Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[DTMaster]

Vote: hiphop

I dislike that genre of music. Also Hi Dank. I'll be seeing more of you in Mini 811.

[DTMaster]

Oh whoops. My my bad then since I recognized dank. >>;

[DTMaster]

@DeathRowKitty

You can just do DTM for me since it is basically the same thing.

Also your thoughts on hiphop because he also put someone at L-4 with his second vote in the RVS.

[DTMaster]

@Hiphop
The latest vote count before your unvote. I'm pretty sure you put Idiotking at L-4. 4 votes till lynch which in my mental math: 3 + 4 = 7.

Those in danger of suppression #1:

hiphop (2)

-

DTMaster, dank

Idiotking (3)

-

jasonT1981, Paradoxombie, hiphop

jasonT1981 (3)

-

Shrinehme,Toro, Zachrulez

ryan2754 (1)

-

DeathRowKitty

Not Voting (3)

-

Idiotking, RedCoyote, ryan2754

Happiness with Posting Level:

NEUTRAL

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[DTMaster]

Bye bye RVS. You died in record time.

Actually when looking at Idiot King's post:

Holy bandwagon, Batman!

unvote

What's with the rapid dogpile on jason?

I'm confused. Normally you would unvote when you see a bandwagon forming if you were part of that bandwagon. You voted for danks first though not jason.

[DTMaster]

@Hiphop
Um wait what?

As for why I am not voting for him, it is because he already has two votes on him, and I don't want scum to pounce on him without giving himself a chance to defend for himself. As I already explained I didn't know he had three votes on him.

Even with the three votes if you counted your old vote, Idiotking needs 4 more votes. The game has barely left RVS so no scum in their right mind would quick lynch within two pages of the game. That would be immensely more telling then any analysis. You are being very sensitive about this bandwagon.

But you are right we have 2 people that haven't contributed anything to the game and RVS is over. One more day and we might need a prod ("sigh" already)

@Danks
He unvoted you when a bandwagon was forming, not jason. With his vote he put you at L-6 which is hardly a bandwagon. The bandwagons that started are jason and Idiotking.

@Idiotking
We can see that your random vote is part of the RVS. But your wording in your original unvote post makes it look like you originally voted for jason, not danks. This is the big WTF moment.

Also why are you "just considering" looking at the bandwagon hopping. The RVS is easy to start bandwagons so scum can fly under the radar with the RVS flag. I want to hear more about your case on the 3 voters.

[DTMaster]

@Red
We left the RVS already so I suggest you read up.

@Shrine

DTMaster, about how suspicious do you consider this? L-4 doesn't seem very significant to me [or maybe it's just the way it's worded; "3 vote for x in RVS" seems more significant than "X is at L-4 in RVS".]

3 votes and putting someone at L-4 are the same thing. I wouldn't consider this very suspicious because in the RVS bandwagons come and go on the flip of the dime. But this reason is a start to leave the RVS and start adding pressure to people. Their reactions will give us a better tell then their bandwagon votes.

[DTMaster]

@Hiphop

@ dank I never said he was scum. When I said he was scum number 1, I meant that he was the guy that I was most suspicious of.

Your choice of vocabulary is very interesting here. It would have been a better response to say he was the "most suspicious person" rather then "he is the number one scum". Saying someone is scum number 1 has some finality when you state it.

But I support your lurker hunting, activity is everything to a town. A townie's weapon is this thread and the information you can draw from it.

@Kitty

True. I agree it's pretty bad not to have posted yet, but since you have posted and you're suspicious, of course you're going to be voted. (and from my last game, I know ryan tends not to post as often)

Ryan posting a few things at a time is part of his meta. But how is the content of his posts? I am more interested in what he posts, rather then how much.

@Toro

I'm with #24 here, this certainly sounds real fishy to me. In a game of this size there'd have to be at least 2-3 scum members

I can safely assume that you mean just number 4 since you quoted it? Or did you mean all the points 2 to 4? or Just 2 and 4?

Also

Unvote
Vote: RedCoyote

No answer yet plus he RVS after RVS died as I stated and Shine did too. If you look at Red's only post, he only voted to:

DRK, you can call me RC or Red if you'd like.

hiphop, I hope my vote: dank satisfies your concern with my absence.

draw attention away from himself from lurking. No content, no reason, not even admitting he is RVSing. He read the game so far to know he got voted on, but he didn't address what is going on. This seems really scummy to me since he is putting minimal effort to divert the 1 man vote against him.

[DTMaster]

^ Ouch double post of walls with a EBWOP on the second one. :<

@ Hiphop

@Dtm Toro said he was agreeing to #24, as in Jason, not his points. His avatar has a 24 on the helmet.

Ah ok that makes much more sense now. Though I would have preferred if Toro answered me.

Could it possibly be because there are no other suspicious actions that have not been pointed out? As Dtm pointed out, the rvs ended in record time, perhaps that needs to be started again.

I disagree here. Discussion is key in scum hunting, not RVS. Besides it is too late to return to those times because many people are tunneling on you. They are going to keep you at the back of their minds (with the rest of the discussion so far) so it would just be counter productive.

@Ryan

Does anyone else have a weird vibe about the exchange between Hiphop's 22 and IK's 23? Who does everyone think is wrong, in that exchange? Hiphop for the logic of his IK vote, or IK for his explanation?

This is a null-tell to me actually. What hiphop stated was slightly inaccurate on his vote with IK. IK corrected it since there is a difference from "second vote" to "second vote on another person".

Can you explain your weird vibe here in more detail?

So you would rather vote lurkers than "scum number 1?" Usually, when you admit that your vote on lurkers is a pressure vote to get them to post, it doesn't work. Pressure votes lose their luster when people know they are for pressure to post.

Very good point. This makes hiphop look like he is keeping a backdoor to jump on the IK bandwagon when conditions are ideal. But lurker hunting is still beneficial to the town regardless of alignment.

Anyone else getting a weird vibe by this post. Sort of like, "If he is revealed as town, I told you it could of been lack of experience." Seems like a sort of fencesitting.

The newb card defense is weak in general, especially after hiphop mentions he has played 3 games.

3 games, all theme based, so not much. I am learning as I go. So please critique me anyway you can.

I have yet to do a meta read but even in theme games the basic mechanics are still there for mafia. It is a very defensive action for the RVS, I normally would expect something like this during a claim period around L-1.

DTM, you have read my meta? What games?

Nope because I don't have too much time to do a meta read at the moment, which is why I asked DRK for her thoughts. While meta reads are useful at times, I rather base an arguement against/for you with what you posted in game.

1.) This early in a game, I have no problem with hunch votes, but hunches have reasons now? I thought hunches were gut feelings, without any reason?

Hunch/gut votes have some reason behind it. Abet, this is really early for a good analysis I'm still interested with his thoughts on what Toro posted so far. But I agree with your second point because it makes little sense to do that without an explanation on why hiphop cannot explain his hunch at the moment.

[DTMaster]

@Idiot King

I have problems with these following quotes:

That didn't occur, however, because shortly thereafter I was pursued because of the unvote.

I can see how it'd be seen as contradictory. It would have been impossible for me to investigate at that exact point. Instead, I was hoping for something else to happen, some new development that I could see concerning the bandwagon. However, thing's didn't turn out as I'd expected.

I don't understand your reasoning on what is stopping

you from pursuing the bandwagon case

. Why does the town have to follow you on this rather then analyze you? This is a really poor excuse to use to defend yourself since there are more effective ways to generate discussion then "waiting for a new development". (I.e. Try a line of questioning with your defense)

FoS: Idiot King

While this is premature, TO THE TOWN: Doesn't Redcoyote's post seem odd to you guys? He used a post-RVS argument to support his RVS vote. His post still bothers me.

[DTMaster]

@RedCoyote

The game started on Saturday at Midnight, and you are talking about prods on Sunday at Midnight? This was effectively 24 hours into the game when you made this comment.

Um no. The first RVS so post #1 was Sat Aug 01, 2009 11:48 pm. My almost prod request was Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:16 am.

If you do your math correctly this is about 36 hours, not 24. If you look at the days, this is almost 2 days. Prods are sent out at the 72 hour mark according to Alex.

* I don't like lurkers. Please be ready to post at the very least once every 2 days. Treat this game like a commitment. I will prod anyone as soon as I become aware that they haven't posted for 72 hs or more. If you are going to go away and not have access for more than 3 days, you must write so in this game thread.

Your first post from the first RVS vote took place on Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:52 am which is about 36-37 hours hours. Like I said if you hadn't posted for another day (ie add 24 hours so around 60 hours later then we might have to prod you.)

About your vote though, look at your post.

DRK, you can call me RC or Red if you'd like.

hiphop,

I hope my vote: dank satisfies your concern with my absence.

You offered your explanation AFTER I noticed there was nothing supporting your vote, and 2 people pointed out the bold part. If you look at it in isolation, it looks like you are voting to just get rid of the lurker suspicion. You did not explain at that time why you couldn't offer an explanation. You even state:

I'm not going to say it's obvious

, <insert case against dank>

This is very scummy due to the timing of your posts. I won't accept the whole real life argument just because:

1. You could have said something if your real life is taking time away from the game in your first post.

2. You clearly read the game up to that point for that post and could have backed up your case with your first post.

dank jumped on what I thought was simply misspeak. The words "scum number 1" are interchangable with "sounding scummy" (e.g. Ik is scum number 1/Ik is sounding scummy).

Actually if you look at Dank's full post:

First of all, my case for idiotking being scum number 1, well he unvoted for someone, and his reason was that people were bw another person. What little evidence that is nobody else has more, so that makes him scum number 1. I didn't see this at first until dtm pointed it out.

As for why I am not voting for him, it is because he already has two votes on him, and I don't want scum to pounce on him without giving himself a chance to defend for himself. As I already explained I didn't know he had three votes on him.

Why I am voting for someone else, because he should at least have as long as someone else

who hasn't posted yet

. As far as I am concerned they haven't done anything yet to prove they are scum or town, and they are not giving me the fair chance of deciding whether they are scum or town.

The reason I voted for him in the first place was because of an abstract reason, the same as what everybody else was doing at that time.

Any questions I didn't answer yet?

So, you are fairly certain that Idiotking is "scum number 1" because he unvoted when a bandwagon was forming, yet don't want to vote him, the guy you confidently say is scum, because that'll build a bandwagon?

That makes sense. So does my vote.

You'll notice that dank's main and strongest point is the bandwagon logic issue. The rest of the town focused on the "vocabulary of that post". So this argument is a tad bit weak.

I will likely only make one or two posts every 24-48 hours, not including weekends. I encourage you to look through my meta, you'll find my activity in games tend to maintain this rate.

Another meta call? Ugh because I think this might assume too much of the player's gaming style. When I have time I'll look it over.

