many of Red's good points, listen to many of the people defending me,

I continue to make long posts, each with reasoning which defends me, and shall continue to do so as long as I'm under the threat of being lynched.

I have a major headache from this game

You can do one of two things, Ryan, to stop your headache:

1: You can ignore my posts and continue voting me for it, making yourself look INCREDIBLY scummy, not only for not reading my posts, but for not listening to my logic, and for lynching a semi-clear player. (Dev, Red, and I are all semi-clear. Dev by rolecop [but could be mafia rolecop], me by Dev [being a lyncher, though, it bumps me down to semi-clear], and Red [my target could be mafia, making him only semi-clear].)

OR

2: You can take my word for it when I've said that I've defended BETTER than well against my attackers, unvote me, and scum hunt by looking at other players. The pro-town thing to do when wishing to avoid a headache.

But preferably, you do option C:

Ignore the headache and read everything, the even MORE pro-town thing to do, and form conclusions from just that.

and would honestly like to get to the next day, with Mastin gone, so I (and presumably others) wouldn't have as many headaches.

And this is where the problem really lies:

Long posts produce far more information than shorter ones. They contain far more potential slips, far more information to analyze, far more information to give us who the scum are.

They're how the BEST cases are made (prove me wrong: Show me a single post that was short yet provided a STRONG case), in both offense and defense. I've never seen a good defense that was short, and good offense that is short...well, is spread over several posts, not one. For if it were in one, it'd stop being a SHORT defense, now, wouldn't it?

Long posts are how the game of mafia works when you're truly playing.

I've SEEN you post walls of your own, Ryan. I've SEEN you respond to them. I KNOW that you can do better than what you currently are doing.

This inconsistency in your posting style and preference is, well, concerning. AND

My death won't remove all the long posts.

Red Coyote,

Zoraster,

And I, AT THE LEAST, produce a great number of walls.

Do you want both of them dead as well?

Two semi-clears and one unknown due to post length?

You can be suspicious of that all you want

Saying "go ahead and be suspicious over the argument; it doesn't matter" doesn't mean people won't do that, Ryan. I am incredibly suspicious of you now for that attitude, and for saying, basically, "I'm not suspicious because I said that I know that I'm doing what you accuse me of", which is incredibly scummy.

Now, these are just my interpretations of your wording.

Care to provide an alternative explanation?

Azhrei, why keep Mastin alive?

Simple:

Az is perhaps one of the very few who is actually listening to me and realizes that I am correct,
That I am a pro-town player,
That today is not the day for me to die.

A nine player game where there are three scum and six town

This is the worst-case scenario for the town, because for the cop to get a result, it must be night-start, placing the town in mylo (Mislynch-and-lose. It is EM terminology, for the most part, and is similar to lylo, lynch or lose) day one. Some setups has that work out well on Epicmafia (*coughspoliticsasusual*), but most do not.

So the given scenario itself would be extremely scum-sided, as if the scum is smart and counter-claims, the town is forced to no-lynch, to prevent a loss. The next night-kill gives the "cops" more reports, and another dead body, etc.

A scum is outed day one (while not technically 'scum', this one represents Mastin).

A person is either scum or they aren't.

There is no "technically" about it.

If your given scenario is two scum and one anti-town role, with a day-role-cop instead of a night-role-cop, THEN it makes sense, but it ALSO still fails to account for the fact that, day one, there would be TWO people who are confirmed "not scum" (the role cop, the anti-town role), making the chances 2/7.

In the case of a lyncher,
That becomes 2/6.

1/3.

33%.

Making the odds of lynching scum EQUAL to the chances before the "scum" was outed before.

The way you are putting it sounds like you are advocating lynching pro-towners so the chance of lynching anti-towners goes up, which you cannot possibly be advocating. What you are saying is mathematically true when taken over multiple days, but that doesn't matter because it is irrelevant to the game of mafia.

Good players think: Think about DAYS ahead. This is like, in a newbie game, the scum discussing what times they'll be online when in lylo, in their pre-game chat, and also discussing what possible roles are out there, what to claim, etc.

New/bad players think: Oh, it's bad/unnecessary for this day. We won't do it.


In other words,

THE POINT OF MAFIA IS TO LOOK AHEAD. See the possible consequences of your actions. See the possible outcomes, the possible advantages, the possible disadvantages of action X.

So, YES, I am advocating for thinking DAYS ahead because that's what any GOOD player SHOULD do.

Short-sightedness-->BAD.
Long-term thinking-->Key to victory.

Understand that, now?

Yes, in mafia, as in life, you avoid UNNECESSARY risks.

No risk, no reward.
Risk of hitting a pro-town player/outing an important role will lead to the reward of lynching scum.

Risk of me claiming was to hopefully end up with the reward of being a full-fledged member of the town.

Risks are a huge part of mafia.
Gambits employed,
Tactics used,
Lynches,
Bold moves,
etc.

No guts, no glory.

There are dozens of ways to say it:

Mafia is a game full of risks.

Have you ever seen that role before?

On here?

Once or twice. I forget where.

On Epicmafia?

All the time.

Me being from epicmafia and being a role commonly on epicmafia, I did what I would do there on epicmafia:
Claim everything.

And hope the risk gives the reward of winning.

Here, the role is rare, and even in a setup like this, I gave the chances of a role capable of converting me to be less than 40%.

That 40% is enough for me to claim.

It's enough for me to try and push for the minuscule chance of not losing.

It's enough to give me hope.

and yes mason recruiters exist, I've come across em before.

I'd appreciate a link, in my defense of the role existing in previous games. It would be REALLY appreciated, Devestation.

Length and post number, as I assume you'd admit, is not a sign of being pro-town at all.

Uh, no, it shows devotion to the game.

Devotion-->Pro-town,
Lack of Devotion-->Anti-town.

By having the longest contentful posts, and the greatest post number, I'm certainly proving how I have been pro-town by that definition.

That's not even including all of the excellent points I've brought up,
My scum hunting,
My insight into the game,
And my theories.

I assume when you were scum, your posts were both lengthy and numerous.

I have no true completed game as scum, Zor.

No.
No, I do not have lengthy posts and numerous posts when scum.

If I did, I'd link it for comparison to my play this game.

It's that your post-count and post-number cannot be viewed as an indication of pro-townness.

When factoring in the content of the posts as being solid, I think you can.

It's just you don't want to.

For it'd be one more thing in my defense, one more think which would make me less likely to be lynched, something which you clearly oppose.

I have a suspicion that THIS is why you're insistent on doing the math. Not the "99%" that you think will prove you right (as I think it will only reinforce my point). But that you'll have poured a lot of effort into the game and you're hoping people will equate effort with pro- town.

Effort IS pro-town.

Lack of effort is anti-town. Perhaps not scummy, but certainly not beneficial to the town. People who self-vote, even self-hammer, show a lack of effort/devotion to the game.

Those who fight to the bitter end, who give their scumspects, explain why, give solid reasoning as to why they're not scum, are showing effort, are showing a true devotion to the game.

And that's something I find incredibly pro-town to do.

Don't get me wrong. I do believe you hope to become a town member.

And the BEST way to become a town member is to NOT lie and to

tell the truth

!

It's possible you hope to lead us to scum today as well.

Even if I didn't want scum dead, Zor, let me put it this way:
It'd either be a scum hunting lynch today, or a lynch of me. No other option exists, unless by some miracle we have another day cop with a guilty. So, yes, at least for today, you MUST admit, that I want scum dead more than any other player in this game.

But the first is merely a hope

Without hope, there is no reason to live at all.

not something that you've already decided is something you're going to count on.

WRONG!
I

am

counting on it already.
I wouldn't have claimed if I wasn't.

I am counting on a 40% chance, a gambit which I am praying will pay off. I've got nothing else, other than that 40%. Other than that small chance to live, I've got nothing.

So I put all my hopes into it.

My one hope of winning right now is in that 40%.

That 40% caused me to claim.

If that 40% is not true, then I'm dead.

It's that simple.

The second would be self-serving (though obviously beneficial to town).

I suppose this is true:
It serves my purposes, by letting me live at least until n1,
And gains me credit from the town that my motivation is legit, and that my intentions are pure.

Is there truly a problem you can see with that?

This is outright false.

No.

I won't claim masoned when I'm not.
1: Outing real masons-->BAD.
2: Being forced to claim my partner, when I have none-->DEATH SENTENCE.
3: Lying-->Leads to Lynch all Liars-->BAD.
4: Honesty-->Pro-town-->GOOD.

That's the shortest summary I can give of it, but I can elaborate on it later.

