Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: ryan2754

for being scum in the last game I played!

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: JasonT1981

Because I hate Jeff Gordon.

You don't like Jeff Gordon, so you put the

third

random vote on Jason?

Unvote, Vote: Zachrulez

@Everyone
If anyone has a shorter version of his/her name that he/she deems acceptable or preferable, it would be nice to hear so I can be lazy and not type full names. Any abbreviations of my name are fine.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

He had a real reason, as opposed to not liking someone's avatar (nice avatar btw DTM). Then again, as I look back I'm pretty sure hiphop was wrong in saying that Idiotking voted twice. For now, I'll just be happy with the explanation that he miscounted votes.

[DeathRowKitty]

Since Ryan already has a vote on him I will

He doesn't. I unvoted him.

@hiphop
Do you think they're scummier for not posting than Idiotking is for his unvote or are you just waiting for them to post?

[DeathRowKitty]

That's a bit of an overreaction isn't it? Early bandwagons are a good way to get a game started in the absence of any other discussion. It's 7 votes to lynch anyway, 3 is hardly all that menacing.

Voting people for small things like this also gets a game started. Random bandwagons about Jeff Gordon start discussions about Jeff Gordon.

[DeathRowKitty]

unvote, vote: hiphop

for the following reasons:
1) He unvoted when DTM brought up that he put Idiotking at L-4, even though he still thought he only cast the second vote.
2) He tried to (at least temporarily) divert our attention to the lurkers instead of following a valid line of questioning.
3) Posts 39-41. They pretty much speak for themselves.

[DeathRowKitty]

@deathrowkitty what do you think would of happened to me if I hadn't even posted yet? I wouldn't have any suspicious drawn on to me. Which is why I don't like lurkers. They think they can float under the radar.

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)

@everyone. FYI there are more than one scum in the game, so keep looking. At least I am staying active.

We shouldn't vote you because you have less active scumbuddies we could be voting instead? That's how that sentence reads to me.

[DeathRowKitty]

Unvote: hiphop

I'm starting to get the feeling he's not a good lynch for today, especially three pages in. I'm getting more newb tells from him than I am scum tells and I'm pretty sure there's nothing more he can do to defend himself besides claim, which I don't think is warranted as of yet.

[DeathRowKitty]

As Dtm pointed out, the rvs ended in record time, perhaps that needs to be started again.

Strangely enough, I agree with that. Not yet though. You still have three votes on you and until those people are satisfied with your defense, random voting would be a big step back.

I'm not liking your vote on Toro. Until you explain it, I see it as an OMGUS vote. I want more than a hunch on this.

FoS hiphop

.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

Before saying anything of value to the game, I would like to point out my gender. His, not her (a bunch of people made the same mistake in my first game).

I guess you've probably noticed this by now, but you won't have a problem with the amount of content in ryan's posts (unless you despise long posts).

As I said above, dank appears to be attempting to corner a newer player by twisting their rhetoric beyond its meaning.

...and you didn't think to give that reason with your vote?

I do see some sense in this, although as DTM just pointed out, you used that argument on the wrong person. If you combine this argument with the fact that hiphop was an easy target, I think this will be useful (later in the game if not now).

[DeathRowKitty]

Another mistake on my part, I guess, about you voting.

Making mistakes-not a scum tell. Being paranoid about who finds you suspicious-is a scum tell (IMO at least). Unfortunately it can also be a VI tell. One more mistake like this one and I'm more than willing to revote you.

[DeathRowKitty]

And what's wrong with my OMGUS argument?

Inexperienced cornered townies also have a tendency to cast OMGUS votes, especially when the pressure starts to dissipate. He did give a reason, although I'm not particularly happy it came after his vote.

My point was that I believe dank realized hiphop may have misspoke, hence the quotation marks, yet he wasn't sincere enough to ask hiphop what he meant. This implies that he's either uninterested in understanding hiphop's motivations, or that he doesn't really care.

That's not the way I'm interpreting the quotation marks. I won't speak for dank, but I know (or at least I think) I've used quotation marks around terms I was using from someone esle to clarify I mean the same thing the person originally posting it did. Of course, in this case, dank had a different idea of what "scum number 1" meant, so this may not be the case.

Also, can you explain exactly WHY you didn't explain your vote at the time of it's post?

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them.

It's kind of hard to gauge town reactions when you disappear for a couple of days in between posts. I have no problem with you posting once every couple of days with a lot of content or with trying to read reactions, but I just can't see the two working well together.

I was just repeating what DRK said in my 72 and acknowledging the fact that

she

he

said this game play was part of your meta.

[DeathRowKitty]

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'm considering on putting a vote on hiphop, but his lack of experience sort of is making me feel sympathetic and going against it. But you know what, after rereading his posts, I'm definitely not getting a real townly feeling from him, so...

Vote: hiphop

Those were the two posts you made regarding hiphop up to and including your vote. You gave one explicit reason, which consisted of you saying the post before you is right. If you agreed with other reasons given, say so. If not, it appears as though you have no reason, which is what's happened here. Also, putting a disclaimer with your vote doesn't give a pro-town read...