Are you not content with waiting for me to answer your accusations before you vote me because of them?

There is a concept called pressure voting. The difference between me and hiphop on how we used it was he publicly announced it when I didn't. We debated that pressure voting only works when you don't announce it. Now I am since you are questioning my vote.

You seem to be concerned by

1 vote

or

me putting you at L-6

. Unless you display something extremely scummy I doubt 6 people will jump the bandwagon within 48 hours that you are away. This has a defensive tone over something so minor, especially when there are 2 main bandwagons that are taking center stage.

Was there something specific you wanted me to address?

Only the questions in this post for now since you addressed your case in more detail with your second post. I don't care about your activity levels, only with the content of your posts. The whole problem I had with your first post was the lack of content you posted (which I answer more in detail above).

The first time you brought it up was understandable, albeit presumptive. The second time you brought it up was disconcerting. Now you bring it up a third time, without waiting for my response, in order to do what exactly?

Um.

1. Can you point out the 3 times I forced my case against you? In Isolation I can only see I addressed you specifically (and that point) were in ISO 7 and ISO 9, where ISO 9 is the question I asked the town and ISO 7 is where I presented the original case.

Unless you find that 3rd time before ISO 9 you are twisting my words, aka, pulling an argument out of thin air against me.

2. Since you aren't as active as the rest of the town I wanted some other input to my case. Which is why I asked: if that post was odd to anyone else. I don't see why you have a problem that I asked my question to the town in general.

If you looked at my vote post I didn't ask a specific question to anyone.

Unvote
Vote: RedCoyote

No answer yet plus he RVS after RVS died as I stated and Shine did too. If you look at Red's only post, he only voted to:

DRK, you can call me RC or Red if you'd like.

hiphop, I hope my vote: dank satisfies your concern with my absence.

draw attention away from himself from lurking. No content, no reason, not even admitting he is RVSing. He read the game so far to know he got voted on, but he didn't address what is going on. This seems really scummy to me since he is putting minimal effort to divert the 1 man vote against him.

So I wanted to be clear and ask a specific question to the town.

Can you explain why you are sensitive about this when I specifically asked for an open discussion with my ISO 9?

*fixed tags

[DTMaster]

@DRK
Whooops. Lol sorry about your gender mixup.

@Mod
Thanks for the fix on the quote.

*You're welcome.

[DTMaster]

@Zach

Why not? What's the point of RVS if it doesn't lead to a bandwagon? You could argue that it looks a bit more suspect if people are intentionally

avoiding

bandwagons in RVS.

By the way you can argue the reverse of that statement: Bandwagoning can be a scum sign because it is the best time to start one/be part of one. No one would question you and its the best time to pressure a townie to make slips. Like I said I rather judge people on their reactions, not on the bandwagon itself since it is a weak argument.

@Hiphop

One must realize that I am scum or town. I can’t be both. If I am scum then there might be suspicion on shrine, deathrow, dtm, for unvoting me, if I am lynched.

This is stretching the buddying argument quite a bit, and does not take into account that scum might distance/bus each other to try and get rid of suspicion.

Also your vote counting is stretching the bandwagon argument but it does have some merit to it. It might be too early to assume most scum are/were on your bandwagon though because that would be "too convenient". I would keep this in mind as the days go by to see if this holds true.

[DTMaster]

@Ryan

Whoops. I misread the quote, I thought you said Hiphop since the main discussion was on him. My bad.

So this quote below madeby you was in response to DRK's post?

I should have said "So, Ryan's lack of post is part of his meta?" Sorry about that confusion but yes I was just repeating what DRK said in my 72 and acknowledging the fact that she said this game play was part of your meta.

[DTMaster]

@Idiot King
In your 109 can you put your name with that quote. I know this is on the same page, but it makes looking up the source a lot easier (especially since it was the only quote. You can leave out the ="name" tag for a chain of quotes like in your 107)

@Redcoyote

Did you not read what I said? I was talking about prodding if you had not posted for

another day which I added up the hours for you equivalent to almost 60 hours in game if you did not post your vote. I did not said I wanted a prod at

36 hours in

, since it is unreasonable to ask you for that.

Quote in my iso 5:

One more day and we might need a prod

Overall though, I find that your posts are acceptable since you cover great detail in each post. I am willing to wait for them.

Did you consider asking me if this was what I meant before assuming this?

Yes, which is why I'm pressuring you to explain yourself. That is the entire concept of a pressure vote. Do I always have to ask you something to answer your reasoning?

In your response to DRK:

I was waiting for you to ask me.

I don't mind questions to clarify, or to expand on points. Even questions to make corrections to things. But when we have to ask you for your "core arguments" I find it problematic.

You stated your non-random vote on Dank's wasn't obvious, and I would assume you set it up so someone asks you for it. Then you will reply with a good analysis that you kept in reserve. We can go on for a WIFOM debate on why scum or town would do this, but I'll summarize my thoughts on this style: Easy to create a pro-town image, good backdoor exit if no one presses you, comes with an excuse: "you simply didn't ask me", and implies you only respond if something is addressed to you or someone addresses you.

If you honestly think that everyone has the same ability to keep tabs on the game as you do, and, further, they should be scolded if they do not meet this standard, than I would hope you're as stern with other players as you've been with me.

I'm not sure one sentence explaining your real life situation takes that much time. I find it just responsible to explain yourself in situations where a full post is needed, but you cannot answer it yet at that time.

Has dank asked you to speak on his behalf?

Actually no. I gave my interpretation on a more pressing part of your argument (his bandwagon logic) rather then simple misinterpretation of words (that you haven't debunked yet. Just restated your point.) Since you didn't call him out when he posted without answering you:

Dank: What are your thoughts on RedCoyote's case against you? And since I did it anyways: your thoughts on my criticism on that one line.

My fault for answering/questioning your case. Your fault for not pursuing on it even though danks posted after your case.

why were you asking other players to back up your wagon in post 79?

I wanted more outside input on this case. I'm not asking players to back me up, I asked them if they found something odd with your first post in isolation and if there is something I missed when I looked at it. If there was nothing there to incriminate you, then there is nothing there.

Wait, you were calling me defensive?

Yes I was with my whole L-6 statement.

Shouldn't you be more concerned with figuring out the truth than looking like you are being tough against someone?

I am, but we have very little to base a good case on since it is just 5 pages in. Exploring your reactions would be the best way to make a good read. If I find something odd in a post, I will point it out and shift my thoughts in that direction.

I just find some problems with some of your reactions, so I'm stressing on it. But I think it's time for me to do a quick re-read of everything so far to see how things are going and post my general comments. I notice that I am starting to tunnel a bit with RC which I don't want to do unless I'm certain of his scumminess.

[DTMaster]

EBWOP: Actually, my bad on this statement:

Since you didn't call him out when he posted without answering you:

Dank: What are your thoughts on RedCoyote's case against you? And since I did it anyways: your thoughts on my criticism on that one line.

My fault for answering/questioning your case. Your fault for not pursuing on it even though danks posted after your case.

I didn't finish reading your post when I was answering the questions addressed to me so I retract this since you are questioning him.

[DTMaster]

Nice activity to catch up to for a change, here are some thoughts that haven't been said that I thought should be pointed out.

@Toro

Your 121 bothers me with this line:

Pretty much all the talk about me just jumping on the hiphop bandwagon,

the reasons were there for my vote, they just weren't mine.

You admit you are weak at scum hunting, but the bolded part doesn't jive well with me since it makes you look like you are going with the town flow.

@Hiphop

Your 123 makes little sense since you don't have to revote after your RVS. In face I would be concerned if you took it to the extreme and randomly voted, unvoted, and revoted. There are more ways to play then that.

The rest of your arguments make sense, abet in different words from what I would say. Just wanted to clarify, are you using your gut feeling in that statement, or is it just a random vote? (See your 125)

@DRK
Wait wut? Did you just seriously ask for a claim in your 146? Bad rolefishing! Bad!

@Ryan
It is still early to say we have good logic. The only definite way have any information is the start of day 2 when we have some concrete proof of at least a couple of people.

I still consider everything is up in the air, with

lots of speculation

and WIFOM arguments. But that doesn't mean we can't take good notes or forgo scumhunting.

Also can you elaborate more on IK and Hiphop's responses and how IK's demonstrate better logic then hiphop's? Also can you also elaborate more on "IK has a legitimate excuse" ?

[DTMaster]

@ Mod
Lols, and kudos to the unstable mind status. :3

@RC
Annoyance noted. :p

But your little taunt:

Well, that's for you to figure out now, isn't it?

Gives me a bad gut feeling. I'll just make note of that for now.

@DRK
Actually I thought you meant a cop claim, not the scum claim. When I reread it again the sarcasm hit me.

We have 6+ pages of posts to use with more coming. We have everyone's thoughts recorded and IMO, that's better than any evidence the night actions can give us. I'm not saying we shouldn't use the night actions to our advantage, but I don't see why there can't be any logic without them.

Which is why in the second sentence I said that "doesn't mean we can't take good notes or forgo scumhunting". I agree with everything you say, but if you are looking at some concrete evidence then Day 2 is the only day we have something like that to continue on.

@Exchange b/w dank , DRK, and RC
There is also the vote count. Do people read them anymore?

@Hiphop
When RVS is over depends on the person really. I think its over when discussion begins. Other people think its over at the end of day 1 because
they view day 1 discussion as poor evidence for a good lynch.

[DTMaster]

Jason your latest post bothers me again.

Mod: Where did toro vote himeslf? I don't remember him doing that.

*Remember when I told you that your mind could play games with you? Well... it seems to playing games with me too... After all, I'm your subconscience.

I double checked this list. It should be fine.

I'm very happy with the activity so far. Keep up the good work!

------------------

Those in danger of suppression #6:

dank (1)

-

RedCoyote

hiphop (2)

-

Zachrulez, ryan2754

jasonT1981 (1)

-

DeathRowKitty

RedCoyote (1)

-

DTMaster

toro (3)

-

hihop, Paradoxombie, dank

Not Voting (4)

-

Idiotking, Shrinehme, Toro, jasonT1981

Happiness with Posting Level:

HAPPY!

Mod's State of Mind:

UNSTABLE

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

This is the latest vote count show that no one is in danger of getting lynched. Votes become dangerous at two times:

1. A deadline day.
2. At the end game.

We are at neither position. So I cannot see the "danger" that you present from voting. By withholding your vote and being cautious, I see more scumminess then township. This is a bit WIFOMish but it is one way to limit the use of your voting record in a case against you. Also this leaves you open to every bandwagon when an opprotunity arises and cause a mislynch.