Again, no matter what, claiming mason when not is bad.
People would doubt it. So I'd have to claim a partner. If I failed to do so, I'd get lynched.
And the real masons might CC...

There's a bunch of problems with claiming masoned day two if I am, in fact, not masoned.

So don't you DARE think that I would do so.

You fake claim mason, and you increase your chances of survival and this is exactly why you'd do it.

No.

Look at this town.

For thirty seconds.

They doubt EVERYTHING I say.

They doubt my target.
They doubt my intentions.
They doubt I'm the lyncher.
They doubt the statistics.
They would definitely doubt my mason claim.
So I'd be forced to out a "mason partner", and that "mason partner" would disprove my story as false.

No,
Claiming masoned when I am not is suicidal.

Where claiming the truth (that I was not) leaves me with a slim chance of survival.

You say you have all the reason in the world to tell the truth, but that's false too. You have all the reason in the world to keep yourself alive.

I'm not a survivor.

My goal right now is to avoid being lynched day one.
If I do that, then I've fulfilled my usefulness. I've tested the setup, and might have a chance of winning. If I hit scum with the day one lynch, even better!

Simply put, sure, today, I want to stay alive.
Night one, I'd accept my death willingly.

your assertion you have proved your target is RC.

The evidence is there.

I've proven how
-I was in my cop meta and breadcrumbed similarly,
-Only three people would make me do that, Red amongst them,
-That I breadcrumbed my true role early on. This I have done since I joined. Look at 742, for example. One of my first posts of the game was "Their scumminess warrants not only questioning, but investigation", or something like that.
Ask Ace.

But it was a huge breadcrumb/cop slip, VERY early on.
-That I have no reason to lie, right now. We lynch all liars, so I don't lie, in the attempt to appear more pro-town.

...How much more do you need?

The evidence has been laid out several times.
I've shown how Red's my target, the best that I can.

If that's not enough, then nothing would be.

People may buy this or not, but it's not proof whatsoever.

I've given you the proof. You're just IGNORING it because you refuse to accept the prospect of three semi-clear players and want to cast doubt/lynch at least two of them

[/u]!

Claiming that we ALL should know is insulting.

Not when you're all experienced players, and simply researching a LITTLE into my previous plays should prove that I'm telling the truth.

Are you suggesting that if there is a vigil, from town's perspective we should have him shoot you?

Yes.
-It tests the setup,
-I am an anti-town role. Better to get rid of me n1 than to lynch me d2.

How many times must I say that?

But what you've failed to consider is that for those on the fence, they could be the deciding element.

Others have made this accusation of me; it's fair to return the favor:

Fence sitting-->scum tell. They need something to push for a lynch of someone not one of them, and statistics of another player give them just that.

or it could be scumminess

Quoted for truth.

---

The twist of irony:
Zoraster ran out of time with that post.
I, in responding to it, ran out of mine.

Be back soon/tomorrow. (One or the other)

[Mastin]

i'm voting him because his posts are long.

Yet, this has been part of my style since I started truly playing.
And voting someone based off of a reason that is NOT scum hunting is incredibly scummy itself, for you are voting (in an attempt to get a lynch) someone for reasons other than scum hunting, for reasons other than a pro-town player's win condition.

because his arguments are all over the place.

Name a game where this is not true.
I dare you to.

EVERYONE makes scattered arguments in EVERY game.

I can give COUNTLESS links to back this argument up.

Can you give one?

the only thing he's left to claim now is doctor or mafia.

Nah, I already claimed mafia, mafia lyncher-jester with Zoraster as my target--remember that?
Seriously, though, I claimed lyncher. That's what I am.
I claimed Red as my target. That's because he is.

I strongly believe those who absolutely refuse to believe my target claim, despite the evidence, want to set up a Red Coyote lynch in the future, for they don't want three semi-clears, and as long as I am around, I will prevent Red from being lynched.

his claim of us finding half the scum in all the accusations he's made - makes it easy to claim that when he's accusing half of the active players

The accusations are well-founded, and have solid reasoning behind them.

To ignore them is to ignore a player who has stated his pro-town intentions, whose post count and post length accurately reflects his devotion to the game.

Which is incredibly scummy to do.

his insistence on mason recruiters

They're pretty much my best hope of winning, if they exist--why wouldn't I hope they do?

his "guess" at being a N1 vig target

That's no guess.
If I were alive at the end of day 1, the best course of action would be to vig me during the night (or lynch me the next day, or dayvig me tomorrow, etc.).

this is conjecture at best.

It is me stating my opinions on the game freely.

For I am neither town nor scum, and have no need to fear the consequences.

So, I say what is on my head.

While I am pro-town in intention, I am anti-town in role. And that means that I will say whatever I wish to, in order to hopefully get the town to listen to me.

serves as rolefish bait at best

I AM A LYNCHER.
WHAT POSSIBLE MOTIVATION DO I HAVE TO ROLEFISH?!?
Seriously,
I ASK FOR HARD CLAIMS of this kind of thing. If there's a psychiatrist, if there's a mason recruiter, for them to SAVE ME.
Why would I do it the hard way?
Rolefish?

When I can just flat-out say it?

unnecessary fluff at worst.

No.

It serves as setup discussion.

Desperately needed info.

Setup discussion (especially gamebreaking kinds) is vital for the town, for it provides them with opinions on what they're up against:
What enemies do they face?

My speculation and theories on roles I view as valuable.
I've done it before, and I will do it again. For I view it as pro-town to do so.

people who have said discussion is good, it gives information... well, after killing Mastin and after the resolution of all night actions, if you can't get information from analysing his interaction after that (from over 5 pages of content solely from Mastin) - then it strikes me that your hypothesis is unfounded.

But you get MORE information if I am NOT lynched.

where/when do you draw the line between discussion and distraction?

Distraction--
Fluff (my early posts), spam.

I've done neither in recent times.

Anything else is discussion.

how much do you need to sift through - to get information?

Everything.

Anyone who ignores ANYTHING is overlooking something that might be a CRUCIAL piece of information.
So every player should look at EVERYTHING, just in case. The more information, the better.
And the way to get the most information is to read everything.

do you expect to crack the game on day 2?

No. I expect to crack the game on day

one

.

is this even a game?

This is a philosophical question--mafia's a way of life to some, yet is "just a game" to others.

If you meant this particular game...
Then, yes, nothing can make it NOT a game.

is it some boring scientific analysis?

Boring?
No.

Scientific?

Yes.

Psychology,
Facts,
Metagaming,
Scum tells,
Town tells,
Statistics,
etc.

All science, if looked at in the correct angle.

play it.

I am. This is how I play. (I haven't had this much fun since 735/742 when defending my cop claim. The thrill of defending oneself from attacks is the best part of the game, precisely why I do it so often.)

don't flog the fun out of it.

What defines "fun"?

There's no correct answer.

So I submit that this point is not truly valid, for there's no way to judge "fun", and if it is "flogged out".

i will be voting azhrei tomorrow.

Interesting. Az is one of the more pro-town players, here.

One who is actually listening to logic, and is seeing my points.

Recruiters and psychiatrists aren't that common.

I didn't know what a JOAT was until recently due to how rare it is, and lynchers aren't common, yet alone, a lyncher who can't win 'til day two.

Face it:
This setup has unusual roles.

Not sure why you are holding onto the small SMALL chance that you will be recruited.

Because I have nothing else to cling onto, OP.
I can't win as it is.
Unless the mod incorporated a hidden win condition where I can win with the town if both I, and my target (Red) are dead, this is all I have to cling to.

Would you rather just have me curl up into a ball and die?

You wish.

I fight until after the lynch.
I maintain 'til death my roleclaims.
I insist, even after being hammered, that my claim is true when I'm scum.

And as a lyncher, this would be no different. I'll fight until after I'm lynched, that my lynch was not the best course of action, and that Red Coyote is semi-clear via being my target, yet no player here is truly clear.

As for the vig, why CAN'T the vig lynch you?

Because any true vig would shoot an anti-town role any day and try to lynch scum, instead of lynch an anti-town role and try to shoot scum.

If they don't, then they're not playing well as a vig.

It would only cast doubt on their claim later on, for I am sure others believe the same as I do, and to go against it would be to put themselves in a very bad situation, possibly leading to their mislynch.

They can lynch you, and their is still a possibility, if they use their powers, that they'll vig a mafia member (even though vigging a townie is higher, looking at the numbers).

Vigging at night is always riskier than lynching during the day. A lynch has many supporters, of which, a maximum of one third would be scum, in most games.