[DeathRowKitty]

Toro's continuing his more or less useless play; i'm not sure if a noob factor is also present or not (even if it is, he should be at least trying to make some sort of case for someone, even if its noob-bad). He's already made excuses that he's not good at scumhunting, but that doesnt mean he should forego it completely, like he seems to be doing.

I disagree. Based on what I've seen of Toro's play so far, I currently believe that was an earnest attempt at scumhunting. He pointed out something he thought was contradictory and hiphop explained it to him. He then let it die. What I'm more concerned about right now is two groups of people:
1) people who are trying to force the hiphop issue.
2) people who are trying to not to appear to be hiphop-hunting.

Hiphop is an easy target right now. Scum would want to force the hiphop issue to get an easy lynch (assuming of course hiphop is town). At the same time, they wouldn't want to look like they were pushing the wagon or they could come under suspicion Day 2. This points me to Jason. Originally, he made a few posts against hiphop without ever giving an FoS, voting, or even saying whether or not he found hiphop scummy. This is even more suspicious since most of his posts have been about hiphop. Now, looking at a couple of selected lines from his posts:

Point 2 - So if he is your No1 choice of scum... you basically are saying he is scum right? why say he is your no1 suspect if you dont think him of scum.. that point you made makes no sense to me really.

To me it was random. To me, the vote had a reason, without having a reason. If that makes sense to you.

I am not surer if it makes sense or not... let me think about this.

In the first quote, Jason brought up a point that I personally think hiphop had just settled (and that hiphop had already explained). Arguably, hiphop's statement from the second quote seemed a bit contradictory, but it's pretty clear to me what hiphop meant. He practically gave the definition of a random vote (just worded oddly). It looks to me like Jason could very easily be trying to fan the flames without committing himself to either side.

Right now, I find Jason more suspicious than hiphop and more suspicious than dank (who I'm more suspicious of than hiphop).

Vote: Jason

.

[DeathRowKitty]

What I'm more concerned about right now is two groups of people:
1) people who are trying to force the hiphop issue.
2) people who are trying to not to appear to be hiphop-hunting.

That seems like a very wide net to cast. Who would you put in each group? Jason seems to fit in both I'd say, so I can see why you'd vote him.

The second group is pretty clear-cut. Most people thus far have given a decent amount of opinion on hiphop. Jason clearly stood out in this group as our biggest fencesitter.

The first group is trickier. Up until recently, hiphop's been giving scum more than enough to use against him. The fact that at times he did look so suspicious makes it very plausible that townies would be picking on the little things he did and not just scum. When I re-read, Jason stood out in this group too as trying to fan the flames and not just trying to scumhunt.

@Jason
Explain to me why I'm wrong and give your opinions on hiphop.

[DeathRowKitty]

If the second group is so clear cut, can you give more specific names in your opinion?

A (very) brief run-down on activity in the hiphop situation

dank-voted hiphop
DRK-voted hiphop
DTM-voted hiphop (random vote, but he kept it on after the RVS)
hiphop-got wagoned
IK-says hiphop's "exploded in scumminess" but never votes for him
Jason-already explained
Paradoxombie (Can I call you Paradox or something similar?)-gone for the two days containing the bulk of the hiphop wagon; thought the case on hiphop was "a bit overblown"
RC-more concerned with dank and with defending himself from DTM; his clearest thought on the matter="I think there was/is scum riding his bandwagon earlier in hopes that they would be able to take advantage of hiphop's emotion."
ryan-didn't vote but specifically said, "Seems I find hiphop and IK fairly strong lynches at this point" (also said he's careful with his vote)
Shrine-gave a "Major FOS" to hiphop but never voted
Toro-voted hiphop
Zach-voted hiphop

In order of suspicion stemming from this analysis:
Jason
IK
Paradoxombie
RC

Jason was the one I was most concerned with because he seemed considerably more dedicated to the hiphop wagon than the other possible fencesitters and was also in the other group. Make of this what you want.

[DeathRowKitty]

But when I place a vote (aside from RVS) I am 100% sure I feel that person is scum.

Seems like a strategy sure to get you accused of fencesitting. Besides, the only way to be 100% sure is to either be a cop assured of your sanity or scum (If you're scum, it would be helpful if you claimed right now )

You also didn't explain your opinions on hiphop (at least not very clearly). Please explain them more clearly.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

You wouldn't be saying that if he'd actually claimed scum! But yes, as RC pointed out, it was tongue-in-cheek.

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.

I disagree. Personally I think the information we get from the night actions just leads to more speculation. and WIFOM. Sure we'll have more information Day 2 when we know alignments, but we do have information now. 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.

The majority of RC's posts were not about me, so I didn't really notice the case he made

You didn't notice my vote?

Wait, you didn't notice the

bolded text

in RC's post?? Even if you just skimmed his posts, which should be a

minimum

, you should have noticed the bolded text. I can't say I consider not reading to be a scum tell or reading to be a town tell (I was scum in my last game and I probably read every word of every post twice), but not reading is definitely anti-town.

IK-says hiphop's "exploded in scumminess" but never votes for him

In that post or one very near it, I'd also said it's way too early for a lynch, and at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already.

Fair enough. What do you think of hiphop now?

I thought I did express my opinions on Hiphop and those opinions where how he was wrong in what he said

Saying hiphop was wrong in what he said isn't giving an opinion on him. I could say Newton was wrong in formulating his theory of gravity and I haven't given an opinion of him.