Unvote

[/b] Vote: Jason [/b]

[DTMaster]

EBWOP: Urk

Vote: Jason

[DTMaster]

@Ryan

Question 1: Don't understand what you are asking. Is it that you are asking me why I think IK's response to my accusations is better than hiphop's. If so, then the quick answer is that IK actually defended against the attacks whereas hiphop just said "I can't argue because they are facts."But, according to what IK said about facts, those are necessarily facts. Thus, hiphop CAN defend against them. I am still waiting a defense.

Question 2: I never said "excuse," I said "response." Thus, when you initially read my post did you see/read/think I said 'excuse,' or did you accidently type it in wrong and think I read 'response?'

1. Yes you answered it correctly. Point noted.

2. Whoops I meant response. Brain fart when I was typing, but yes I want you to elaborate on how IK had a more legitimate response then hiphop.

@RC
Actually you pointed a potential OMGUS FOS on ryan with 177 right there.

[DTMaster]

Time to catch up again. Sorry guys but I've been working more hours lately. :<

@IK

And as I've already repeatedly said, I don't like voting people when 1. they've already got too many votes on them and 2. it's too early in the game. I like voting when I have a reasonably strong case in my eyes, one that I've built myself, not borrowed from others.

How about started by others? Shine and I started the RC analysis. I would add vagueness to your argument against RC though with his recent 1 line finishers with his responses. See:

Well, that's for you to figure out now, isn't it? Wink

This is a big call for a meta check on RC (but I can't do it right now since I have another long shift tomorrow) before you continue this debate.

195: BTW Anti-town and pro-scum are different. Some people who are town aligned can be very anti town. Take lurking for an example, usually associated with scum or PRs.

@DRK

What would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was?

I don't want to answer for RC but I think he did in his 184.

RC: Can you clarify why you chose to not reveal your reason for the dank vote in your first post?

Offtopic: Math nerd You have the proof to Fermat's last theorem in reserve, page numbers and all? Though this would be a brutal post restriction if you could only post in mathematical proofs.

@Jason
Premature but helloo? You there still? Thoughts on my vote/point/etc? Just a reminder since it's gotten drowned in the other posts.

@Toro
What is your answer to your own question?

@Town
If you find you confirm a meta check can you link the game and such please? I'll do the same when I get a chance to.

[DTMaster]

Urk. Note to self sleep first, then post.

@Toro
I meant statement. So this:

There's a difference between 'looking' scummy and 'being' scummy.

@RC
Your reasoning for your vote, and such can be argued by OMGUS. Abet it has more ground then if you voted me when I first attacked your "first post", it is still an unfavorable position to be in. What do you have to say to the OMGUS argument?

As I've said, I was gauging reactions to my comment. It's not an altogether uncommon strategy, but it does entail a degree of risk. I think good quality scumhunting can be done when reading who people go on offense against, how they do this, what arguments they use, etc.

Interesting style and quite effective. I can see your POV for this.

[DTMaster]

Welcome don! I'm at work atm so I can't do my usual round of posts today. I'll see if I can do them on Sunday the latest.

[DTMaster]

I'm going to bold my responses. Too many things to quote tag in. I will underline important points as I go along.

@IK
218: TOWN! Is it possible that DRK and RC are buddying each other ever so slightly, or is this just me being paranoid?

Actually I see a reason why you can put the buddying argument on those two. They are expanding on each other's cases which can mean a few things:

1. Scum team partner.
2. Active town/scum [or townies] working together on a case.

Tough to say at this moment because of both pro-town and pro-scum arguments. I'll do an iso read later to see if I catch something.

@DRK

223: You used that to justify your comment about how he should be trying to change your opinion. I don't see how it has any relevance. FYI, your infamous "Person A, Person B" analogies don't apply unless your situation is represented. You just made up a situation that you implied is the same as yours and want to have us take your side in it.

That is usually called a meta defense if I'm not mistaken. Do you not see how meta can be used to defend this position or do you discount it? Explain how.

223: But there ARE other options for reads on people. The only reason you should have a completely pro-town or pro-scum read on someone at this point in the game is that you're scum. You asked for my read on RC and gave me two options: 100% pro-town or 100% pro-scum.

Actually you forget mason and lovers roles. They reveal a partner role, (usually town confirmed).

233: If anyone's still following this, please give an opinion.

Both of you are presenting very valid quotes/points. But an issue is, um DRK you are defending RC. RC should be more capable of defending himself no?

This comes down to difference of opinion where the final issue is: Do you believe RC's explanation or not. I see more of two townies duking it out over a difference of opinion in this whole mess.

250

Meta call noted

@Jason
Remember to answer my post. These walls are drowning it down.

@Hiphop

Um wut. Quote wars is anti-town? Explain what did IK do that you can't apply this to DRK. It takes two to war it out my good sir. Also way to jump onto the bandwagon again with repeated arguments on your 235 and 247. I request your detailed case on IK with more original thoughts please.

FoS: Hiphop

@Don
Well if you don't do real catch up posts can you do a quick mini analysis on your top 3 scummiest players?

@General Town Notes
Please note we had not discounted neutral factions: survivors, SKs, etc. Might be something to keep to the back of your head in the whole process as the day ends.

Also the town is a bit stagnant with the recent post duel. So to every town person thoughts on the debate.

[DTMaster]

URK. I didn't bold everything. Oh well, but I hope everyone knows the difference from the quote and my own statement. I can reedit if you want to (/tiredness from work) tomorrow.

[DTMaster]

@IK
Before you do more OMGUS reasoning, I asked RC this in my 213 since I predicted this issue would come up. He responded by:

That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.

I intend to make a more organized, more succinct case against Ik, referencing his play so far as a whole.

I would hope the town does not see my vote merely as an OMGUS reaction, but moreso as a calculated opinion reached after having paid close attention to not just Ik, but the entire town.

I'm very interested in this case before we sidetrack on the whole OMGUS reaction.

@DRK
I'm pointing out things that we should consider while scumhunting. I believe these are the "shades of grey" that you might come across, rather then just town or scum. Again I did say you need to keep this in the back of your mind.

I don't see how his defense applies at all. He created a new situation, in which we clearly had to side with him, and was using that to show he was right in his current situation.

Urk sorry lack of sleep = misread. I was commented in the bandwagoning issue, not the "person a/person b scenarios"

At the core of the "person a/ person b scenario" IK worded in a way that would force us to side with him, with a side order of WIFOM in it. But its far from a "new scenario".

His first person a/person b represented the whole RVS issue. (See IK's ISO 23).

His second person a/person b outlines difference in opinions (ie me vs RC). (See IK's ISO 27).

This is very true because the purpose of your argument is to find loop holes in IK's RC arguments. These loop holes will lead to finding scum tells, which will lead to finding out if he is the most likely scum to lynch. The other side is to test these loop holes and watch his reactions for any town tells. There would be no point in your current argument if you aren't doing either. You are voting for him after all.

IK's last person a/person be outlines the OMGUS argument (See IK's ISO 31)

Ik 191 wrote:
I think it's pretty defensive when [RC] says that you're suspicious for suspecting them.

Ah, ok, this will do nicely Ik.

I'm going to vote: Idiotking on the back of this comment. Unlike DTM, DRK, Toro, ryan, or Shrine, who, so far as I can tell, may have had misconceptions about me and my infamous post, but never made it a point to exaggerate anything I may have said or did, this comment definitely strikes me as inflated for effect.

Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.

The OMGUS argument was going to come out, I predicted this with my exchange with RC in the above quote I said addressed to IK. In isolation this looks really badly since it portrays: "I am pro-town, I made them have a reaction to judge town tells with a psudo-random vote. One of 3 guys are pursing it. He must be scum because he is pursuing it very actively (and possibly out of proportion)." Which is why I'm interested in this case that RC said he would do a case based on the entire town action to show how IK is scum. It's a tall order, but I'm willing to wait a little bit for it.

If I missed any, can you point them out?

Mod: Can you prod ryan? Its been about 72 hours since his last post.

*Ryan DOESN'T need a prod... check your math...

[DTMaster]

@Mod

Well I guess I jumped the gun. Ryan's last post was Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:40 pm. about 5-6 more hours couldn't hurt :p

@DRK
The bandwagon issue is the one I pointed out on hiphop correct? Just wanted to clarify.

But your argument about your arguments make little sense. You started off with the initial premise that IK was very scummy. As your case developed you start seeing more town signs then scum signs. The fact that you pointed out his flaws are giving red flags for the rest of the town to critique. This is basic scum hunting on IK really, alerting us to these inconsistencies.

If you aren't convinced that he is scum, you are doing a really good job flagging IK's arguments for an easy attack. (see the current vote count and current turnover to vote IK). Also you are diverting attention from actual scum hunting if you really believe his town tells. Town activity died from your little quote war.

I want you to reaffirm, who do you think is scummy then? Why are you tunneling IK when you just said you aren't breaking down his case to find scum signs, and just prove that IK's points are just stretching his arguments?

Indirectly, by challenging IK's case with your current arguments, it sets him up to be very scummy. But that isn't your purpose is it?, you just wanted to prove that his case wasn't correct.

@IK
You have to admit, that is an extensive post to make. It is going to have time considering RC needs to sift through the entire thread. If he doesn't deliver something of that nature, then I would get more suspicious then.

[DTMaster]

Sorry DRK I've been getting tons of hours lately so I'll be late in my usual response. Its in the works and saved in my gmail draft :3

But also our mod is getting sadder and sadder on our posting level. We might want to watch out on that.

[DTMaster]

@DRK
Question 1: Yes I am plus your meta call about IK's martyr play.

I'm saying that his case is a scum sign. The fact that he's willing to defend a crap case so strongly tells me that he doesn't actually care whether or not RC is scum, just that he gets lynched.

Yet this is sub optimal play for day one scum. It's in my gut right now that its the "town going out on the limb" rather then "scum doing everything to lynch x person". I would be more inclined to make this argument when it is closer to the end game where it is tougher on scum teams.

How do you think I should have challenged his case then? As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't look scummy unless my accusations are true.

I would have challenged IK's case in a similar manner if I was focused on looking at his scumminess. With your recent response in 262, I interpreted as: You were looking at "why he was just wrong not why is he scummy from his responses" But on a reread I understand that you got these scum-signs after you started your initial questioning.

Also you didn't clarify your question in 262.

I'll try to be more clear next time, plus you could always ask me to restate/clarify something you don't understand.

@RC
An issue with your case.

1. Logical Fallacy can be argued by simple difference of opinion. While it is true that IK's posts heavily implies extreme views, this can be written off by conflicting ideologies between two players. It is not necessarily scummy nor townie to have a different logic process. Plus see my DRK response for additional reasons why IK's actions can be viewed in a townie light.

Overall I agree that you have very valid points.

@Ryan
Good luck with medical school and everything.

@Jason
Ouchies 64 mb ram is really old.