A vig has one supporter, with the maximum of zero scum. But when they have to claim, they will have to answer for any and all actions they have taken.

Your argument is that we an hunt for scum day 1 instead of lynching you

And I stand by this as being the correct course of action.

well, isn't that the vig's job?

The vig's job is to shoot anti-town players. If they have one 100% guaranteed anti-town player, that's the shot they take.

To hunt down scum

This is the town's job.

I've played, town often mislynch day 1, instead of catching scum.

7-for-7 fallacy, anyone?

Seriously, it has happened before, but it doesn't mean it'll happen again.

I think that, with the opportunity to get rid of confirmed anti-town person - Mastin - we should take it straight away.

And I've, several times, stated why I think we should take the risk of lynching scum today, and leave me to the hounds of night one, but if I somehow survive to tomorrow, we lynch me then, or leave me alive, for I claimed my target and am harmless due to it.

Mastin dies, is revealed (what we know already) that he is a lyncher. No new info, no. But so what?

So, INFORMATION IS WHAT

ANY

TOWN NEEDS THE

MOST

!

People will be night killed most likely, and we'll get that info.

Which we ALSO get if we lynch someone ELSE day one.

Isn't ANYONE listening to that part of my argument?

But we'll be one step ahead, with a lyncher gone

We would have night one.
We would have day two.
If my target is believed (I've given all I can to support that Red is my target. At least for metagaming purposes, in the future, please keep this in mind, people:
I WON'T LIE WHEN I AM OUTED AS ANTI-TOWN!), I'm left alive for longer.
If not,
Well,
then I die day two.

We'd be no steps further ahead by lynching me today than we would be by leaving me alive, OP.

and day 2, we won't have to worry about all that, and can focus primarily on finding and lynching mafia.

We can do this today--
Why wait?

We might not even have a vig.

Again--
In a setup of this size?
Please.

We have a vig.
And if there's a sk, they'll fake as a vig.

There is even a bigger chance we don't have a psychiatrist or a recruiter.

One night.
That's all I ask for to test this.
One night.

That too much to ask for when I can't win day one?

I don't think Mastin thinks that we do either.

I HOPE we do.

He is trying to make it one more day, one trick at a time. He knows we're better off getting rid of him now.

If I believed we were better off without me today, I'd vote for myself and end the day.

I don't.

---

I likely have to leave, now; be back as soon as possible with yet more.

[Mastin]

Also, I do agree that no matter what, you would tomorrow say you got recruited, whether you did or not

And yet, I--multiple times--have given reasoning as to why it'd be suicidal.

Look at this town.

Just do it.

Look at how they doubt everything I say, even when I back it up with evidence.

I'd be forced to claim tomorrow WITH A PARTNER.

And when I would, in this hypothetical scenario, false-claim mason, with a partner, that "partner" would deny the claim---

And I'd be lynched for lying.

And I've yet to have lied thusfar; why would I start tomorrow?

This would be an anti-town move, and well, you are anti-town in role

Anti-town role != anti-town attitude,
As
Anti-town attitude != Anti-town role.

You can be incredibly anti-town (yet still not scummy), yet have, say, the role of a cop, to give an example.

And my play thusfar is proof as to why anti-town role != anti-town moves/attitude, for I have clearly shown why I have been pro-town in my efforts.

and would still try and get your lynchee lynched (assuming that you were lying about it, which I think you may be)

You don't vote for a person if you don't think they're lying. (Even if they don't say anything you think of as false, your vote on them would be proof that you think they're scum, which would thereby make them lying about at least one thing: their alignment) So if you only think I "may be" lying, why are you voting me?

If I'm telling the truth, about everything, then I'm harmless, as I would never get Red lynched, him being semi-cleared and all that.

The anti-lyncher is even a bigger stretch

I cannot see Zoraster's attitude towards the game as pro-town.

I think that Zoraster is definitely anti-town.
It's a matter of in what way Zoraster is anti-town.

Didn't Zor mention the possibility of two lynchers? (Someone did. I need to check up on who)

Zor's referred to the town in third person a lot,
And mentioned playing for second,
And mentioned playing to win, not to lynch scum,
And is tunneling on me...

That initially made me think scum.
It's still a very strong possibility.

But the possibility exists that Zoraster is the anti-lyncher who wants me dead to win.

(By the way, I want some sort of prize if I'm correct about it--it was a darn-good theory! )

and is yet another attempt for you to last another day.

I make no attempt at deceit:

I am trying everything in my power to live another day.

Who doesn't?

But that doesn't mean what I say is any less valid.

I wouldn't raise the point if I didn't think it was worth it.

If we lynch you tomorrow, and if there was such a thing, Zoraster would still win.

Unless I was vigged during the night, by any good vig.

So do we..not kill you?

During the day?

This is preferable.

Or are you just assuming we have a vig and a vig will kill you?

In a setup of this size, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a vig.

What makes you think there wouldn't be a vig?

Wishful (scum) thinking, perhaps?

Mastin/Devestation, what happens to Mastin should he manage to get his lynchee lynched?

I don't know.
I honestly don't know.

I WANT to know.
When a lyncher wins, it has one of three outcomes:
1: The game ends, lyncher won, others lost.
2: The game continues, the lyncher is removed from the game.
3: The game continues, the lyncher remains a player in the game. <--That's the one that I had wished for, thinking I'd get an easy win. I'd be 100% cleared as non-mafia, and having already won, I was going to try and scum hunt 'til the mafia night-killed me.
So I asked Jebus to make sure.

I was told that what happens when my lyncher target is lynched will be revealed...when my lyncher target is lynched.

In other words, it's information that the mod views as too important to gameplay to be answered.

I wish I knew.

But I don't.

and it also puts the one Standard Tell everyone seems to forget about into play.

Well, not entirely.

I was pointing out how it was good for making them appear pro-town by lynching an anti-town force, which I'd say would count as an accusation of the SSH.

Phoebus: Behavior before Mastin's claim isn't applicable due to limited access, but his argument for lynching Mastin at the end of page 21 is crap and needs a dedicated post to pick apart (coming soon)

Yea, yea, shoot me for quoting a lot of posts for truth, but it is True, and so I will quote it.
(Admittedly, it'd be a scum tell in my eyes to quote for truth things too often, but, hey, I'm already outed for my true role. I can do stuff like that.)

zoraster: Fits the IIoA->Selective Scumhunting model quite well, and needs a dedicated post for a PBPA (coming soon).

Hmm, maybe. Not so sure on the IIoA, but the Selective Scum Hunting (SSH) definitely applies.

Zu_Faul: I want to see his reaction to Mastin once he returns from V/LA - his posts before his current absence look scummy, but I want to see more out of him before I'm sure.

This I also agree with.

orangepenguin: I need to run a dedicated PBPA on him as well, which again needs its own post.

Agreed, for he is the leading bandwagon besides mine (and I believe this has a good reason behind it--he's scummy).

and is probably town given how strong such an ability would be in the hands of a Mafioso.

Slicey was a Mafia every-other night-name-cop, Tar...
Still, though, I agree. (My given example is different.) He's very doubtfully mafia, and is most likely the claimed JOAT as he said. I'm not discounting the possibility that he's mafia, though.

unless Devestation confirmed his lynchee somewhere and I missed it

Oh, BY LORE, I

wish

that Devestation had confirmed my target!

If that were true, I could be kept alive indefinitely, for we could just avoid lynching Red and I.

Sadly, this is not so.

(in fact, it's the same craplogic that newbs use in newbie games to try to push through nolynches - you're trying to bring it up in a Large Normal why, exactly?)

Alright, it's official--

It wasn't just me.
I wasn't stretching things;
Now AT LEAST one other person has pointed this out.

Hell, given one general view about game balance here (I'll explain after I get an answer to that question above), if somebody not named Mastin gives us confirmation that Mastin's lynchee is RedCoyote, I'll treat him exactly like a confirmed Survivor: lynch him one day before LyLo, not before, and only then because it's in his best interest to vote the lynchee at LyLo (if the lynchee is alive) or because lynchers tend to convert to Survivors when their lynchee dies (I've explained elsewhere why you lynch survivors at L-1, and I can quote those arguments here if necessary).

This policy I'd agree with. Sadly, I don't think anyone possesses the needed information to clear me of this doubt. If they did, they would claim such and save the town of this terrible, practically-mislynch. (Not scum, mislynch, to me. Not town, a good lynch. As I am neither pro-town, nor pro-scum, I consider it to be PRACTICALLY a mislynch, but not entirely, due to the definition of a lynch to me.)