I'm just looking for a couple of sentences saying precisely what you think of him at this moment. Is he scummy? How much so? Do you think he would make a good lynch? etc. Anything you think is important to your hiphop views.

[DeathRowKitty]

Let's say we were 10 or 15 pages further into the game. Would you be willing to vote and/or lynch hiphop? Basically, how scummy do you find him?

[DeathRowKitty]

The first group is trickier. Up until recently, hiphop's been giving scum more than enough to use against him.

You seem to be implying that you know scum are going for the hiphop lynch, which can be followed with you knowing hiphop is town.

Scum would be going for a hiphop lynch regardless of his alignment, but yes, I am assuming for the purposes of that that he's town. I find it hard to believe a wagon built up so quickly on hiphop without some help from scum and right now I'm likening hiphop to CB from our last game. Right now, I'm leaning toward VI over scum (sorry hiphop) and that's why I'm more interested in analyzing the wagon than I am in analyzing hiphop's actions. This of course could change if hiphop shows more scummy behavior.

[DeathRowKitty]

Yay Bandwagon is me [...] But I am officailly the bandwagon in the RVS of the game lol

Does Jason seem

too

happy to be bandwagoned to anyone else? More to the point, does anyone else think Jason could be trying to seem happy about it so as not to draw any suspicion?


Now that I look at IK a bit closer, there were only 3 votes when he said hiphop had "exploded in scumminess." A couple of posts later, there were only 2, making IK's reason for not voting hiphop ("at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already") very questionable. Also from the wording of that post (reproduced below), it sounds very much like IK could be distancing and telling hiphop he's on his own.

Yeah... it's much too early for a lynch. However, I do agree with the sentiment about hiphop; his deflecting is suspicious. Not to mention, it's 1. never a good thing to play the newbie card and 2. if this actually is his 3rd game the newbie card is kinda old.

And no, hiphop, as Toro says, at this point I'm pretty sure most scum would have written you off as dead weight. You've sort of exploded in scummyness.

I'm don't care to look into a hiphop/IK scum pairing as of yet, since I still think hiphop is probably town, but I can see possibly just IKscum. He at one point said that hiphop was his only suspect (besides lurkers) and yet didn't vote. Sounds like the kind of thing scum would do to stay off a bandwagon that could end in a townie-lynch.

Now, it looks to me like IK is just looking for excuses to attack RC.
1. I really haven't gotten much of a defensive tone at all from RC's posts, which IK insists is present.
2. He's harping on RC's potentially random vote. If you look back at RC's original "random vote" post, given what RC has said about it, it makes sense that it wasn't random. I can't say I would have withheld my reasoning for a vote like that, but something about the wording of his original post doesn't sound random in hindsight. Above all this, most importantly,

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

3.

I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

Seems like a possible way of saying "Uh-oh, no one else is following me and I don't want to be pushing this case alone." The quote has a definite feeling of finality to it, as if he's trying to end the case before it gets any worse, without looking bad in the process.

For now,

unvote, vote Idiotking

. I plan on looking through one of Jason's games later in which he was town to see if he really is so cautious with his vote and that will determine whether or not I revote him.

Of course Toro, don't read the votecount.

Interesting. You're implying that hiphop is jumping on you solely because you have the most votes to your name?

I think Toro was alluding to the fact that hiphop was already voting for him, not that he was going with the flow.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK, given the fact that there were 3 votes on him on page 3, I don't think I did such a bad thing by not voting for him... that's just too many votes too early.

A few posts later, that vote total changed to 2 and I hardly consider a third vote excessive with 7 to lynch.

Ok, so my wording sounded 'very much like IK could be distancing' and yet hiphop is probably town and I'm not? Is it distancing or not? That's two different cases that don't sit well together.

I suggested two possibilities. The first is that hiphop is scum and you were distancing. The second is that hiphop is town and you didn't want to look like you were part of the bandwagon. You're mixing and matching the two possibilities.

I like voting when I have a reasonably strong case in my eyes, one that I've built myself, not borrowed from others.

You don't vote unless you built the case? Sounds more like you're trying to appear pro-town than it does like you're trying to be pro-town.

Let's say hypothetically that it really WAS a random vote, and now he's got you thinking it wasn't. He has CONVINCED you that it wasn't, which is EXACTLY the thing that keeps him from being suspect. If it was random, he's suspicious.

How would him random voting after the RVS (in his first post) seem so suspcious? Sure it would be odd and pointless, but why would scum be more likely to do so than town?

Um... what?

Here's how that quote sounded to me:
"You made a mistake. Fine. Let's just be done with this."
It basically sounds like something you throw in at the end of the argument you've lost so you don't sound like you've been defeated.

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.

The only person who voted him for his "random vote" was DTM, who RC said he has a pro-town read on.

Also, I don't see how the quote you brought up amounts to RC blaming you. I see it as him having perfectly legitimate concerns about your intentions.

[DeathRowKitty]

I think three is still too many on page 3. That's part of the reason I reacted negatively to the 3 man bandwagon on jason. Days should be 20+ pages long, not three, and while 3 votes still isn't close to a lynch, it's too many that early.