@Don
Status report on your reread and such?

@To myself Outloud.
My original question to Jason is drowning with the recent charges of IK. As the IK debate goes on it makes me wonder if everyone is tunneling too strongly. Scum can easily slip in the debate and bandwagon onto IK (or bus IK for scummy validity), I should look into the vote count reasoning for everyone's votes. This gets harder to debate with others with the recent inactive calls.

[DTMaster]

Just dropping in since I didn't get a chance to do my summary post. I'll be able to sit down and reread around 6-7PM MST (more IRL plans) till then. For now I'll just answer the following questions since I'm really tired (midnight here):

@DRK

See 296:

1. I was referring to your 270.
2. Yes it is very arguable for both interpretations. But at that time I found it more valid that IK was heavily tunneling. Recently his focus has been shifted towards hiphop (who I admit has his scummy/suspicious moments is also an easier target).
3. RC doesn't have to be lying for IK to be townie that is tunneling. We can WIFOM debate here, but that just gets confusing.

@Jason

It might be semantics but I believe there is a difference between 100% certainty (see your ISO 11) and just being cautious.

My little statement is found in my ISO 18. Its not a direct question but comment (worried about those walls. Rereading them is a toughie)

Jason your latest post bothers me again.

Mod: Where did toro vote himeslf? I don't remember him doing that.

*Remember when I told you that your mind could play games with you? Well... it seems to playing games with me too... After all, I'm your subconscience.

I double checked this list. It should be fine.

I'm very happy with the activity so far. Keep up the good work!

------------------

Those in danger of suppression #6:

dank (1)

-

RedCoyote

hiphop (2)

-

Zachrulez, ryan2754

jasonT1981 (1)

-

DeathRowKitty

RedCoyote (1)

-

DTMaster

toro (3)

-

hihop, Paradoxombie, dank

Not Voting (4)

-

Idiotking, Shrinehme, Toro, jasonT1981

Happiness with Posting Level:

HAPPY!

Mod's State of Mind:

UNSTABLE

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

This is the latest vote count show that no one is in danger of getting lynched. Votes become dangerous at two times:

1. A deadline day.
2. At the end game.

We are at neither position. So I cannot see the "danger" that you present from voting. By withholding your vote and being cautious, I see more scumminess then township. This is a bit WIFOMish but it is one way to limit the use of your voting record in a case against you. Also this leaves you open to every bandwagon when an opportunity arises and cause a mislynch.

Unvote

[/b] Vote: Jason [/b]

@Town
I'm tired so I might have missed something, can you point out something that you addressed to me that I might have forgotten?

@MOD

Unstable flavour lols. But worry some at the same time D:.

* Err... Did I miss something?

[DTMaster]

Urk. Meta signals tingling. Something feels wrong here. Town thoughts?

Note: Martyrdom is part of IK's town play, supported by DRK and IK's link. Even if it could be sub-optimal martyr play.

I'll post a few thoughts of my own for now while Jason sorts his computer problems.

@RC
Your 328 somewhat bugs me for a minor reason.

1. I read some points as conflicting Mafia Game Play Ideologies which to me is a null tell (see 305 and 306 analysis), not a scum tell. Its a repeat in what I stated earlier, but I see it again.

@IK
BTW for your info: A miller is a weird role. It's town, but to all cop investigations shows up as guilty. So like a psudo-scum aligned townie. It usually acts like a title to attach to a PR usually. :p

I would rather focus on looking at Toro, Zach and Jason right now but they are V/LA or having issues. So for now: Don Status report!

I'm going to do a hiphop reread right now as well. Gut is bugging me with the IK vote right now.

[DTMaster]

Er EBWOP: Even if it is sub-optimal martyr play.

[DTMaster]

@Hiphop

That would give a ton of serious busing for his scum mates for that theory. Plus it is really, really, I mean really, sub-optimal to martyr for his scum buddies on day one. (I would make it sub-sub-sub optimal).

If IK flips scum it would mean we would need to double check DRK and RC for busing, not just you. I doubt it would be "that easy" that scum-IK would out his buddies in a busing maneuver like this.

Suspicion is thrown your way for reasons different from this though (ie I have issues with your vote since it looks like you just slipped in with some repetitive comments and placed a non-suspect vote behind the wall duels/quote wars)

[DTMaster]

@Mod

Sniff. Nooo! I have disappointed you!

@DRK
That meta also supports his extreme views as a townie as well. (potential point to support my difference of opinion thought)

But I agree with that assessment. As it stands right now town-IK could be easily tunneling on a town-RC (which worries me right now since if this is true scum is taking the back seat on this) for all the right reasons in the wrong way. I view martyr play as desperate and anti town for the reason that if you were town you should be worried about scum hunting, not self voting to prove a point.

There are a lot of risks involved with that play if you do that.

We also have the issue of today being day 1 just due to no concrete evidence of confirmed townies/scum.

[DTMaster]

"tries to excuse himself to do the lack of content to analyze due to the V/LAs"
"fails"
"is struck by blue lightning"

[DTMaster]

@Work so I will give my top suspicions on people I have some problems with.

Not in any order.

1. Toro
2. Jason
3. Hiphop/IK

1 and 2 I have problems with some of their style, thoughts and will need to revist it to make sure.

3. I lean towards Hiphop more then IK right now just based on gut reasons and the meta call.

Hiphop. Why didn't you say it was a gut, but repeated all the same arguments before your IK vote. I find it a bad attempt to appear pro-town with just repeatition, and I find it scummy since it looks like you have nothing to contribute. (I'll quote when I get home)

[DTMaster]

@Hiphop
Upon a quick reread (now at home :3) and some thought to your different syntax I guess I understand.

@Don
While it was unforeseen it might have been just as effective to wait for dank at this rate. :< Don't mean to be rude or anything but I cannot have any analysis with so little to read.

@Ryan
You promised to post for today. Even something regarding the status of your analysis would be something to help us. I know you have RL issues to deal with such as moving to med school but I frown upon the lateness without a good reason.

@Zach
I'll wait for that post. But before the 10th you were very lurkey (outlined again by the rest of the town) so I would like you to explain your reasons why you didn't post.

@Town
While Iso reading Zach and Toro (and noting that they are V/LA around the same time) something feels off from what they posted. Does anyone else feels this way? I'm going to look at the beginning of the day to see if I can pick something.

[DTMaster]

@Shrine
I disagree on the fact that recycling arguments can't be seen as a scum sign. It depends how it is done. If a large wall of rehash is then followed by a vote, it makes me think that the person is trying very hard to appear pro-town without doing so. But if someone agrees or plays off another person's case (with of course some repeats) then it will be more null-tell.

An "I agree" then a vote looks a little better to me then "a repeat/unnecessary wall" and vote.

/off topic

@Toro/Ryan
I await your analysis

@Hiphop
Um. Your 366 feels like a repeat of my question that Jason kinda answers in 318. (Though he did not comment to my specific 171). I recommend a reread of that since he states he's not 100% sure that IK is scum, but with his current reasoning it is the closest in his head.

I'm willing to give him more time with his computer problems and all to answer.

@Town
Sorry for not doing my usual posting (more work plus a birthday I went to, yay!)

[DTMaster]

@Jason

1. If you are referring to the thought wagon against Zach then that 1 post is a pretty poor way to attack Kitty. If you read

his

Iso 41 it was a basic summary of all his thoughts on the lurkers. Kitty saw Jack as a neutral person (with real life commitments) based on this post.

2. You said: "This bothers me.. though I did mention originally about Zach not posting much, I was aware he was V L/A and was going on what he had already posted before hand and his activity in post... Kitty deliberately left a big part out of Zachs very same post he quotedto make it look bad I feel "

Have you looked at Zach's posts in iso?

His dates starting on Iso 3 are (with a total of 11 whole posts.):

3,4,5,6,6,8,10,14,14.

Zach was up to date (posting small paragraphs up till the 6th) then he fell behind on the scumhunting. He admit he got lazy in his iso 10 and in comparison to the active half of town, Zach got drowned out by the hyper activity. So how doesn't it look like Zach vanished from the scene.

This is a weak line of attacking, especially if you sift through that wall duel, that DRK is setting up a secondary case on Zach. With his list in iso 54, he would be going after you or hiphop over Zach. I'm going to need more proof then that if you want to boost your argument.

[DTMaster]

@Ryan

1. Did you know this was in response to the list you made at that time:

Suspicions
High: Hiphop
Growing to High: Jason
Medium: Toro, IK

You FoS: Paradox, but "your scum/suspicious list" reflects the current town feeling at that time. You gave a detailed reason against Paradox but a lot of it clarified your case on how scummy hiphop is.

I don't under stand the transition between your FoS, your list and your counter-post to Paradox to explain why hiphop is scummier then IK. You don't elaborate on why Paradox deserves the FoS in your 177.

It looks like you are scum keeping the bandwagon opening, OMGUSing against the person who raised some flags against you, and didn't follow through that FoS in that list. A potential scum slip? I view it as so when RC pointed it out and your current statement about that FoS.

You also lied that "you didn't FoS" in 177. See below:

Umm, no, it's not FOS. Re-read the post, and you will see it's not OMGUS.

7.) Majority? There was one other vote on hiphop at the time. The bandwagon had fallen apart. There was no majority when I VOTED.

FOS: paradox

Unvote

Vote Ryan 177

[DTMaster]

EBWOP: Lol 177 is on my brains.

Vote:Ryan2754

[DTMaster]

@Ryan

Um we don't have any confirmed alignment. How did you do that list?

For all we know it could be Town DRK defending Town RC from tunneling Town IK. (Which is my current interpretation right now unless new evidence comes up)

I think it's premature to look at alignments like that without concrete evidence. It is much more revealing to do action and gauging reaction then question the setup right now. You assume too much when at least 1 of them has to be scum (and the whole team could be the other townies)

Also
Elaborate on: "@Hiphop: Definitely don't like your vote on hiphop for a subpar reason "

Hiphop didn't self vote so what is the corrected version of this line?

Toro just posted a "I'm rereading post so broke free from the prod". The general case against Toro is: he is not contributing to scum hunting, he admits he is going with the flow and he might be stressing the newbie card too much (the last argument is from my own personal notes).

What are your thoughts on the Toro case (once you reread it since you asked for my view point which "might be a little biased" I recommend reading his stuff on your own to make your own opinion to avoid that issue)

BTW you disliked my 338. Elaborate? Or was it DRK's post? Clarify please.

[DTMaster]

@Ik

Ask yourself: How bad is your real life commitments vs this mafia game? Then the answer will come.

[DTMaster]

@Toro

Here is how you are playing the newbie card:

1. Your join date is July 15 2009. You are fairly new at this fourm (likewise me)

2. (Link to help the town sift)

I point out you are going with the flow in 152.
You point out said you were in 161.
Zach coaches you in 162.
You said you are still developing your style in 163.