The flaw with this argument is that Mastin is functionally NEUTRAL, not scum.

Let's take your scenario with some modifications:

Assume 6 town, 1 Neutral Survivor, and 2 Scum.

Ordinarily, the town's chances of lynching scum on Day 1 are 2/9 (22.22...%).

If the Survivor is outed on Day 1 and the town lynches a player other than the survivor, the town's chances of lynching scum become 2/8 (25%)... an increase of 3%.

I have pointed this out as well. (Not as well, but I did...)

Why bother supposing an anti-lyncher.

1: I like crazy theories,
2: If crazy theories prove accurate, I can ask for a prize after the game's over ,
3: As OP pointed out, it is something which might let me live a bit longer,
and
4: It generates further discussion, more information to use later on.

Zoraster's play makes perfectly good sense if zoraster is scum trying to push through a lynch on a confirmed Neutral (who is thus a) relatively safe to push to lynch and b) not a member of his faction). See: Selective Scumhunting.

And I completely agree. I believe Zoraster is an anti-town role, for sure. What role that is, I am not entirely certain of, although I believe it is probable to be mafia of some sort.

Bold and unfortunate.

Yet something I view as true.

You can see fairly clearly how Mastin seeks to equate anyone in favor of lynching him with scum.

When they refuse to listen to my logic and reasoning, and the reasoning of at least two other players (Red, Tar), and do anything from blindly follow to give bad logic,

Yes.
I'm going to call them scum.
(As Tar might [and I believe did already] say, Selective Scum Hunting)

Of course, he can't say all 11 people currently voting are scum, but he can make statements such as this.

Uh, yea, in theory, I can call 11 people scum, for that, while large, is still an acceptable number of scum for a setup of this size.

In reality, I will give a scum list shortly, along with brief reasoning as to each of them.

The only one of these I might agree with is the Psychiatrist IF AND ONLY IF he can cure Lynchers (which the wiki suggests is not their traditional role).

1: Reasonings, please.
2: Lynchers traditionally can win from day one. I can't.
We have unusual roles, so screw tradition.

The other two, vigils and Masons, have other purposes in the game than to deal with Mastin.

But dealing with me is perhaps the most beneficial thing for them to do during the night. I've explained why several times throughout the day, haven't I?

As such, they have perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to lynch now and use their powers for other things.

Not if they want to be believed, they don't. I outlined a few reasonings in my last post, at the very least.

And for the vigil, what's to say their power isn't limited (one or two shots, for example)?

I, as a one-shot vig, would shoot the confirmed anti-town player, so that the town could focus on scum hunting during the day and not waste a lynch on the anti-town player, which essentially gives the scum another free night.

2. The doubt is not who you are pushing for. The likely situation as I see it is that you'll casually influence the vote without voting yourself. As you know, your vote might be poison to a lynch. This concern (even more than the reality) is negative for town. Which brings me to the second way you negatively influence town. You can take good lynches by the town, vote for them, and kill them.

Only if people are being sewn seeds of paranoia, such as "OMG! He's trying to lynch his target! UNVOTE XXX NOW!"

When my target, for my reasoning several times outlined, has clearly been shown to only be one of a handful of people at most.

For those of you paying attention, I ask you this: does his mere assertion he's telling the truth make it more likely?

In my case,
Yes.

In both of those games, I was the cop, and was stating things that I stand by, to this day, as being true. Yet I couldn't back it up with evidence.

So time and time again, I stated it was true.

It was.

And does it sound to you like he's desperate to convince us of its truth

I've already told you that this is true--
I'm desperate.
And I'm trying to convince you of its truth, for it's the best way to get out of my desperation.

Got an issue with that?

Besides, we don't know what the truth is here, though we do suspect you've told the truth about the lyncher part.

I've given links to previous games where I was telling the truth, yet had no evidence,
I've given the breadcrumbs,
I've given my meta openly and freely to you to prove how I do this kind of thing,
I have told the truth about everything so far.

There's nothing more than that which can help convince anyone that I'm telling the truth about my target.

But I am.

A: It is not completely out of the question that you are not a Lyncher. While I do believe this to be the case as it would be a simple and satisfying solution to your conduct as well as Dev's claim, it is not impossible you are scum. Again, I find it very likely you will turn Lyncher upon lynch, but I just want to point out that it is not completely clear cut.

This is not a counter to the point.
The point was, that my lynch will provide a flip that everyone already at least suspects to be true.

The flip of another player gives us their alignment, and LOADS of extra information.

B: We do get the interaction of the lynched to others and others to the lynched. There's a great deal of interaction between you and me. But there's also a great deal of interaction in the interaction between you and others. Just because your flip isn't surprising (assuming it's Lyncher), doesn't mean there's nothing to analyze. In fact, given your prolific nature, we have more interaction between you and any other player.

It gives nothing as to their alignment, though.
There's plenty of interaction, alright.
Doesn't mean anything.

If someone flips pro-town, though, we get others' (particularly those pushing for said lynch) reaction to them. We also get to see their reactions to others, as them being confirmed pro-town, their opinions should be looked at with at least SOME extra weight to them.

---
You ignored C, I noticed...
---

G: I'm not excited about the prospect of testing the setup on you just because you have a lot to gain by obscuring the truth of the matter from us.

Yet in almost every scenario, I'd die n1.

See discussion of whether you'll fake claim mason.

See my response, which you ignored:

It'd be suicidal.

I explained why, in a town who doubts EVERYTHING I say (whether I'm lyncher, whether Red's my target, whether I've told the truth, whether I'd lie in the future), and so, I'd have to fullclaim everything about being masoned, including a partner which I wouldn't have.

I considered it, yes.
But due to the above, and the fact that lying loses any credibility I might've had due to telling the truth thusfar, I decided against it.

Anyway, this would mean that the cop would have to claim. Even with a guilty, this is not necessarily the wisest move.

I, personally, dislike flat-out claiming (a problem which I was considering how to overcome--knowing I had held back my cop claim in two previous games, it would make claiming cop d2 with a guilty on Red look immediately suspicious. I'd have to overcome this somehow.), but after I do claim, it's pointed out how, generally, it would've been better to claim earlier. If a cop has a guilty, they report it.

Again, this argument is between lynching you day 1 and day 2.

No.
YOU, yourself, pointed out how the argument is on if to lynch me at all, and if so, when.

You make it sound like scum know both roles in your hypothetical.

They'd hunt for the cop until killing him. The next night, the outed backup cop would be killed for having his power activated. Simple logic.

We do not know who the scum are.

This is not relevant...AT ALL. The given scenario was how a backup cop would be left alive until the real cop would be killed, and then would die the next night.
It had NOTHING to do with who the scum are.

Second, you kill the cop in this situation because that night's investigation will go unreported, and then you can kill the backup.

That is exactly what I was SAYING!

Pay attention.
They kill the cop first, NOT the backup,
And THEN kill the backup to prevent the backup from getting a result.

Even if we got a mafia member, their team would still shoot. Of course, there could be an SK (or SKs), but the chances of hitting them are even lower than hitting mafia (or so I assume).

Irrelevant, as this was not part of the given scenario AT ALL.

Well, first you've said it's a good idea to lynch you when your power activates tomorrow.

...Isn't that the point I just made in that post?
Of course, if I live through n1, I'd be the lynch d2. Unless a cop got a guilty, or enough people believed Red's my target...
I'd be toast.

Second, if that's true then we face a choice. Lynch you today and not lynch scum today or lynch you tomorrow and don't lynch scum tomorrow.

Your continued lack of factoring in a vig is truly concerning...

The choice to lynch you today is optimal for the reasons I've stated repeatedly.

It is *not* because of the reasons *I* have stated repeatedly.

Works both ways, eh?

I will not do this. I do not have the time or desire. And I don't think the town gains much from it either.

FUN FACT:

I will.
I'll do 'em.

I'll do 'em all if I have to.

Your refusal to do so, when the math of LIKELY setups is VERY good for the town, is noted.

Lest you accuse me of handpicking the scenario, I will pick by random.org.

Random.org != Likely setup.

And it's easy to fake random.org results.
I did it in 762 and 763 as excuses to self-vote.