I agree 3 pages is way too short for a day and I would not have supported a lynch of hiphop that early. I disagree with your saying that 3 votes is too many, but that's just my opinion. I vote a lot, especially Day 1. Votes carry a lot of weight and if I'm sufficiently suspicious of someone, I feel that the person deserves no less. Three votes really isn't much when you need 7 to lynch, but that's just my opinion on this.

if I built a case, that means I believe in it fully. If somebody else builds a case, that means I could like it in parts, dislike it in parts. I'd rather fully believe a case that warrants my vote than only partly agree with a case.

If someone else made a case, there's nothing wrong with saying which parts you agree with and adding anything you feel the person missed. You're still only voting for what you believe in and only for people you find scummy.

Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.

I couldn't disagree more. Anti-town definitely is NOT the same thing as scummy. For example, I could attempt to post, in several seperate posts, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which amounts to around 150 pages. That would definitely be anti-town, since it completely distracts us from the game. It is not, however, scummy. I see no reason scum would want to do that. It just makes you look suspicious and you could very easily be lynched for it.

In the same way, I don't think a random vote would have been scummy. It would have been anti-town since we were out of the RVS, but there's no good reason scum would do it. Hence, I don't see how it's scummy.

2. It appears to be lurking. While subsequent posts have shown that RC is not lurking, it remains that random voting post-RVS shows that it was a half-hearted effort, which is anti-town.

The fact that RC knew hiphop was voting him for lurking means he had to have likely read the game first.

3. More than either of those, fighting to convince everyone that it was NOT a random vote, when it absolutely was, is plainly a lie, and isn't good for the town no matter WHAT excuse he comes up with.

I still don't see why you think that

had

to be a random vote. It wasn't even accompanied by a random vote-type reason.

Didn't say it was OMGUS, just defensive. Asking why people thought it was random when it obviously was is defensive. It also puts the people questioned in an awkward position.

I never said that you said it was OMGUS. This is what you said:

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.

The only person who suspected him enough for his random vote to vote him initially was DTM, who RC has claimed a pro-town read on. How is he acting like suspecting him is scummy?

[DeathRowKitty]

Anti-town hurts town, correct? You say your example would have distracted the town from the game. That hurts the town. If something hurts the town, it raises suspicion. You yourself said it makes the troublemaker suspicious. Anything that raises suspicion is scummy. Scum probably wouldn't do that (it'd be suicide) but nevertheless it's a scummy thing to do. Scum don't just do scummy things, and town can do scummy things too.

Anti-town is anything that goes against the town's motives. Discussing Fermat's Last Theorem is against the town's motives and therefore anti-town. Posting the entire proof is even more so against the town's motives and therefore even more anti-town. I wouldn't find either to be scummy. Scummy behavior (to me at least) isn't just anti-town play; it's play that you would expect to see from scum as opposed to town. I agree that town can do scummy things too, but I disagree with your definition of scummy. For example, would you consider me any more likely to be scum if I were to start posting the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?

You're right, it wasn't accompanied by ANY REASON whatsoever. All roads point to it being random, so it's natural to assume that it was a random vote. Just because you say it lacks the usual flavoring of a random vote doesn't mean it wasn't random.

It's true that it doesn't mean it wasn't random, but it makes it considerably less likely. Why even bother to random vote if you don't give a reason? (Arguably, why vote at all if you don't give a reason but RC's already said why)

I've got a question for you. RC says he voted dank for being a grammar nazi, basically, even though more suspicious things had happened by that point. He says the reason he didn't post reasoning in his vote post was so he'd get reactions. Then he responds in the above manner when he gets those reactions. In your opinion, is this normal townie play? Doesn't it seem the slightest bit suspicious?

He didn't vote dank for being a grammar nazi. He voted dank for what he perceived as dank intentionally misinterpreting what hiphop said to make it seem scummy. Whether or not anything more suspicious happened is your opinion. I can't really respond to the rest of this because you clearly misrepresented the dialogue by oversimplifying it.

I can see how RC looks a little suspicious because of the situation. I don't see how he looks scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

If I say someone is scummy, it means I think that person is likely to be scum. If I say someone's suspicious, it means I think that person's play has been odd or anti-town, but I don't necessarily find the person scummy.

For example, I'm very suspicious of your case on RC. I'm thinking less and less that it's scummy because you honestly seem to believe every word of it. I'll do a quick re-read later tonight (or tomorrow if I don't get a chance tonight (and hopefully remember to read one of Jason's games when I get a chance)) to see where my vote should be.

[DeathRowKitty]

Toro, was that in response to anything in particular or just a general comment?

[DeathRowKitty]

I did a re-read and I'm happy with where my vote is. I still don't like Jason's posts, but IK is definitely scummiest right now in my eyes. I don't have much new to add, but I came back to the same post again:

Yeah... it's much too early for a lynch. However, I do agree with the sentiment about hiphop; his deflecting is suspicious. Not to mention, it's 1. never a good thing to play the newbie card and 2. if this actually is his 3rd game the newbie card is kinda old.

And no, hiphop, as Toro says, at this point I'm pretty sure most scum would have written you off as dead weight. You've sort of exploded in scummyness.