This reads as developing newbie (which I'm letting it slide for now but might become an issue in the future). You aren't explicitly playing that card but it's hinted in this exchange.

@RC
I like it since it's good advice. My first newbie game finished an a person got lynched in the second day for fence sitting, going with the town flow, and overplaying the newbie card. (I can meta it now since it's complete. Look at Maij in this game and the case that Exalt pushed on her. )

So whether or not it's scum coaching, or town coaching I still see it as good advice. That exchange is a null-tell to me to establish a link between the two players.

[DTMaster]

@Toro
Ok. But it makes no sense from that exchange, your game record in your sig, and the join date. If you aren't new at mafia, then you are playing very suspiciously.

By now you

should know that going with the flow is very bad for town game play

if you weren't a newb. It tacks on the bandwagoning case against you, and failing to provide new input for scum hunting.

------
EDIT: After reading the most recent post.

Wait you admit it now after Jason pointed it out? Why the change?

(Also a newb and a noob have diffrent meanings. The former being the more positive one by the way. So if you are implying something from your 398...)

[DTMaster]

Ugh sorry. I forgot to respond to this game yesterday when I was doing my rounds of posting. :<

@Ryan

Comments:
1. FoS must have a different meaning for you then me because according to the wiki: LINK HERE

Coined by Internet Stranger, and used to formally indicate "you're being watched." It's grown to be more like a Vote, but one that doesn't count towards a Lynch and isn't recorded by the mod.

It can be an implicit way of saying "I might vote for you."

By this definition of FoS it should imply you can make a case against Paradox. So it makes no sense for me to FoS paradox on one scumtell (it does make sense to address it or point it out and go: "I find this suspicious"). From the wiki definition of FoS it definitely makes it look like an OMGUS FoS against paradox when she attacked that post. (Plus you didn't state why you FoS'd, even if it was obvious. Reading your post makes it look jumpy since it combined your case on hiphop with your reaction to Paradox into one thing)

Since this might turn into an argument about interpretation of FoS, I want you to define how you use FoS and if you can meta link to show how you use FoS in the same way. It will clarify things here since I see FoS as more serious accusations (with more backing) then pointing out just one scum sign.

2. The reasoning behind why I stated that was: you did not pursue more on paradox. Reading the original post was reading your case on hiphop, more then your reasoning behind your FoS on paradox. (Like I said earlier, it wasn't clear since you combined so many ideas into one post). If you really felt that the FoS had some merit to it, you would point it out like your 404 and do some side scum hunting. To me this either reads as the following: tunneling on hiphop, ineffective scum hunting, or someone who doesn't want to push the paradox envelope because she is considered as non-suspicious.

3. What don't you like about DRK's 337?

4. I agree with your analysis of Toro. For a player with experience he is playing very anti-town. It does warrant a look into.

5. Um I disagree that townies should always be defensive to prevent a mislynch. When faced with a mistake or error, it is much better to admit to it then to try and defend that action. It just fuels the "defensiveness argument", which might lead into a "white lie", "overreactions" and "over analyzing situation".

Besides one of the best defenses as a townie when faced with a strong case against them is to scumhunt and outline an offensive case as the defense (ie make a good case on someone else). Playing too defensively in that situation can be easily turned into scum's favour.

@Paradox
1. If you look at that newbie card comment, it is much more suspicious since Toro just admitted he isn't a newbie at mafia. Jason feds him his defense of being newbie to the site. (See: 393, 397, 398, 400) I normally would let this slide as a neutral call but potential Toro-Jason link?

@Toro
Current reads on the town? What are they and why?

[DTMaster]

Wait. Just on the RVS?

Zach has it right clarify please. Here is some motivation.

Unvote

Vote: Don_johnson

[DTMaster]

@Don

1. If scum is so obvious, then it would be easy to point out IK's faults. The town would have probably lynched him by now if it was that obvious. Can you feel free to elaborate to clear the air about this?

2. Oh wow soft claiming town PR this early with the "time is an issue" is really just awful and a bad excuse. If this is true then you are outing yourself for no reason, and the best response is /replace out if your real life is getting out of hand to play this game. Real life comes first, then mafia. If the time restraints are part of your role then it only makes me think of this: "time bomb".

3. This is after RVS. IK developed much stronger tells after the RVS around page 7. To base your vote on the RVS this late in the day is just plain dumb when you have a slew of information to look at and develop

that strong case

.

My vote stays since this was a disappointing post from your return.

[DTMaster]

1. Yes useless to explain how IK is scum. /sarcasm.

2. Claiming PR doesn't make you all mighty and all knowing good sir. Nor does it clear you. A PR claim only has merit when it cannot be counter claimed and can only be supported through cop investigations, and/or watcher/tracker night actions.

You aren't "automatically" cleared just because of this, nor does this narrow down the pool of potential lynches. Lying, vague scum is just as plausible as vague (found in the subtext of such a claim: asking for a night protect) PR.

3. You didn't read my posts obviously (and as you stated), I read IK as neutral frustrated townie, not scummy. His actions fit his town meta call. Before your vote I felt Zach, Jason and Toro deserve much more scrutiny then what IK presented. Right now I question your motives right here and now. To me it smells of scum gambit, not pro-town scum hunting.

Also voting based on just RVS information is silly, you have almost year of experience on mafia scum and should know what the response would be if you just did that.

There is a difference between being active and playing dumb. Don, and so far you haven't done the former with that post.

This is your case, you defend it. I don't have the gruff against IK. Right now using RVS is the weakest argument possible against IK.

4. BTW your reasoning with shrine makes little sense. There are no reasons why scum wouldn't target a softclaimed PR if that person was actually town. It's more likely that the kill will fail to resolve then scum deciding to target another pro-town player.

5. Nice rhetorical question. Post when you ask someone and tell them to not answer in the same post. Abrasive to judge a person's reactions, but if someone ignores your comments and its addressed to them it makes them look like they are avoiding discussion. GJ on the trap.

My vote stays claim or not. I want to hear you reasoning and why before I move it. Also at no circumstance should you claim right now if you are a real PR. My number 2 contradicts this in a way, but I am more interested in your POV on the case rather then your claim.

[DTMaster]

Actually IK describe his meta for me. Depending on this play I can see both good and bad sides. The good being very rewarding if he plays with his gut and likes generating reactions from the town.

[DTMaster]

@Don

1. I'm willing to risk the ramifications on arguing against a Town PR, that is my call.

2. Explain by what you mean: "you shouldn't read". As far as I know I'm asking you

to read the arguments past page 7

.

3. You claimed PR. This is gutsy and can heavily benefit the town. But

you did not present your case on IK. This is the main reason why I'm keeping my vote on you.

The other side to claiming an unnamed PR is to make people wary of voting for you. I can WIFOM debate this but I rather not. This is one scum gambit reasoning. Also scum-you would also control the NK results which can pay off in the large run.

I'm wary of the reasoning until you present the case. You asked me why I haven't attacked IK, its because his meta shows his subpar actions as town tells. I'm asking you to support you case again. Please do, either on me or IK.

4. Ideally I agree I should wait for day 2 before continuing this case since the night results would be much more telling. I'm not pushing for a lynch, nor a claim. If you want to know I'm pressuring you to explain your case in more detail. Again did you read my last statement? I'll be more willing to move only after you answer me.

No threat = no response = I'm waiting till day 2 to get your answer. I hate waiting for answers, I'll meta this if you want.

5. Expand you case against me using my past posts. My recent posts are very scummy (yes I'm attacking a claimed unknown PR), but what are your thoughts on my previous actions? How do they make me scummy?

[DTMaster]

Eww simupost. I'm going to assume you meant IK right?

[DTMaster]

Don there is 4 days till deadline. If you cant post something substantial in 4 whole days V/LA out of here or go replace out. I don't have tolerance for this kind of action after my first game went down in flames when 2 townies were anti-town enough to stop answering all questions asked. Needless to say the town lost.

[DTMaster]

Anyone who's interested the meta link is here Go to day 3ish. There is the reason why I have no tolerance for this kind of play, it's plain anti-town to not answer questions addressed to you.

Also Don, you aren't going to expand your case against me? I'm obviously taunting you here. Please do. It will only benefit your cause on why you are right and I'm scum here.

* Fixed /url tag

[DTMaster]

Whoops fail tags >>

Mod can you fix the [ / b ] into a [ / url]?

[DTMaster]

Yes because looking for other input is that bad. /sarcasm

I recommend you read my posts before you accuse me of "needing your participation". Explain to me how in this entire game I was useless? Hm? You imply this in your recent post.

I'm not budging, that is giving you the benefit of the doubt with your recent actions just cause you claim to be a PR. Blatantly ignoring my direct questions isn't scummy

but it's heavily anti-town and I'm willing to policy lynch anyone on sight for it.

[DTMaster]

@DRK
Actually my vote is very sub-optimal play. Ideally as dj said: I should wait till day 2 because it would literally confirm if he is town or not. If he lives for what ever reason, then it is the best time to proceed. I acknowledge this.

My meta and policy on answering questions stemmed from that game which I am willing to follow though on sub-optimal play. Also you can analyze the reactions of the town for scum links. If scum sees a townie raising a case on a PR, then you can bet they want to fan the argument further.

[DTMaster]

@RC

Response your 444:

No I disagree that a townie should just get their vote on the table when they are

not fully informed of the most recent activity

, even if this is day one. I don't mind point out suspicion based on the earlier comments, but I expect a person at least to read the most recent pages. An informed vote is much better then an uninformed vote.

@Shrine
I thought I said I voted for a pressure vote, I guess I wasn't clear enough. My 414 was before the claim, my willing to move it was shown after the claim.

@Myself
After some reflection, I hand the towel to don. Don will reply as he wills and depending on the night results I'll continue my case on him. That doesn't mean I'll let you go without answering me once you have caught up on the game.

IGMEOY: don

Personally I favour a Toro lynch above IK or Jason. If you read his posts in isolation you'll see very little analyzation and very little content to get a read on.

Jason posted a very good summary post in his ISO 16, but twisted his ankle with his DRK case.

IK gave us a good read with his quote wars, and his most recent vote on don (similar arguments that apply to me apply to IK as well). I was hesitant to vote for IK due to his town meta, but a lot of scum points were added on in the recent exchange.

Toro though played the newbie card (at least from my perspective he did) when he wasn't one. (See Toro's 393, 400 )

He doesn't actively scum hunt, the closest was in his iso 11, which is 17 days ago from that post (take into account he was V/LA though) But he does defend Hiphop in his ISO 29 and 31, abet the points are already known then.

He admits he was going with the flow in his ISO 18.