The block chosen was:
2 scum factions, 3-5 members each,
0-1 serial killers,
0-2 vigs,

The numbers of each chosen were:
#1 scum faction: 4
#2 scum faction: 5
1 SK
2 Vigils

Scenario 1: Lynch Mastin D1

D1:
Probability of Lynching Scum D1: 0%
N1:
Probability of Vigil 1 hitting scum: 10/26: 38.5%
Probability of Vigil 2 hitting scum: 10/26: 38.5%
Probability of Scum faction #1 hitting scum: 6/26: 23.1%
Probability of Scum faction #2 hitting scum: 5/26: 19.2%
Probability of SK hitting scum: 9/26: 34.6%
D2:
Probability of Lynching scum if none die: 10/21: 47.6%

Probability of one scum getting lynched or killed: 91.9%
Probability of two scum getting lynched or killed: 83.1%

Scenario 2: Lynch Mastin D2
D1: Probability of Lynching Scum: 10/26: 38.5%
N1:
Probability of Vigil 1 hitting scum: 10/25: 40%
Probability of Vigil 2 hitting scum: 10/25: 40%
Probability of Scum faction #1 hitting scum: 6/25: 24%
Probability of Scum faction #2 hitting scum: 5/25: 20%
Probability of SK hitting scum: 9/25: 36%
D2:
Probability of Lynching Scum: 0%

Probability of one scum getting lynched or killed: 91.4%
Probability of two scum getting lynched or killed: 82.2%

Presumably the distance gets larger for getting three scum lynched or killed as the distance grew between 1 and 2 (from .5% to .9%), but this requires more time than I'm willing to put into it (I don't really know how to automate this type of thing).

Once again, the question can be asked whether this result is significant or not, but the fact remains that it is still, in a vacuum, more advantageous to lynch you on day 1 versus day 2.

Fun fact:

Even in this setup, there are variables you're making very specific:

"Assuming none die"?!?

Of COURSE there's going to be someone dead!
All the stats add up to well over 100% n1 with d1 added to it, making scum nearly guaranteed to die.

Explain yourself. I don't understand how burden of proficiency is at all implicated here.

If I can't provide evidence, it must be false, right?

^
|
|
BOP. Burden of Proficiency.

Confirmation bias, on the other hand, works both ways.

Not really.

No, I don't mean the numbers themselves will delay it. I mean your having to spend countless hours working on statistics delays it if you call anyone who votes for you in that time scummy.

Calling people scummy for attacking me when I am away isn't in any way delaying my lynch.

But it also doesn't prove you're pro-town.

Does to me.
If scum did this, then they'd be pro-town as well--not by role, but by attitude.

If scum did this, they'd deserve to win for such good play.

In any case, I apologize to everyone. I don't mean for this to get out of hand like this.

In any normal game, I tend to try and hold back as much as possible to avoid my posts from getting too long--

I don't have that luxury, here.

It's respond-to-everything-or-die.
(Actually, more like respond-to-everything-and-still-likely-die, with people's attitude around here.)


If people stopped voting me, and stopped attacking me, then I'd stop having such long posts. It's really as simple as that.

In such a large set-up, I am just assuming there is more than one mafia.

And yet, you didn't assume there was a vig.
Inconsistency?

I think at the time there was 7 people on his wagon.

Six or eight, you included. One or the other. Before Devestation's reveal of me being the lyncher, the latter, if true, would've been truly concerning. It'd show an early-on bandwagon and attempt at getting someone lynched.

By the way, I'm really worried that this game has ceased (if it ever was) to be fun for the other players involved.

That happens when people try to lynch me. I fight back. HARD. REALLY hard. If people stopped trying to lynch me, I'd stop having such long posts. Without long posts, more people would have fun.

Thing is, people can't stop attacking me in any game.

And so, the fun level will decrease, ESPECIALLY in a game where my role is revealed already and I don't give a D*censored* about post length when all the people who're voting me have other reasons other than post length to vote me, and nobody else will vote me off of post length.

I could blame Mastin for starting the wall of texts

You can. I'm going to get the title of "Unabridged" soon for a good reason. My Mastin-sized posts are truly mammoths of the text world. But it's not my fault that I have so much to respond to.

How much of the discussion going on is about me?

I'd say about 80%, directly and indirectly.

That means about 80% of things said that I have to reply to.

was a game in a secure forum for another game and therefore would be hard to show you.

*sighs*
I've heard of that forum before,
And people mentioning games on there yet saying they can't show others is getting a bit annoying. :/

As it stands Mastin is doing too good a job defending himself for me to want to lynch him.

Yet your vote rests on me, currently...

Why? If I were the vig, I wouldn't want to waste my NK on you.

And why not?

Vigs shoot anti-town players.
So that the town can lynch scum.
What's the issue with that?

I thought psychiatrists only worked on SKs.

Traditionally, yes.

But like I said,

Screw Tradition.

I'm assuming you mean "mason recruiter"? And if you do mean that, I don't think mason recruiters make people town.

Oh, yes. They do. On epicmafia, at least.

Don't bother with the "This isn't EM" stuff. I know that.
But mason recruiters, if existing, most likely would also change alignments of the person to town if it wasn't already town.

I'd rather he be vigged if he's merely a neutral role.

Quoted for truth.

---

That's page 22. Stop giving me so much to work with and I'll stop making these posts long.

Posting this tomorrow, as while this page is loaded, my internet has failed, so I can't submit it.


23 and counting.

[Mastin]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-31

Mastin - 11

(Caboose, zu_Faul, Empking's Alt, orangepenguin, NanooktheWolf, zoraster, King, Phoebus, AceMarksman, StevieT92, Zer0ph34r)

OrangePenguin - 5

(cateraction, Maturin24, Mastin, Azhrei, Tarhalindur)

Zer0ph34r - 1

(ryan2754)

NanooktheWolf - 1

(Amished)

StevieT92 - 1

(zwetschenwasser)

Phoebus - 1

(RedCoyote)

Caboose - 1

(hewitt)

Not Voting - 6

(alvinz95, White Castle, Dust, killa seven, Devestation, Kise)

With 27 alive, it takes 14 to lynch.

---

MS.net is giving me trouble on my normal computer--limited access 'til Saturday.

[Mastin]

Just finished a post from 23-26. It's as short as I can make it due to browsing, but it's still very long.

[Mastin]

WARNING

:

The following post will be super long, and will only cover up through page thirty.

There, you've been warned. Don't whine about the following post; I've told you it's long.

[Mastin]

If the Lynchee is nightkilled, typically the Lyncher assumes the pro-Town win condition.

Hmm...

Hey, scum! Please shoot Red Coyote tonight, he's contributing a whole bunch! He's a huge threat, and is semi-confirmed as a pro-town player! You need him gone tonight!

Seriously, though, this find is more reasoning to keep me alive for the moment. If Red dies during the night, then obviously, my win condition is shattered, and either the mod is lenient and I assume a pro-town win condition, or I'm f'd and have auto-lost.

Also, where did we first get the idea that Mastin can only win Day 2?

Dev got the details of my role pm, minus my target, which I confirmed as fact.

Amongst them was the day two win condition.

Lynchers are anti-town roles. He is NOT a neutral role.

We're also anti-scum roles, mind you, for we can win when the scum do not, OP. So, yea, anti-town, anti-scum, neutral.

In my experience playing role cop, all I got as a Role Name and didn't get any details.

Casting doubt of Dev...

I still think we should lynch Mastin Day 1 though.

"OH, S*content Censored*! MY ARGUMENT WAS BLOWN FULL OF HOLES! Uhh...still, LYNCH HIM ANYWAY!"

^
|
|
What I see.

---
OP also failed to answer Dust's question about if he believes my target in said post. Convenient, eh? Possibly throwing doubt on Red Coyote as well, via ignoring that part.

I'm going to combine both these parts of your post to say that: you really ought to have stopped, waited and seen how things work here before making a nuisance of yourself.

You are seriously SUGGESTING that I stay quiet/lurk? Yea, right.

this is not epicmafia.

Good games/setups on epicmafia can have the same basic principles applied to MS.net.

recruiting masons are hardly the rule here. much more a very rare exception.

I have admitted that I am grabbing onto what little hope I can. As it's all I can do. This is one of those things that keeps me going.

i find it annoying and unproductive that you are making sweeping assumptions and following them with sweeping statements, for which you have no proof.

I give speculation. Sometimes, it is supported, sometimes, it isn't. My daytalking scum theory is based off of reversal of opinions overnight and seemingly drastic changes from players, for example.

stop hoping, start playing.

You want me dead.
I defend.
That's how I play.
I'm ignored, due to my role, despite my efforts being true.
I go on the offensive, pointing out possible scum slips. You ignore them, thinking I'm trying to set up the lynch of my target.

In fact, how many players here have actually acknowledged the points of mine/those defending me, and still kept their votes on after it?

Not many.