The more I look at this post, the less I like it. First it was the "exploded in scumminess comment. It's almost as if IK is saying "I'm not sure I want to be a part of this, but he is suspicious, so if you guys want to put another vote or two on him, it might be a good thing." Obviously, that's just one way of reading it, but it's definitely a possibility.

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.

Doesn't everyone? Anyone who's looking for the proof (I'm sure you're all looking for it ) can find it here. Guess it's only 109 pages. I seem to remember hearing 150.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DRK: You seem to be basing a lot of, if not most, of your case against me purely off of that post, or rather, your interpretation of it. Has anything else I've done piqued your interest?

Glad you asked. That is in no way the only thing I have against you, just a post that I keep coming back to. Here are some reasons I think you're scum (in no particular order):

1.

That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).

You later said you've done this once other time. It also sounds like a way to try to avoid suspicion in the RVS.
2.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?

The whole "investigating the bandwagon" sounds like a big excuse to me.
3. You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.
4. Your odd desire to prevent anyone from having more than 1 or 2 votes makes no sense unless you're trying to appear pro-town.

I don't have time to post more now, but I'm pretty sure this list isn't all-inclusive.

[DeathRowKitty]

Ok. An excuse for what? To avoid being observed, studied? To get out of scumhunting? If that was the reason I made that 'excuse', why would I be pursuing RC like this now?

You were being suspected for your unvote when you saw an RVS bandwagon start. Looking into the bandwagon could have been an excuse for why you unvoted and would seemingly be a pro-town thing to do. The fact that you later said there was nothing to analyze just makes it more likely that you were just using that as an excuse. All of this has been brought up already. I'm not even sure why you had to ask.

You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.

Examples, please. Elaborate.

A few selected quotes from your last post:

For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.

I still don't see why that was

obviously

a random vote.

Who do I sound like I am blaming?

Nice how you cut out the other quote I put with it. It sounds like you're blaming me for suspecting you (makes a whole lot more sense since you vote for me in the post I'm responding to).

If he's blaming you for suspecting him, then why didn't he vote you as soon as you started attacking him? He gave specific posts as to why he's voting you and I think he would have been completely justified in voting you even earlier.

Let's say I am of the opinion that Person A is townie. Person B thinks Person A is scum. Person B builds a case against Person A to convince the rest of the town that his opinion is correct. If I'm of a different opinion than Person B, will I vote for Person A, even though in my opinion he is a townie?

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.

Let's say you were at L-4 on Page 3. Somebody else votes you and puts you at L-3. Would you personally, really feel any more pressure? Or would it just be numbers? I know I wouldn't even notice.

I would definitely notice. L-4 doesn't mean much. It means you should definitely be defending yourself, but that's it. L-3 (in my mind) is starting to get into more dangerous territory. Remember that L-2 is where claims are often forced. L-3 means that you're one bad move or one stupid sentence away from possibly being put in claim territory.

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.

I'm afraid I'm not going to retract this statement, ever. I did show an example of where you specifically called someone out as suspicious becaue they suspected you, you deleted it from your response. Or, if you're not willing to go through and find it, here's a hint:

"Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?"

Complete misrepresentation of what RC said. RC doesn't suspect you for finding him suspicious. He suspects you (the way I'm reading his posts) because you're trying to blow this completely out of proportion.

I don't expect DRK, or anyone, to think of me as an "angelic townie", nor do I hope they would think of me as a "defensive scumbag". I would hope all players look to me with a reasonable amount of distrust until they've made their own individual decision as to whether or not I sound like I am on their side.

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

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.



The key point here: you said you're waiting for him to change your opinion, yet you refuse to have your opinion changed! You're not looking for him to confirm that he's pro-town and as far as I can see, you never have been. You came into this argument with the assumption that he's scum and refuse to relinquish that assumption, no matter how many times your points get refuted. Your argument (that you basically stole from others) initially was that RC random voted out of the RVS. After all this arguing, that's still all you have and I really doubt it's even right. You're willing to argue any little thing he says as if you're hoping something will trip him up and get him lynched.

I don't see how that game you posted has any relevance to your situation. First of all, you weren't even there for the first few pages. Second of all,

no one was lynched in the first few pages

. When the lynch finally occurred, it was 16 or 17 pages in and only because of a deadling. What does that game have to do with not wanting to put a 3rd vote on someone on page 3?

[DeathRowKitty]

Quote wars like that are annoying

Sorry about my last post, but there was no other way to make that post.

[DeathRowKitty]

I've already discussed this in detail. What are your responses to my responses?

The fact that I called it an "excuse" should imply I don't believe them.

This doesn't show anything being blown out of purportion, it's merely a repeated issue that hasn't been resolved yet.

If you haven't resolved the "random vote" issue, then it's not

obviously

a random vote.

I had basically predicted he would OMGUS because he suspected me who suspected him

You suspect him, therefore it's an OMGUS? I'll use one of your "Person A, Person B" situations. Let's say Person A votes Person B. Person A then acts scummy. Is Person B not allowed to vote Person A?

I use my 'infamous Person A Person B analogies' to show my reasoning behind my explaination. No, the situation presented wasn't immediately relevant. However, it did show why this game is opinion-based, which was the point. I also love how you're defending RC more than RC is defending himself.