A lot of his statements make him look like he is actively lurking. A pro-town player should be going into the fray and getting information, not potentially starting fires here and there. (See ISO 23 and 24, 32)

I'm open again to the other two like RC is but Toro reads as: very lurkerish which is dangerous to keep up since it's anti-town (note not necessarily scummy, but very anti-town). His contributions to the town are very nil and I want to see more done if he really is town aligned.

Unvote

Vote: Toro

[DTMaster]

@Ryan
I'm ok with your explanations and I chalk it up as: differences in mafia theory.

@dj
I agree with the dangers of outing too many PRs on day 1 (in an ongoing game we lost a doc, a hider, and 2 lovers on day one .... lets just say the town isn't happy)

I also agree that flipping IK will generate tons of information depending on the alignment when we look in hindsight on day 2 (depending on who's alive). I prefer though my choice on Toro just because he is really slippery and I want to read his defense before I change my vote.

@IK
As much as lynching you would generate information (ie if you flip scum then I will be heavily under attack due to the defensive argument) it is anti-town to just self suicide. If you are actually town please scum hunt to the last breath. This potential AtE is looking really poor in your favour.

FoS:IK

for the self destructive nature/wifom.

@DRK
I don't like the wording of your post. it makes it seem that it isn't bad to lynch a townie on the first day (while yes the PR dying from the mislynch is avoided), we should focus on hitting scum. It's weak, yes, but call it gut for now.

[DTMaster]

@Town.
Actually don is right (and my big fat mouth). My parentheses can be seen as breaking the "talk about ongoing games rules", but I had hoped to outline the dangers of losing PRs on day 1 (and I thought I was being vague as possible) but leave it up to mod ruling.

@Don
Depends on the faction I am. If I'm town the modkill will not be treated as a day-vig attempt, the traditional setting is to treat it as a lynch, especially when town outnumbers the scum players. It would force us into night if I'm correct.

@Zach/Toro

Fos: Zach

Potential Zach/Toro link?

@IK
Why take the suicidal route?

[DTMaster]

@Toro

You are ignoring my post/case on you. Why?

[DTMaster]

@RC
I'm writing a hypothetical situation. Would you rather I stated in more absolute terms? That is borderline soft claiming or a full on claim if I said "I'm town so if I get mod-killed it should resolve into a lynch" instead of "If I am town it should resolve into a lynch, if I'm not town it would be day-vig".

[DTMaster]

Er. EBWOP: Borderline full claim, or soft claim. Reversed the situation.

[DTMaster]

@IK
It's best if we hit scum day 1 though. >>;

I'd prefer to not support your martyr play just on principle on what those links will reveal.

[DTMaster]

Whoops hit submit not preview:

It just feels anti-townish to support a self vote.

[DTMaster]

@IK

>>;; I hate beating the dead horse when he is done, but I'd prefer to explore more on Toro, Zach and Jason before the day is over. But self suicidal like this is just going to hang in the air in future town discussions, making scum hunting ineffective.

Some conditions to the town:
If IK flips scum I'm the obv target to hit next.
If IK flips townie I'm highly suspicious but I think the Zach / Toro link should be explored, among any other issues left.

Unvote
Vote: Idiot King

[DTMaster]

@IK
My current actions against don still are left behind as arguments against me. The only argument that can be taken off from me is the WIFOM: scum defending scum argument/ the whole buddy argument.

[DTMaster]

@IK

No which is why I showed everyone my completed newbie game as proof, don't play anti-town to get reactions in a town setting. It'll back fire and looks poorly on game style. To me don is very anti-town to not answer any of my questions which is why I did IGMIOY to him.

The only fact remains is:

1. Keeping my vote (note I voted before the claim) is based on policy, not on scum signs.
2. Day 2 will be much more revealing to Don's alignment then Day 1.

[DTMaster]

@IK

Again please read the vote count before you say you were at L-1 >>;;

Since the last vote count the following votes on you happened:

2 Total on Alex's 451 (Hiphop and RC)
+1 from don's 458
+1 from Zach's 467
+1 from Toro's 468
-1 from RC's 477
+1 from my 484.

Total that is 5, not 6 votes. You are L-2, with DRK waiting on his vote.

[DTMaster]

@IK

493: Depends. It's a null tell since I broke the rules with that post. You can chalk it up for both: a guy upholding the rule's, or a guy looking for an easy kill.

[DTMaster]

@Jason
1. Ewww so many typos of "vanilla". In fact so many typos in general.
2. I consider restating the arguments followed by a vote without anything new very scummy. It looks like you are trying to look pro-town with that vote, but you aren't.

@IK
Thanks, self hammering (unless you are a jester) is just anti-town in general (and maybe anti-scum in general depending on how the situation is).

@Mod

Vote count? and Mod Ruling?

[DTMaster]

@Mod

In my 472 I stated:

If I'm town the modkill will not be treated as a day-vig attempt, the traditional setting is to treat it as a lynch, especially when town outnumbers the scum players. It would force us into night if I'm correct.

If you did mod-kill a town aligned person is this true that you would force it into a lynch, or is it a day-vig scenario. I'm just curious since I seen it done in this way. If you can answer this game mechanic question then I'd be happy. :3

@DRK
The catch-22 defence is there, but there is a lot of meta defense to support IK's township claim.

@IK/Paradox exchange
BTW IK your 519 supports Paradox's statement: That you are more useful to us alive then dead. Now if you are town then please contribute to active scum hunting

I'm going to do this and reflect some more. But I still disapprove of IK's play simply because it is very anti-town to become suicidal and martyr his way to innocence. I'm waiting for some pending questions and responses so.... I'll just comment until this comes up.

Points at RC and Toro

Unvote

[DTMaster]

@Toro

Um... of course not. The whole I prefer to lynch Toro doesn't mean anything, followed by the reasoning why I prefer a Toro lynch to an IK lynch. /sarcasm.

There is a limit for asking questions for clarification. Yes if you read my post, this is my case against you. This just reads as: stalling for time till the deadline.

[DTMaster]

Actually a lot of the repeat is what I said before. When I read your ISO, these issues are still here (plus your vote on IK with Zach at the same time) with your lack of posting.

Since you have a lack of reads on a lot of people, what are your current top picks for scum. To me your lack of reads stems from the fact that you aren't actively scum hunting.

Also blatant AtE with your recent statement: "the bandwagon isn't going to help the town get anywhere."

[DTMaster]

BTW IK

New to the forum? Yes. New to mafia? No.

[DTMaster]

@IK
Don beat me to this. Don't point out those kinds of things. But in your defense Toro did a poor job on the breadcrumb, it reads as a soft-claim. That's all I have to say on the matter.

@Don
I'd agree more if it was actually deadline day and we didn't have other good suspects. Right now I'm thinking of dropping my Toro case and picking it up day 2 with the recent events. Jason's opportune vote is points us where a good ISO read is needed, same with Zach.

I'd prefer we keep the gut townie alive and look at the others while we still have a good couple of days.

But day 2 is when the game action picks up with the first confirmations of alignments. I can empathize with your want to analyze the information.

[DTMaster]

@Ryan
1. They wouldn't make a move on IK's BW? Can you elaborate this more?

While it looks unfavorable right now an IK lynch could be around the corner. IK, Toro and Jason have taken top spots to under go scrutiny right now but the "information analysis angle" is still being brought up against IK. While I personally agree that we should wait I don't see what would stop scum from pressing on this matter.

2. Can you also expand on your gut feeling with DRK?

@DRK
1. In that quote I even said it reads as a soft claim, not as a bread crumb. But that point aside uncc PR issues should be dealt on day 2 regardless their true alignment because we will be better equipped to deal with it on day 2. Alignments and NKs will provide us enough data to proceed more effectively if there is scum fake claiming the PR.

So right now I'd prefer to drop the Toro case, much like my don case, until day 2 arrives.

2. Your recent posts kinda reads both as: changing ideas due to new information or following the town opinion. It's odd since it gives me both pro-town and scummy readings at the same time (this is a gut reading). But from skimming through your ISO posts support the former since you did explore the Jason and Toro angles.

@Jason
Since this was asked of my by DRK, is it worth it to push a lynch on don right now? Even when I voted I felt the ideal time to deal with PR claims are day 2 onwards since the NK will serve as stronger evidence to convict or clear a person's alignment. I'm not suggesting we drop don's case, I'd prefer to revive it on day 2, same with Toro.

Also what do you have to say to the recent accusations of your scumminess based on your vote on IK?

[DTMaster]

I'm at work so I'll just say

MOD: EXTENSTION PLEASE

I'll catch up later since its a 15 minute break. :3

[DTMaster]

Also question

@MOD

Are you using the new vote mechanic where you need half the required numbers to lynch on deadline day if the day runs out? I think that is the new vote mechanic...

[DTMaster]

@RC

I was just questioning the modkill mechanic which Alex responded in 560 to confirm it. I don't see anything scummy or not to evaluate what would have happened in both scum-DTM and town-DTM scenarios. Don stated it would have worked as a day-vig scenario, I saw differently.

There is nothing up my sleeve other then I was very objective about the situation. You can interpret my statement as me trying to look town rather then knowing that I am town, I can see your POV, but you might be looking too hard into it.

Also can you outline the connections that you see right now, this could be important for the coming days.

[DTMaster]

@RC
I don't understand why my partial pushing of Jason makes me somewhat suspicious. If you read my posts I focused more on a Toro case until the soft claim, where I dropped it like with my thoughts on don. (Sorry though I couldn't reply more, I got back to back work shifts :<)

I've outlined some suspicion on Jason throughout the day (see ISO 71). Earlier I attacked him in my ISO 39 , ISO 30 (a reminder on ISO 21) and my ISO 18/19 was my initial attack on Jason. I don't know how I was secretive about my dislike about Jason's posts but at least I made an effort to scum hunt him. You can also tack on the current town arguments against him but I'd prefer to not repeat and rehash the same things over and over when I post something.

I also agree that don's move is more pro-town considering he was the first person to request the extension. The rest of the votes should be considered null tells (even mine) for obvious reasons (ie due to time zones and such...). Even the people who didn't request an extension.

@Jason
No-lynch on day one is disastrous from an information point of view. No-lynch on mylo is a different story from a statistics point of view. Either way we should focus on a resolution by the end of the day. (This reads as a scummy statement, I know but I agree with don's statement that a lynch should occur today.)

You also ignored my question:

@Jason
Since this was asked of my by DRK, is it worth it to push a lynch on don right now? Even when I voted I felt the ideal time to deal with PR claims are day 2 onwards since the NK will serve as stronger evidence to convict or clear a person's alignment. I'm not suggesting we drop don's case, I'd prefer to revive it on day 2, same with Toro.

Also what do you have to say to the recent accusations of your scumminess based on your vote on IK?