Oh and it's hammer time

VOTE: MASTIN

And here I thought all the scum were already voting me.
You ADMIT to trying to drop the hammer.

Last time I saw this ploy, it was from Kieraen, In this post, 735, as scum.
Do explain to me how this is different.

He's defending himself wayyy too hard

You're outed as the anti-town role. What would you do, just curl up and die? Of COURSE I'm defending myself hard. Don't have any choice.

and not really using good logic.

Last two to confirm, random voting stage buddying, short nights-->Scum tells.
A few of my opinions from previous games.

Face it: I'm not the most logical guy on the planet. It's a null tell.

That makes him worth a lynch because his intentions are still unclear to me.

My win condition is to get Red lynched d2. My intention is to hunt scum if this becomes impossible. It has.

For the record this is my basic reasoning for voting Mastin.

And I defended from it. You ignored that, didn't you?
Yea, I thought so.

Oh and I can only use 1 ability per phase (day1=phase, night1=phase etc etc), so I won't be able to use my other ability to prove it Razz

by prove it I mean publicly prove mastins lyncher role or save my own ass.

That last post is is probably a crumb vig + doc (might just be vig - vigging Mastin would have proven his first ability - but I'd expect at least one other ability on a JoaT and self-protecting doc makes good sense).

Given his note about phases and proven day rolecop, he can likely dayvig as well, and unless I'm much mistaken he can also self-protect tonight.

Devestation

...if this is true, I'd love for you to claim it

. Say you have a doc ability and a vig ability if it's true.

...And then, we can save me for tomorrow, because, after I post if my win condition has changed or not, if Dev thinks I'm still a lyncher, I can be vigged, SAVING US A LYNCH. There's no better deal than that.

Should he not play best to fulfill his condition?

My win condition is impossible. My pseudo-win condition is to try and stay alive at least until tomorrow, preferably for as long as I can. My wanted-win condition is to give the town a victory.

I'm doing the latter two, for the former one is not an option.

I don't want to rehash the same arguments over and over, but every time you mention that you have proved or shown clear evidence that RC is your target I will have to post. It is not true.

I've given all the evidence I can. And I believe those who deny it are trying HARD to make sure Red Coyote can still be lynched in future days, instead of him being effectively semi-clear.

Which is precisely why I think your post counts and post length have little to do with your "pro-town" intention. I think you get a thrill out of defending. I don't think it has anything to do with how town you are.

It's both.
I get a thrill out of defending myself and reading long posts (mind you, I like long posts--not many pages). And I think it's a pro-town thing to do. Longer posts give more information, more opinions.

Damn everybody is so negative. Let's focus on not losing a townie and instead try to lynch scum, awesome. And if we lynch Mastin today are we in a much better situation tomorrow? Do we have a significantly greater chance of not lynching a townie than we do today?

Let me make my opinion quite clear- Mastin has got to go. Does Mastin have to go today? I think absolutely not and I don't think he should go today. If we believe he's telling the whole truth then he's absolutely nothing to worry about right???

Ah, the kind of opinion I love and can quote for truth. Seriously, if the scum are defending me heavily, they're doing the correct thing in doing so, for it's the more pro-town thing to do. A lynch of me is not a lynch of scum. And I can't win today. And we have potential day/night vigs to take care of me, or Red could be shot and I assume a pro-town win condition (this happens on epicmafia as well, mind you. Thirty points, better than none. And the wiki has it, so it's part of the lyncher role), or there could be a lyncher-psychiatrist, or a recruiting mason...hundreds of reasons to not lynch me.
Very few to.
-He could win! Get rid of him! (Proven inaccurate)
-His presence will stop scummy people from getting lynched! (Not today, it won't.)
-It's best to get rid of an anti-town role instead of possibly lynch a townie! (Yea, well, it's better to lynch scum than to lynch an anti-town role. You don't want to risk lynching a pro-town player, suggest a no lynch or something. Don't try this BS argument.)
-We get more information from his death to scum hunt! (We actually gain more info by letting me live and seeing what the night reveals of the setup.)

Really, this stuff is tiresome.

Can we scum hunt, now?

Oh. You actually semi-contribute to the game. Okay.

Seemed more like Phoe was being a bit bossy and commanding of what we should do, and posting information with nothing else.

This bothers me. If you're saying he has to go at some point, when is that point for you? When is a better day than today?

Tonight is better.
Tomorrow is better.
Tomorrow night might be better, if you trust me enough to not get rid of me tomorrow (which few here do).

Second, I don't believe -- and nor do I think should you -- that he's telling the whole truth.

Countless times, I've shown why I have no motivation to lie, and have countered every point saying I should lie with evidence to support why it'd be a bad idea to do so. I'm telling the whole truth. Keep this in mind for metagaming purposes the next time I claim an anti-town role and you play with me. Telling the truth is one of few ways to hopefully get the town to listen to me and allow me to possibly have my win condition altered.

And I think it's bullshit that you think there's a possibility Mastin could be scum.

How did Tar word it again? Fear mongering?
Something like that; it's what's being done.

Well that was a bit out of the box. I believe Mastin's target is OP, if Dev is telling the truth.

Dev confirmed I can't win 'til tomorrow. I'm pushing for OP's lynch today, and he's the leading bandwagon other than my own. Again, that'd kinda be bad play if he were my target, wouldn't it?

THe list Mastin gave was BS, Red was a lurker as well up to that point, he should have been "easy".

Take a look at the pre-game thread, Zu. I listed my admiration of Red Coyote then. As well as listing his skill as an epicmafia player. I instantly qualified him as hard. Lurking was just a bonus charge I could add to the reasons I chose to investigate Red in the scenario where I was planning to claim cop d2. (Never happened. And I don't think it would've. Had I gotten scum lynched and not been outed, I don't think I would've been able to live through a night with some pretty Pissed off scum on my back. )

Mastin, you are a huge smoke screen for the scum.

Correct, Zu. By trying to get rid of me day one, the scum are basically riding the easy bandwagon, thinking there will be no consequences from it.

He would be a bad honorary townie.

If I tried to get Red lynched, sure.

The truth is that if this were a mini game, I wouldn't have pushed this.

Oh?
Interesting.
I'd think it'd be vice-versa:
Pushing for the lynch of an anti-town role in a mini, to prevent an instant loss for all teams 'cept the neutral role,
And basically ignoring it in a large game where the lyncher would VERY doubtfully end the game.

But that only flies as far as you believe there's a mason recruiter.

Or a psychiatrist, or Red is shot, or I am vigged...

Yea...

And it's coupled with the fact there's an even greater chance Mastin will claim recruited Mason tomorrow.

How.
Many.
Times.
Must.
I.
Say.
It?!?

Do you need capped, bolded, italicized and underlined to get the message?
FINE.

I WOULD NOT CLAIM TO BE MASONED TOMORROW IF I WAS NOT, FOR IF THERE WERE A

REAL

MASON, THEY'D COUNTER-CLAIM,

AND IF THERE *WASN'T*

, THEN

I WOULD HAVE TO CLAIM MY PARTNER AND WOULD BE LYNCHED WHEN I'D FAIL TO BE VERIFIED BY SAID PARTNER

.

I can't make it any more clearer than that:
Claiming masoned when not is just suicide.

hewitt, are you seriously buying what Mastin is saying, especially when lying about his lynchee is the only way he can still win?

Lying gets me lynched.
Telling the truth gives me the chance to live.

That's the shortest summary version I can give.

I don't get why you're defending this.

I'm not scum. Hewitt wants to lynch scum. Can't get simpler than that.

Want to know who I think is scum? No one really.

Worst opinion ever. Not having suspects-->Incredibly scummy.
I didn't have any as scum in 688...due to me being scum.
I just couldn't do it.

I have reasons to dislike people, but if I had to pick someone, I guess I would pick Mastin, since his posts are long and full of crap, it seems like a way to make it seem like he's contributing. So you know what? Unvote

VOTE: MASTIN

Followed by the worst reasoning in the world. I'm either contributing or not. No middle ground. I have, I've scum hunted, I've been ignored, my efforts have been called a load of junk due to my role.

If people don't listen to me, then there's nothing I can do to stop these accusations...

2: You are defending yourself adequately. I was frustrated with the game state, and still am. My issue now is the position I am in. I have been in this situation before. Do I keep my vote on and look scummy, or do I unvote and look scummier because you think I should change it. A lot of people would find that more scummy than what you think is pro-town. I am completely willing to scumhunt by looking at other people, and have done so for the entire game. Again, please stop looking at my few sentences about your posting pattern and look at what I said in 534.