It wasn't immediately relevant, yet you posted it anyway? Why not make up a situation to go along with your situation. I also love how you claim I'm defending RC to avoid adequately addressing this point, when I'm actually just dispelling irrelevant points.

wasn't addressing this question to you.

I was saying why that question was unreasonable. If you're willing to use that question as part of your argument, you shouldn't be afraid of anyone's answers.

Basically what I'm asking you here is this: GIVEN THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, do you believe RC to be town or not? You HAVE to have reads one way or the other. There can be no middle ground.

Yes, there can be a middle ground. There can be a whole spectrum of reads I can have on a player. The fact that every player is one side or the other doesn't mean I have to see a player as definitively on any particular side. For example, everyone has a role at the start of the game, yet I have a neutral read on everyone. It's very possible that read stays for some people.

If I had to pick, I would say RC is town. It wouldn't make sense for both of you to be scum and at this point I think you are.

When did I say I refuse to have my opinion changed?

Obviously, you wouldn't say that, but that's what your entire argument is saying to me. You're attempting to refute everything he says, when most of it doesn't deserve to be refuted. Indicative of someone who refuses to have his opinion changed. This would make sense if you're scum, since you would want to do everything possible to portray him as scum.

I borrowed, but I expanded on. Haven't you been listening? It's like talking to a brick wall.

Just to show you I did read the game, I'll steal a response from it: It's the opposite of talking to a brick wall-a brick wall doesn't respond.

What bad came of the votes at the beginning of the game? Anything?

Um... ok. I'd scream misrepresentation again, but I doubt it'd have any affect on you. Your defense of RC is admirable, but it's again solidifying my opinion that you are in fact buddying him to a degree I haven't seen since my newbie game.

On a side note, what's your experience level?

There's a BIG difference between defending someone and showing that someone's argument makes no sense. I've been showing that your argument makes no sense.

I assume you're asking for my experience level under the assumption that I'm blatantly buddying? This is my second game. Yes, I'm inexperienced. No, I'm not stupid.

[DeathRowKitty]

But... but arguing about the argument is fun....

It's also anti-town. By your logic, that makes it scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

I wanted to know your experience level for a multitude of reasons.

1st: It annoys me when inexperienced people say things like "poking holes in the accuser's arguments isn't defending" when it absolutely is.

2nd: Yeah, the buddying.

3rd: A lot of your arguments concerning my personal actions, such as your post 216, were completely obliterated by my post 217. Those that weren't had already been repeatedly addressed before. You have yet to respond to the addresses, and your resistance in doing so is suspicious.

4th: You do a great deal of misrepresentation in your posts.

5th: General hypocrisy. It's ok for you to read my posts how you see them (misrepresent), but it's not OK for me to read RC's posts how I see them (misrepresent)? I'm not saying I'm misrepresenting, I'm arguing from your perspective. You have a double standard going here.

6th: A hunch. A very good, very accurate hunch apparently.



Remember, in games of mafia, no matter how smart you are, if you're inexperienced, you're also stupid.


Oh, and 7th: As in your post 229, you can't take a joke and try to make something more out of it than there is to begin with.

Allow me to address those points in order.
1. That came after you asked. That wasn't one of your reasons and even besides, there's no reason for someone to have to defend himself against meaningless accusations.
2. I'm inexperienced, therefore

obviously

I'd be stupid enough to buddy to this extent. Your turn. Read my other game (I was scum) and then try and argue I would buddy this noticeably.
3. I don't see how you obliterated them. At all.
4. Hypocrisy? If I misrepresent your posts, it's because they weren't well written and I'm getting you to say what you wanted properly.
5. I would argue the same of you.
6. Where exactly did this hunch come from? Care to point out any posts?
7. I used that as an opportunity to make a point. You didn't take what Paradoxombie said seriously at all. You dodged the issue instead of defending it. It was a great opportunity to point out how different "anti-town" and "scummy" are. Hopefully you didn't think I took your joke seriously? Don't try to take a joke and make something more out of it. That's a sign of inexperience.

Not having played mafia doesn't mean I'm stupid when it comes to mafia. Inversely, being experienced with mafia doesn't mean you play well.


As for the rest of your post, I have to agree with Paradoxombie. Quote wars aren't going to get us anywhere. Looking through massive posts is starting to get annoying and no one's going to follow them. If you have a few parts of that post that you believe contain particularly pressing issues, make a new post pointing them out to me.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

[DeathRowKitty]

There was a point where DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy. A few posts later, RC votes for me. Then, before I respond, before having gained any new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum.

I said I was finding your argument less scummy because it seemed like you honestly believed it. I re-read and changed my mind. Your play the entire game has been questionable and on re-reading your argument, I couldn't see how you believed it and especially not as strongly as you were conveying.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about at least one of them.

How much does buddying play into this?

I disagree with Paradoxombie. Quote wars allow those involved to address the issues on many points.

I was a part of the last quote war and TBH, even I don't want to look through those posts. It gets a lot done between the two of us, but little done for the town.

I won't even attempt to respond to your last wall of quotes because I know it won't accomplish anything. I say you're scummy. You say I am. Nothing you've posted has even remotely changed my mind and clearly nothing I've posted has even remotely changed your mind. I'm really getting the feeling that isn't going to change.