Do you see pursing a case on don today optimal right now? Lately don has been providing a lot of town-signs rather then scum-signs. His reasoning is very sound from an information standpoint, but yours is very emotionally based. Since time is crunching down I would lean towards the more objective view that don presents. Can you elaborate why you dislike his stand point?

@Town
My judgement is: I'm uncomfortable with an IK lynch just due to all the gut and meta reasoning that is done, but I am a willing hammer. Normally I would pursue Toro, but his case is best dealt with day 2 onwards. This leaves me with my second choice and that is Jason with all the rehashed arguments that we've gone over.

Vote: Jason

[DTMaster]

"rereads" Oh ok, change that reasoning to Paradox instead of don then. :3 Thanks for pointing it out!

@Your question
And, somewhat but looking at the timing IK could have easily have been in reply mode while the mod granted the deadline. He was within 10ish minutes of the post. I won't deny that IK could have posted something afterwards and you can find a scummy interpretation in that post, but it is a bit weak to submit as evidence against him.

The other evidence/arguments are much stronger anyways.

[DTMaster]

@IcemanE

WEEELLLLCOME! :3 I expect a good summary post on day two since today is deadline day.

@Toro
Awesome, you just full claimed. /sarcasm.

It doesn't change the fact that you are one of 2 prime NK targets if you are a PR, but it does almost confirm your township since there hasn't been a CC yet. You still deserve a

IGMIOY: Toro

simply because of your play, but I wouldn't heavily enforce it.

@RC
Ah I see, well that would me my fault of misinterpreting your statement. I agree that alone my case on Jason isn't sufficient towards a Jason lynch, but it's still part of the whole town case on him. That is the power of the township, discussions in thread lead us to expand and build on top of each other's cases/posts to hopefully catch scum :3

Also it's understandable that you are not as comfortable with my alignment since some of my actions/posts have a scummy interpretation. The game wouldn't be interesting if everyone had a black and white (town/scum) play wouldn't it?

For now all I can ask is just keep your eye on me and make your own judgment.

@Jason
You ignored my posts for a while, I questioned you a while back now... >>;;

@Town
I won't have computer access for most of the day so I might not be here if any new development happens. It's a bad time since it's deadline day but I'll try and get to a place with computer access soon. So consider my vote psudo-locked :<

[DTMaster]

Sorry I just got back home and will commence my reread. Read my last post for the the confirmation that I had limited access.

I normally would hammer but there are some pending questions in the town discussion. I have work tomorrow in the early hours so I cannot stay active to follow through if I wait for more questions.

Don, I'm pointing at you right now since I see you are asking Toro to claim his alignment.

BTW. I am town aligned.

@Town
I'm not familiar though with the lie detector role but I remember I read somewhere that the power becomes useless at a claim. Jason can you verify this? I'll double check the wiki to see if this is true.

[DTMaster]

BTW if Jason's claim is true then:

Toro's ISO 36 can be used:

And a Toro bandwagon is definitely not going to help this town get anywhere, trust me.

I believe that if Toro is scum then this statement would be read as false and vise versa.

Town thoughts because if you guys agree then I will go forward with the hammer.

Also here is the wiki link to the lie detector. In one form of the role what I stated is true, Jason please verify this if you can now.

[DTMaster]

By request then, though it wasn't don.

Unvote

Vote: Idiot King

Tomorrow will lead us to a good investigation of the day, I hope.

[DTMaster]

Oh RC beat me to the hammer. >>;;

[DTMaster]

Wow love the flavour :3.

@DRK's death
1. IK might be on to something, during the whole post war scenario there might be an established DRK-RC link there. Though DRK's death this legitimizes this claim, not IK's, which is actually ironic here.

2. Crazy theory but Mafia killing themselves to generate confusion? Since one of the obvious routes from DRK is to analyze his relations with the other townies. It would clear a lot of the suspicion generated on Jason and Toro just based on his death. It would also redirect us towards attacking the day one pro-town players. This might be too WIFOMic though to continue with this line of thought.

@Multiscum Theory
I have to agree with ryan, due to the mini setup and the lack of flavour text in the mafia name to me it's much more likely to have a SK/Vig player instead of two mafia factions.

@RC
Hold on:

I'm a little concerned with what happened to the kill. A number of things could have happened, as don already touched on.

I think the most logical explanation is that DRK was in charge of submitting the night action for his team, and he was killed before it could take place?

Would that work? That explains to me why only one kill went through.

1. You cannot possibly know this. The only way you could even speculate something like this is if you were scum with DRK. Also see 3 for more.

2. It's much more likely that a doc protect or Toro's RB claim is true which explains the lack of town kills. Even bullet proof roles and hiders are much more likely. Don's statement touches on SKs and Vigs as well.

3. DRK's kill will resolve even if she gets killed if the person didn't have NK protection. The only possible way she couldn't kill is explained in 2.

The idea of cross-kills means that your statement is false (ie cross-kills is when two opposing scum factions hit each other. in a situation of 1 town and 2 opposing scum faction scenario the townie can win at night if the two scums hit and kill each other. it doesn't matter what order the kills work or else doc protects wouldn't work if they PMed after the scum target.)

Unless this is a new mechanic that the mod has in this game, the above is the traditional setting that I see in most mafia games.

@Ryan
A redirector is likely, I read about that role in Tar's game.

Some points:
1. The first point in your DRK analysis is a bit weak with the vote on Zach. Possible buddying with Jason, possible distancing with Zach. It's a bit early since it was the RVS stage but establishes a potential link between DRK-Jason.

2. Potential DRK-hiphop link could be interpreted from your third point. Early distancing then buddying?

The rest I haven't read yet since I have work to go soon so I'll comment more after.

You beat me to asking Jason and Toro the questions though. :p It would be a good start to look at the targets.

[DTMaster]

@Jason see my response to RC number 1,2,3.

[DTMaster]

HOLD ON: New idea. Mafia traitor! DRK could have been the Mafia traitor which normally is revealed as a goon. READ THIS WIKI

I believe that scum targeted DRK thinking he was protown, when he was actually the traitor. <3 Inspiration

[DTMaster]

@Town
Sorry guys! I've been away since Uni started and everything. I'll give my general comments below. Expect a similar posting style to RC starting as of now but I'll do my best to stay caught up. "smites self for being so late"

Also does everyone have experience with night-vigs? I'm much more used to the flavor of day-vigs in games.

Also we might have to consider the potential of two RBers in the game, but that's just inner me trying to sort out the WIFOM from what we have here.

@RC
1. Logically speaking Toro's version is less likely. Self killing day 1 highly sub optimal play, especially from Scum POV. Ryan's inconclusive result is much more realistic in terms of "what happened" scenarios, especially since one of scum's traditional role is the RBer.

2. You and ryan are right that both Toro and Jason both telling the truth looks very improbable. There are ways to explain both (ie two RBers one scum and one town) but as of now we simply do not have enough information to sift through theory from fact. I wouldn't discount the possibility just yet but reasoning this out would still be very tricky.

@Zach
708: From a scum-Toro POV it's the best choice since it explains the lack of night kill. Though a lot of analysis from the RBing might be too WIFOMic so it's best to lightly consider it before you get lost in a circular logic loop.

@Toro/DJ's 730/731
Have to hand this to don right there, DRK had a very pro-town read from a lot of people. It would be odd if scum self targeted someone that was relatively comfy in the pro-town chair. This is why the "what happened" discussion lead us to.

@Paradox
737: You're certain a vig claim would not invoke a NK target based on that reasoning? It reads as role fishing before ryan claimed. Some issues with your logic are:

1. The town protects are now targeting one of the town PRs (I hope they did). You are insinuating that one of the claimed/softclaimed PRs is scum here with the doc protects scum idea.

2. The town vig would target an unCCed town PR. That would be silly right there, only an SK would do that. Unless the doc moved his protect from the town claimed PRs (that would be odd) the vig kill will resolve on another player. So your logic that the town vig is safe from kills seem fishy to me, pre-claim even.

@Hiphop
736: Yes it makes little sense why scum would try to no kill without a solid reason (ie doc claim) I think it's fruitless to continue that line of questioning. It's too WIFOMic to try and guess how the night action resolved at this time.

@Hiphop's Roleclaim Stance
There are more ways to hit scum besides a vig kill (ie the lie detector role if Jason's result didn't come up as inconclusive).

It's also a weak to assume that the vig will most likely hit scum then a town PR. The normal number of scum for a setup like this is around 3 (I just finished a mini game where we had 3 scum players so I'll use this as a general base. It's a safe number to assume.)

If we mislynch today we are down to 9 people, two townies dead and one scum dead. Under pure randomness without any speculation that would mean 2/9 players are scum and 7/9 players are town aligned. It's much more likely to hit a towns person then a scum player, while a scum player has a 100% chance of hitting a townie. Assuming protects fail we can lose up to a maximum of 3 townies per day in a worst case scenario. Having the 1/9 chance of accidentally hitting the doctor is definitely less then the 2/9 chances of hitting scum, but the implications of hitting town is still dangerous. Ryan put it perfectly well:

I tend to be under the group of "Let the PRs do what they want, and let them play their own game." However, I understand the "swingy-ness" of how a vigilante works. He has the most potential as a town player to make or break the game, and it usually ends up being the latter.

There is both good and bad that comes with that role that you should consider, where the pay off can be quite substantial if we get scum back to back in this way. But the majority of the risks become much more apparent in the end game, which we should consider then. It's premature right now to start weighing the risks/benefits of viging since it's just day two.

@Ryan
728: Too late! :< But I'll answer the question. I'm a bit on the fence (assuming this was pre-claim) since it does give us more information to work with and establish a working relationship with the town. (see your interactions with don in 745/746). It also outs a PR though. This strategy was mentioned in dj's 715

mini 712- capital of the world

meta call. So:

TOWN: THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO GO AND SKIM THIS GAME IF YOU HAVE TIME

But I have seen early PR claims work very effectively with a protect team on the PR. It's a very gutsy move.

743: I was partial to my mafia traitor theory but this clears up a lot. I went and did a reread and found everything to be accurate. Your post and reasoning is sound and I agree with it.

@Don
745: Judging by the list it's too premature to say that town looks overpowered. Even if we include potential protection roles due to the failed night kill there are potential pitfalls for town (ie take lovers for example) or much stronger scum PRs.

With a town flip I would suggest following the same reasoning with DRK, hit the person with a neutral read/scummy read. The latter is obvious to explain but this may involved forcing two claims a day from a lynch and night kill target. This could get messy.

The former is trickier because a neutral person is dangerous to take into lylo and puts a strain on scum hunting/character analysis. But at the same time the person is neutral, usually with no strong scummy characteristics. It's a tough analysis and a tough choice but I'm leaning towards assessment of the town first then choice.