Unvoting isn't scummy.
NOT unvoting is.
Unvoting-->Open mind.
Not unvoting-->Tunneling.

Does anyone else find this extremely relevant, given Mastin's behavior?

Yes--it could be a very key factor.
Face it:
Red has some suspicions on him, but posts great content and raises solid points.

And I semi-cleared him.
If he is night-killed, I might become a pro-town player. Making it a very good point.

Mastin, would you be able to confirm or refute this based on your role PM info?

I dunno. I think I might've asked Jebus. I'll check.

Mastin and I seem to be in accord over this.

I'm skimming over posts at the moment, and it's been a while, but from what I saw, I can understand Ryan's viewpoint.

But how could we possibly confirm this?

I'd self-vote and let myself die, reiterate all of my points, state them all as unbiased fact, and let myself die as town.

For this reason, I don't see this possibility as a good balance to the overwhelming good reasons to lynch Mastin today.

You're willing to lynch me before you give it a chance. Right. That's not scummy at all.

3a. This is possible, however, if we kind of officially warn Mastin that he needs to post less and with shorter posts I'm sure he'll listen.

In most cases, I'd happily comply with this request, like 763.

In this game, all the people who have stated they're annoyed at my posts have already voted me, so I have nothing to lose by continuing to make long posts. I also can't do a short version short for most of my posts, the summaries I provide at the end of my posts being poor.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say "assuming none die." I may have the first time because I was doing a rough statistical analysis, but in this one, I never made that assumption

I'll bring up the quote to prove it.

Sounds like blackmail

But it's true.

When people attack me, I respond.
I counter-attack those who I think are scummy.

And defend those attacks, and counter-attack.

It gets worse over time.

Where as if people do NOT attack me, just an occasional attack from me, I'll stroll through the game, playing whatever meta I feel like playing under...

So either you're (a) not playing to win with the role given to you [lame but what you've claimed];

I am not going to play an impossible game. If my win condition is impossible, I try to change it to be possible--in this case, by trying to become town.

...you're overestimating Mastin's abilities to keep himself alive

True. VERY true.
Look at my record. It's terrible.
688 (not a good example)--L-2 by page three.
735--L-1 day three by scum, was nearly screwed 'til cop claim.
742--L-1 until cop claim. (Night-killed n2)
762--L-2 at one point, I believe. (Night-killed n1)
763--L-2. (Night-killed N1)
760 and 141 are better, though. (Night-killed a day and a half after joining, early end)

Still, that's a terrible overall record. The only thing keeping me from being lynched half the time is claims and good, long, solid, heck-annoying posts.

I wouldn't expect him to breadcrumb lynchees.

I breadcrumbed cop in 735.
I breadcrumbed cop almost immediately in 742, albeit accidentally.
I breadcrumbed doc in 762.

Yea...
I like breadcrumbing.
In addition to that, face it, I'm not a normal player. Expecting the unexpected from me will get you much farther.

On the other hand, I WOULD expect a lyncher to breadcrumb a cop claim heavily day 1, and I think he's done so with "duscum."

Nah. I breadcrumbed, but that wasn't how. It was with all the cop references.

If anything, he breadcrumbed RC in order to make this gambit.

I'm getting really sick and tired of having to explain this.

Breadcrumbing anti-town roles has uses.
If people point it out, deny it, stating it gets discussion going.
If people don't, and I need to claim...I use it.

It's also an attempt to make town feel like being on Mastin is scummy and the wrong choice.

It IS scummy, an easy bandwagon.
Whether it's right is a matter of opinion debates.

But it is the right choice.

Others have accused me of stating things without backing them up every post--
Can I do the same for this?

Mastin may be a little unorthodox

"A little"?

My point is that I don't think Mastin had to drop other lynchee breadcrumbs. He dropped the one (hell, he says outright that he's lyncher and you're his target. That doesn't mean his breadcrumb is truthful.)

Two. TWO. Two breadcrumbs were dropped. Plenty enough for later on.

My point is also that I believe Mastin potentially breadcrumbing Dust as a cop is a more convincing breadcrumb than his lynchee claim.

I called Caboose Cabooscum as well. I called Zu_Faul Zcum_Faul.

Was I breadcrumbing them as well?

Please...

That's my definition of a fun game - NOT trying to break it on day one.

We have very different definitions of fun--
The sooner you start to break a setup, the sooner you can get to the truth...meaning the sooner you can win. And breaking setups through good intuition and guessing and theories is fun.

The difference in opinion should NOT be lynch-worthy, though.

Right now, it's just text walls that are annoying.

Again, I don't do them when I am asked not to and I am not being attacked.
I am being attacked.

And there's your problem.

It doesn't happen (much) when I'm not being attacked.

It's easy to tell someone, well then go scum hunt, but it's not that easy when there is one HUGE distraction in this game.

If you're lucky, you MIGHT get another two votes on me within ten pages.

The simple fact is, those pushing my wagon are the ones causing the distraction, not the ones defending me.

By wanting to get rid of the distraction (me), you vote me, and give reasoning for it. Others call you out for it in their scum hunting/defense of me.

As long as players attack me, there will be a distraction.

And unless you can convince three other people to ignore my defense and vote me, I'm staying around for longer. You're distracting from the purpose of the game, to SCUM HUNT, by voting/focusing on me.

Mastin, who are you suspicious of and why at this point in the game?

Hmm...

Mastin - 11


Caboose,

zu_Faul (lessened, but still there),

Empking's Alt (not very much),

orangepenguin (LYNCH THIS SCUMBAG!),

NanooktheWolf (Slight suspicion),

zoraster (Tunneling BADLY, amongst others),

King (Tar says it well),

Phoebus (This MIGHT be just a difference of opinion),

AceMarksman (Reversal from defending me to bandwagoning me, based off of nothing more than stats),

StevieT92 (Admitted to trying to drop the hammer),

Zer0ph34r (Reasons stated throughout the thread),
---
Off-bandwagon:
Dust (Early-on suspicions of him, though lessened),
Amished (He's playing exactly as I've seen him play as scum)

I know, all 13 can't be scum, but you asked for my suspicions, and there they are. (Yea, yea, I'm suspicious of the people bandwagoning me, I must be OMGUS'ing, and all of that C*content censored*. But I've found that my, and those who have defended me, have given darn-good reasoning, the bandwagoners have not.

Why? He has a motive to lie. What motive does he have to be honest?

I've said this SEVERAL times, Cabooscum. Please don't lengthen this post any more and force me to state them again.

However, I've yet to see why I have motivation to lie.

It'd only get me lynched.

What does this have to do with Mastin getting lynched today?

It has to do with NOT lynching me!

Mason recruiters don't make people town.

Depends. Sometimes, they do.

Using the possibility of a really exotic role like that as a reason to not lynch someone is incredibly weak.

Alright, then read the lyncher article, the STANDARD role, and see what happens when a lyncher's target dies.

THAT doesn't qualify as an exotic role, and is still VERY possible.

That may be, he may have predicted the possibility of a JOAT or some other role investigator and planted that information for that specific instance. If anyone would do that, Mastin would.

I hate cops when I'm not one. It caught me SERIOUSLY off-guard when Dev claimed rolecop. I've never seen a JOAT in my games 'til now, so I hadn't thought of them.

In fact, I hadn't thought of the possibility that my cop claim would be countered. I suppose if it was, then I would've explained how there might be multiple cops in the game.

But I hadn't thought of it.

I was thinking about what to say to get you lynched day two, Red.
I was thinking of the taste of victory, and how to explain it.

I had considered, after you'd be hammered, claiming to be lyncher and watching people say "WTF?!?" until The Mod posted the announcement I had won, but decided against it. I had contemplated which of the options (game over, removed from game, keep on playing) would happen to me.

You're right--
If anyone would've seen it coming, it would've been me.

But, no, I didn't.

I still think the hammer is a

null

scum tell

Seriously, town should want to discuss.

Scum want nights to kill town.

Hence, those who want night are scum.

Simple reasoning, really.

------
Is it just me, or is this game half-dead with only half the players contributing? :/

To be fair, I'm not really arguing with you. I'm using you. I think your policy is reasonable. If Mastin were to claim Mason, we should lynch him unless someone claims they masoned him.*

But it's precisely because I think it's reasonable that I used you to weaken the argument that we should keep Mastin alive because he might be Masoned.

Explain to me how it is NOT scummy to manipulate a player, Zor. Do please tell, how is you manipulating a player NOT scummy?!?