@Town
For what it's worth, IK's town meta does include willingness to become a martyr (the game he linked to before).

@Jason
Have you completed any games on mafiascum? I didn't see any in your profile.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

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.

But an issue is, um DRK you are defending RC. RC should be more capable of defending himself no?

Yes, he can defend himself and was doing so before I came into this. I didn't intend to defend him. I said IK was blowing his case way out of proportion and he asked me how. I pointed out some quotes in which he was blowing the case way out of proportion and we ended up fighting over that. I wasn't trying to defend RC so much as I was showing why IK's case was crap, which I think is different.

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

Noted. I'm not either though, so that wouldn't apply to me in this case.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

I'm not sure that's something we need to consider Day 1. If there's a second kill tonight, we can worry about an SK Day 2 and I can't see I see much cause for concern over a survivor Day 1. First and foremost, we shoud be looking for scum, not neutral parties Day 1.

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

The purpose of my argument isn't to find loopholes in IK's arguments. It's to show that he's blowing the argument to ridiculous proportions to try to make someone look scummy.

I haven't been pointing out loopholes. I've been pointing out parts of his argument that I can't see as making sense. I'm not looking for these to lead to scum tells, since they are in and of themselves scum tells. The town tells I would be looking for are ways in which his arguments make sense or reasons to believe he's not just trying to frame RC. Nothing has convinced me as such. If I see town tells, I have no problem pointing them out, for example, the fact that martyrdom is part of his town meta, which I did point out.

When I voted IK, I thought there was a decent chance he was scum and I believe that even more so now.

As for the bandwagoning issue, can you clarify what you mean by that?

[DeathRowKitty]

If you aren't convinced that he is scum

I believe strongly that he's scum. Thanks for asking.

As your case developed you start seeing more town signs then scum signs.

I assume you're referring to when I said his case was looking less and less scummy? That was more of a gut read on his case, which a re-read changed.

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?

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.

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.

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 want you to reaffirm, who do you think is scummy then?

My top 3 in order:
1. IK
2. Jason
3. hiphop (going back and forth with this one)

I'm really on the fence with hiphop. His play models the role of VI quite nicely. Of course, scum can also appear that way. I wouldn't support his lynch based on current information unless both of my top 2 suspects were out of the question, in which case I wouldn't be against it.

@DTM
You're being very vague with your opinions on this whole situation. Can you give your opinions less cryptically?

[DeathRowKitty]

Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).

Allow me to say this for at least the third time.

I said I was finding your case less scummy, not you.

I re-read the thread and realized I was wrong and not only was your case scummier than I thought, you were scummier than I thought. My next post after doing my re-read said so. What's so hard to believe about that???

2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.

Is this a....contradiction?! You earlier said we don't have facts until Day 2 when we know alignments.

It's not Day 2!

That means you don't have facts on which to make your case and by your logic, you shouldn't be making one.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, now that RC has posted his case against me, I've got several questions to ask you, DRK.

1. What is your opinion of the case?
2. Barring what you have just stated, what is your opinion of my response to the case?
3. Have those two posts, RC's and mine, affected your opinion in any form?
4. I've been accused of blowing my case against RC out of proportion. Given the fact that RC's complete case against me has now been made, do you believe that he too could have blown the case against me out of proportion?
5. If I am lynched and flip town, what will you do then?

1. Not as convincing as the build-up had me anticipating. This doesn't change the fact that I strongly believe you to be scum.
2. I thought your response was....horrible TBH. There are a couple of things you said that I agree with, but I thought your post was almost completely wrong.
3. It's put RC slightly higher on my scumdar (emphasis on "slightly"). Don't expect him to show up on my scum list anytime soon though unless he does something much scummier.
4. There's a big difference between the two cases. You've been harassing RC with walls of text that aim at nitpicking on every little inconsequential detail. I never saw him try to do anything like that to you, especially since a large portion of his last few posts had been refuting irrelevant and incorrect arguments.
5. I'm willing to take the heat for that. I don't foresee this being an issue though.


Let's look back at IK's posts about logic and fact:

My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.

Now let's combine these views and apply them to IK's current situation. First thing I notice is that he changed his mind about what constitutes fact between his original post and his explanation (the second post is an explanation of the first). He goes from saying there's almost no fact to saying there's no fact. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. It's not hard to accidentally word something ambiguously or even incorrectly. Under that premise, it's safe to assume that either the explanation post is what he meant or he's lying to get out of trouble. Let's assume for a moment it's the first option and he believes there's no fact Day 1 and therefore no logic.

Then how can he possibly feel so strongly about his RC case if it's "impossible for [him] to make a case without fact?

The way I see this, either IK is playing both sides of the issue or he lied earlier to avoid our suspicion. Either way, VERY scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

Yeah, we have way too many lurkers.

Clearest thought from you this game.

FoS lurkers

. If you have a good reason, you're exempt from this. I think this FoS covers (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) don_Johnson (yes, I know he just replaced in, but there had to have been something to give thoughts on), Paradoxombie, and Shrine.

Unfortunately, we also have ryan and DTM busy lately, toro and Zach with V/LA, and jason with a faulty computer. That leaves 4 of us able to post up to our normal levels: me, IK, hiphop, and RC. This game is going to have some serious activity issues over the next few days...