@Final Result
Normally I would return to carry on my case from day 1, but I need to do a reread on what I did first before. It's been a while and I've been sorting out other games too. :S

Vote: Toro

for continued reasoning on day 1 and for the rehashed reasons we have so far. I won't repeat them but you know it by now.

I'll leave with @Toro who are your current top picks for scum and why?

Sorry because normally I don't support this kind of delay in questioning but real life calls me. I'll try and get to it soon.

*fixed url tags.

[DTMaster]

EDIT: Read the recent post. Awesome anti-town play /sarcasm. Though it's probably better to say:

Risk vs Reward

. The thing is this is a lot like IK's marytr argument.

Unvote

Too early to be L-1

[DTMaster]

Minus the fact that he's not martyring himself for a case, hes martyring himself for a point. :s

[DTMaster]

@RC
You'll have the answer with the flip. :<. But trying to reason the whole RB issue is very WIFOMic and I dislike how you are continually bringing this up. It's poor reasoning in general and just generates confusion. Better to analyze Toro's other posts.

@Jason
It's anti-town to point out soft claims like that, and it's scummy to fish them. Also quick hammer lynch? :< We have pending summary posts and you hammered. Why?

[DTMaster]

PMing Alex. The suspense is killing me D:

[DTMaster]

Day to me is the most important phase for the town to get things out there. The things that can happen at night stay at night and cannot be reported unless they survive till day. That's another reason to add to why I unvoted after the self vote.

Night has it's uses, but it's during the day where the real action happens. :3

[DTMaster]

This would implicate RC and Jason for forcing it to L-1 and hammering right there only if Toro flips town RB. This would mean Toro was right and Jason was lying.

[DTMaster]

@Don

1.How is it simpler to have an SK and a 2 man scum team then a traditional 3 man scum team? I may not have a lot of experience but it seems too early to judge that there is a SK in the lot.

From the day 1 and day 2 night results it looks more like 1 mafia faction unless both scum players cross killed the same protective role or they hit a bullet proof person.

Based on ryan's claim the 2 kills look like the result of mafia and vig. I would think if ryan false claimed we can deal with this tomorrow before lylo.

2. You have a point on watcher/tracker debate. It is too early to assume this.

3. Don you said:

the helpfulness of my night action results depend on the flip, so i will try to post in twilight.

Did you get anything in the night to help us?

@Zach
"face palm"
I assume you have results to bring to the table then?

@Hiphop
Usually you don't question how someone nails scum two days in a roll. >>;.

@Town
I find it odd that scum didn't hit the vig. At this point it's all WIFOM speculation so I won't say much but it might be good to do a RC iso analysis if he hit the nail somewhere.

[DTMaster]

@Zach
Unless you were outing scum, I'll leave that to Don's discretion then mine. But since you haven't done that I'll assume you are both confirmed townies. Ryan gets a protownie spot too.

Who's left is ice/Shrine, DTM hiphop, parodoxime if you assume the above conditions to shoot for scum.

[DTMaster]

@Pardox

If worst case scenario happens we would lose 3 townies out of 7. That's 4 people left and we would be in lylo.

The best bet for us is to

not lynch Ryan but for him to no kill tonight

if you want to avoid this.

[DTMaster]

@Don

a. It's called a gamble at this point. Since Zach didn't watch Ryan we cannot confirm him through watcher powers. Since he's been able to snipe scum, I'm willing to trust him. If he disobeys we'll be in lylo tomorrow and we can lynch him then for being SK. If there is scum left then we will need his vote.

b. Your setups break the 3 scum rule for setups 2,4,5. Usually its 3 scum in this setup and if there was 4 with a vig/sk in the mix we would need to literally kill scum everyday to win and lynch on the final day or we lose. If there is 3 kills a day and 2 of them are townies. It's too much for a max of 12 people.

c. Why did you ignore my question?

@Ice
Thoughts? Lurkin through this game is bad play.

[DTMaster]

@Don
1. Oh right.. watcher not tracker. I got the roles mixed up. I cannot not know that Zach didn't watch ryan, but he just revealed that I was wrong.

2. It's a gamble if you believe he's SK and aren't willing to trust in his vig claim. If ryan does turn out to be SK we'll see this tonight. Yes we can potentially win if we play our cards right since mafia setup logic points towards 1 scum left.

3. I find it odd that you payed with 4 scum in 12 people teams before D:... town must have been powerful to compensate for that. /speculation.

But yes I see that that is a simple way to see the 2 kills, but not the simplest since to me SK and Vig are interchangeable. Though that is just a difference of opinion here.

4. Your WIFOM train about scum thinking about ryan thinking that he is SK could also act as a deterrent to not kill him. It's very circular and can go either way. Fear is a powerful shield in terms of psychology.

Though yes it is odd that Ryan didn't die last night and they chose to kill RC. Maybe they ran into your protect instead of having Toro RB to protect himself? It could be confirmation bias based on the flip and another scum could have been the one to do the night kill. But we can't confirm this till the end game :<. Who did you protect on day 1?

5. I didn't do any night actions because I cannot do any night actions. Since it's pretty much a soft claim I say

I'm Vanilla Townie

with no super powers. I do not object to being on the lists of kills/potential to lynch just because it's plain logical, but I don't understand why you are excluding Paradox here but I'll leave that to you.

[DTMaster]

@Don

1. Faulty reasoning on Paradox's township because we cannot confirm if it was Toro's RB or your protect that stopped scum from committing NK in the first night. Unless RBs do not block kills then Para shouldn't be considered confirmed.

Then again the best thing for scum to do is for Jason to be the person executing the kills with his ability.

@Ice
Are you advocating that we lynch you and follow the Don's plan? o-o Ideally if one of the 3 of us is scum it wouldn't matter what order this goes towards.

[DTMaster]

@Don

1. Btw your flaw only works if

both Zach and you are scum

, it cannot be either or. You confirmed his watches, and he confirmed your doc status. It's impossible for just one of you to be scum unless both of you are lying. I don't get why you are stressing that it fails if just one of you are scum. >>;;

You seem to be saying this a lot and it's an inaccuracy. The only other way for just one of you to be scum is that scum-Zach perfectly guessed your actions as doc on night 2.

[DTMaster]

@Paradox

What's your claim BTW. You haven't claimed yet.

[DTMaster]

@Don
I was unaware that scum could have a scum-watcher since I never encountered this before. I concede to your point about that possibility, just like you are scum-doctor as well.

@Ryan
It's only logical, but we cannot confirm this until the end game when alex tells us the night actions lists. But I agree this is a safe assumption.

@Ice
Your town thoughts?

[DTMaster]

I'll hammer. Plan vig go!

Vote: Hiphop

[DTMaster]

Zach is watching Don, so the plan is.

[DTMaster]

Hate to break it to you, but Don's not scum... unless you can explain why Don would bother to use his power on anyone other than Jason last night?

The plan sounds good to me. I will watch Don tonight.

I though don used his powers on Ryan, not Jason. If he used his powers on Jason to block a night kill (aka the vig kill) it would point to the fact that he's mafia doctor. >>;; Explain yourself on this.

[DTMaster]

@Zach
You should have been more clearer. But you are right, if Don's the mafia-doctor then he would target Jason last night since his ability makes yours null.

@Town
Gonna PM alex since its been a while and night hasn't come yet unless we counted the votes wrong. :<

[DTMaster]

I pmed Alex. No response. :<

[DTMaster]

@Don
We might need to discuss the possibility of no lynching with ryan withholding his kill to determine if this is scum gambit or SK play.

Speculating on the night actions it might be suspect to either: a protect on Zach from scum, a no-kill from scum and if there is a 3rd member or the possibility that scum wasn't around to submit night actions. T

I'm thinking that Para isn't cleared townie based on your protect on day 1 and needs to be looked at again. If ryan is the last scum/SK player lynch him tomorrow in the lylo situation since there was only 1 NK.

I suggest we focus on this order:

Para
Ryan
DTM

in terms of ISO reading and discussion. You may adjust this to your liking as:

DTM / Ryan
Para

in terms of the orginal plan.

@Ryan
Withhold your kills from now on if you are town vig.

[DTMaster]

Vote: Paradox

You are lying or Zach is lying. I believe it's you.

Night 1 my target was Don Johnson

Night 2 it was Ryan.

I am the tracker. I tracked Don who visited me N1 and

Zach who visited me N2.

Basically I believe both of their claims. Last night I forgot to submit a choice. I'm kinda pissed but I think we have this game in the bag, and it's possible that there was no NK anyway.

[DTMaster]

1. It's really convenient that you claimed this role. Especially after everyone else claimed with results before you.

2. Explain why you chose Don and Zach as your trackees.

[DTMaster]

@Alex
That's contradictory.

@Paradox
1. If you are telling the truth then this confirms don, Zach, and yourself as cleared townies as town PRs. Ryan is scum.

2. I have issues with your night actions regardless with the claim based on convenience. Your lack of night action last night concerns me since you did not state why you didn't post anything towards the end of day 2 till now. Why didn't you post anything between that time.

3. With the first post of today, it can be attributed as actively lurking. You answered the questions about the claim then went towards ryan for the "safe vote". What is your analysis on the town right now?

4. I can determine that you bread crumbed that you yourself was doc and/or suspected there was a doc with that: "protection will come".

@Don
Given the flavour of Jason's role it makes sense. I dislike the results of night 3 with Paradox though.

[DTMaster]

@Town

In defence of ryan, Jason's play was still scummy. He also claimed to be RBed giving us an "inconclusive result" which would imply Toro. When Toro flipped Town RBer, the signs were there to interpret Jason's scum nature.

@Ryan
What's your case on me. If I'm the final mafia, what implicates me as scummier then you?

[DTMaster]

@Town
Are you certain with this. I have no qualms since I know Don is confirmed town based 3 player's stories.

[DTMaster]

BTW FYI: If there is scum there will be 2 kills at night. If 3 people die today we lose.

[DTMaster]

EBWOP: Err only if Ryan isn't scum that is.

[DTMaster]

Ok. Well I'm VT. I feel the gamble is worth it with the whole track/watch/doc thing. Don string up scum then.

[DTMaster]

3 to lynch. Hence the whole Don wanted Zach to be careful with his vote.

[DTMaster]

Noooo. Well I would have voted Paradox because of the whole:

1. Late claim which reads as too convienient.
2. The whole did not chose on night 3 when scum withheld their NK.
3. You didn't announced who you tracked.

[DTMaster]

<3 Ryan and his vig play here. <3

[DTMaster]

DRK

To me it wasn't the bussing that convinced me of Town-Zach, it was his watcher role that confirmed the alignments/stories of both Don and Ryan which to me felt he was town.

[DTMaster]

>:<