Honestly, it's my belief that Mastin made an error when he claimed

My error was believing that, for a second, people would even consider the possibility that I'm, well, ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH.

assuming that EpicMafia's (which he cites many times in this game) use of Masons is the same as the use of Masons in mafiascum.

I know very well and good that it's a long shot. But I don't really have much more.

I think it's not until later that he realized his error

I was screwed, regardless of what I'd have claimed. My error was thinking that, instead of lying to the town with my easy cop claim, that telling the absolute truth would make them realize my intentions were good.

but I find it hard to believe that there is some magic curing role for Mastin, and I think it is pointless to assume something so farfetched.

Alright, then what about the wiki?

We know RC's a skilled, fairly pro-town, and effectively semi-cleared player.
That screams to the scum, "Shoot me!" almost as much as a power role claim. (...Hey, Red, don't suppose you'd claim to be a doctor or something like that, an important power role, adding fuel to the fire, just to make me a pro-town player, would you? )

Wait a minute -- I thought you were a restaurant, not a human...

Lynch all liars! Fos: WC

A random FoS...this late into a game. That's not scummy at all.[/sarcasm]

Good God, does every single post have to be so spaced out[?]

Not really. I respond to attacks against me with defenses and counter-attacks. People choose to make my posts longer by attacking me, for it is physically impossible for me to defend against a good attack with a short post...yet alone, eleven.

Quite a screw up, unless I'm looking at this the wrong way and it's possible for lyncher to be pro-town.

1: Not a screw-up. My only hope. Dev outed me, I would've died via vig/lynch d2 if Dev flipped JOAT d1.

2: It is possible.
-Mason recruiters, a la Epicmafia mode.
-A psychiatrist, who might be able to cure me.
-Red dieing during the night.
-Hidden mod win conditions which are so wild even I won't speculate on them.

There's been no scumhunting so far...? What have you guys been doing for 29 pages?!

Pointlessly debating over whether to lynch me or not, Kise. People who vote me are tunneling/scum who refuse to listen to the logic posted by me/those defending me, who are being pro-town in attempting to scum hunt.

Who is pretty confirmed not town.

Who is confirmed not scum and has given his reasons for wanting scum dead.

If a lyncher is a third party type role whose win means that everyone else loses, why is he still around?

1: Because I can't win 'til day two,
2: If you think I'm a good lynch, why not vote me?
3: I'm confirmed not scum, and people want to scum hunt,
4: I'm a darn-good player, who has stated a willingness to scum hunt and has shown a desire to be a member of the town.

White Castle --->

...I've seen those arrows before...

That style of posting...is very familiar...

You haven't done much scum hunting yourself.

Hewitt has. He brings up valid points, which you continue to ignore.

People are voting Mastin for legitimate reasons, that you continue to ignore.

1: This didn't answer Hewitt's question of why,
2: I've defended against those reasons, as have others, but nobody wants to listen to the defense of a lyncher.

Dev' got very lucky with that 1-shot cop...

"Very lucky" would be getting a mafia godfather or something.
He got lucky, sure, and outed an anti-town role.
He didn't hit scum.

What kind of scumhunting can we do if Mastin is just going to be the central focus of everyone's post?

Very little.
WHICH IS WHY YOU GO ELSEWHERE AND ACCEPT THAT WE HAVE THREE PLAYERS NEARLY COMPLETELY CONFIRMED AS NOT SCUM.

By lynching him, we can eliminate all distraction and move on.

The distraction is not caused by those defending me.
It's caused by those attacking me.
And until enough votes can be garnered onto me, that "distraction" would continue, unless people decided to fulfill their win conditions and SCUM HUNT.

I think mastin should be given the opportunity to catch up, and unless he brings something gamebreaking to the table, he should be lynched.

I've been strongly discouraged from doing this---

Posting all of my defenses together, LONG.
Researching Jebus's past games, LONG.
Posting likely statistics, LONG.
Defending myself through page thirty, LONG.

People's opinions on long posts-->NEGATIVE. (For some crazy reason)

But then again, most of the people complaining are already voting me. Maybe I should do these things just to make them angry to return the favor they've done to me in my defenses being ignored/bashed/shattered into a million pieces. (In other words, I'm a bit PO'd at these people if they're town, can understand if they're scum, though.)

If we lynch someone other than the Lyncher, isn't it possible that the Lyncher wins? Do we know who Mastin is trying to get lynched?

If we don't lynch Mastin today, I figure he has a 1/26 chance of winning today or about 4%.

Dev confirmed that I cannot.

---

That's through page thirty. I think I should stop now, screw getting caught up in one post, this is too long.

[Mastin]

****!

I checked my role PM again. I don't like what I see.
There was something I had missed before.
If Red's lynched d1, or night-killed, I commit suicide (the next day phase--lynch day one, I die day two, night-kill n3, I die d4). (Great. A one-sided lover pair. :/)

[sarcasm]Sweet. [/sarcasm]

Now the scum effectively would be given two night-kills if I were allowed to live, unless Red's protected. :/

Well, on the bright side, nk'ing (or lynching today) Red would instantly confirm my claim.

(Yea, yea, you're going to use this as more reasoning to lynch me. I'll defend against it because I have to. I said I wouldn't lie. Even about information that would harm me. This is further proof of that)

[Mastin]

There have been many different ways of saying it. Throughout mafia history, it has been said thousands of times. Normally, a three-letter word, with some variant of the first letter in it. Some mods don't allow it, some insist that it can ONLY be a three-letter word, and some mods allow for more freedom, as long as it has no game-related content. But my personal favorite way of saying this phrase, this thing that I'd utter every game if the mod allowed it (seeing as how I've never lived to an endgame), that unique phrase of mine,

AAAAaaaarrg!! (Bah, Gah, etc.) Go...hmm...

Town!

No, they lynched me...

Scum!

Nah, I hate the mafia...

Town!

Scum!

Town!

Scum!

Fine, fine,

Go Town!

[Mastin]

You are absolutely dead-set on killing RedCoyote, but you want to make him suffer. You win if RedCoyote is lynched on Day Two or later. Should he be night killed or lynched on Day One, you will commit suicide upon the beginning of the next Day phase.

Confirm via PM.

[A comment on this - I put the Lyncher in to help balance out the cult. The lyncher role here is meant to have whoever the cult leader is as their target. The reason for the "after Day 2" was to make it so that the lyncher had some intention of surviving. If the lyncher had completed his/her win condition, s/he would have been removed from the game with the personal win.]

Fight, fight, fight,

fight

the urge to say "I told you so"

Hmm...no...I swore I would stop being arrogant, and that's just as arrogant as actually saying "I told you so" ten times. How about

Fight the urge to SAY "Fight, fight, fight, fight the urge to say 'I told you so'"

I told the ENTIRE truth. I never lied. This should be testament to just how much I value honesty.

As for my absence, I was seriously overextended. If you're Zwet, KMD, or someone similar, you can handle fifteen games. When you're who I was (I hestitate to say "ME" because I've changed since them), not so much. I've written whole rambles on just how epically I failed.
(Pretty much everyone I thought was scum...turned up town, everyone I thought was pro-town...was anti-town. Yay, arrogance recklessness and stupidity!)

This game, I felt that all the pro-town people for the most part looked super-scummy, and the anti-town players played really well.

I didn't watch the game much after I died. I wish I didn't rolecop Mastin D1, he would've apparently done something useful about the cult.

Not sure you would've been that much better off. I mean, if I survived day one, I was going to claim to be a cop day two (guilty on Red Coyote, of course), period, end of discussion, and pray my meta would carry through. (As Amished can attest to, that doesn't apparently work that well. :/)

Also, yes, I really considered myself an honorary townie, in that I was trying to win with the town. It would be interesting to see what would happen if I were to play this game again with what I know now about my playstyle. (Y'know, how INCREDIBLY anti-town it is. How incredibly overextended I was. Stuff like that. If I had done only one game at a time, and actively worked to CORRECT my flaws instead of going "Eh, screw that, it's more fun this way, why change?", I think I would've done significantly better.)

[Mastin]

Who would've known something like that would happen though, Dev? Finding a non pro-town allied person D1 out of.. 6? is pretty damn good, IMO. You did well, there was no way to divine the consequences of your action.

To be quite frank, I deserved to be lynched. Heck, I deserved to be lynched in almost all of my games, period. It's just who I was at the time. So, yea, Dev did do the right thing, although it certainly did NOT make me happy. (As I said, only two things could happen if I denied being a lyncher: Either 1: Dev is lynched, revealed to have been telling the truth, and I die day two, or 2: I die day one, anyway.)

[Mastin]

...Really? 'Cause I thought you were in a LOT more...