On that note, just an early warning of V/LA some point next week. I'll post the days I'll be missing at some point in the next few days.

[DeathRowKitty]

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

Was that in response to post 270? It looks to me like you might have combined two thoughts here.

Yet this is sub optimal play for day one scum.

Personally, I think that's sub-optimal play for scum any day, but just assuming scum wouldn't do that sets up a very obvious WIFOM situation. If pursuing someone very strongly on comparable evidence to that given this game is part of someone's meta, not doing it as scum would be very obvious and we can't just assume that scum wouldn't do this.

in my gut right now that its the "town going out on the limb" rather then "scum doing everything to lynch x person".

I know that in your recent posts you've been (heavily) implying I'm not considering that option. I've considered that option and I just don't buy the townie going out on a limb idea. A lot of IK's recent posts have said in large part, "You're lying, your vote was clearly OMGUS, and you completely misinterpreted what I said." Meanwhile, I can't see any of these as particularly scummy. In order:
1. Why would RC lie? Despite what IK says, I wouldn't have seen random voting that late as very scummy. Not reading the thread before your first post isn't a scum tell, though it's obviously anti-town.
2. Arguable. I thought at least a couple of reasons for RC's vote initially were fairly clear. I can understand not having the time to put all of the reasons in with his initial vote, especially since RC was busy responding to IK's walls.
3. Again, arguable. I think there's

a lot

of misinterpreting coming from both sides of the argument. The difference is that I find IK's points are often (intentionally?) misleading or irrelevant and just asking to be misinterpreted. I get the feeling IK wants to misinterpret RC's posts. I suppose that's just my opinion though.

The initial reason I said his

case

was looking less scummy was because I thought there was a pretty decent chance it was just "town going out on the limb." When I re-read, I just couldn't justify this stance to myself. I still can't. Not helping IK right now is the fact that he's taken to calling RC out on

everything

(or at least close to everything) he says, scummy or not. I don't see why a townie would ever want to do that.

@IK
Explain how stupid you think I am that I would buddy so obviously. Be as detailed as you can.

[DeathRowKitty]

Is this the only defense you have for his buddying accusation?

Here's what caused the perceived buddying situation:
1. IK attacked RC. I saw it as a crap case (and still do).
2. I pointed out why I thought it was a crap case.
3. IK and I argued back and forth on it. The longer we argued, the more it looked like I was buddying.

I think I even mentioned something to this effect (I wouldn't even begin to guess where), butI was just accused of defending RC. Yes, what you quoted was WIFOM, but if IK won't listen to what I see is the obvious (the situation I outlined above), I figure getting him to explain why I would buddy so obviously might convince him. I can't see a good explanation besides the fact that I'm a complete idiot (no reference intended to IK's username), which I'm fairly certain I'm not.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Drk Why did you go that far into the quote wars, before calling it quits, couldn’t you see it wasn’t going anywhere?

I didn't see that at first. I didn't see it until someone brought it up actually. I'm not sure if this will make any sense, but for me and IK, the quote war did a decent amount. Unfortunately, no one can win a quote war without majority agreement from the town and it's just not plausible for the rest of the town to get the same things out of the quote wars as IK and me. Sure, the town can pick one side or the other, but when we're arguing every other line the other person says, I don't expect anyone else to be able to say 100% that he/she agrees solely with what one person says, simply because no one's going to think exactly the same as IK or me. I gave up on the quote war when I realized it couldn't go anywhere.

[DeathRowKitty]

Pushing for a lynch

solely

for info is very scummy. Pushing for one of multiple equally valid lynches because of information isn't. All other things equal, having more information leaves the town better off.

At least 50% more since you're trying to say "I can't be scummy since my buddying is so obvious". That's just... words can't describe how impossibly stupid that is.

I suppose that isn't the best way to try to show I'm not buddying. There is obvioulsy a lot of WIFOM going on in what I said. It all amounts to how much WIFOM you're willing to believe. Given any WIFOM situation, you can extend the logic behind it arbitrarily far. Whether or not you consider it scummy depends on the parity of the number of iterations you're willing to carry it out to. My contention here is that buddying so obviously is a terrible WIFOM situation for scum to get into. Let's say for sake of argument that you're right about my buddying and that RC and I are scum. I could tell you all I want that I wouldn't buddy like that and more than a few people would probably believe me simply because of how stupid it is. As soon as one of us dies and flips scum, the WIFOM ends and suddenly, you've caught two scum instead of one. Obviously, this doesn't prove anything, but that would be horribly play for scum.

Now let's say for sake of argument that I think you're pushing a crap case (a.k.a. the situation actually occurring). Is it better that I let you keep pushing what I see as a crap case or that I call you out on it? If I think you're making completely incorrect accusations, should I not call you out on it? That's what you're perceiving as buddying. I was attacking your arguments, not defending RC. If attacking your arguments included showing why they were wrong about RC, then that's what I was going to do. Interpret it as making RC's defense for him, interpret it as buddying, interpret it as whatever you want; I call it scumhunting.

[DeathRowKitty]

I still think we need more opinions on the IK/RC situation, but I'd be happy with a Jason lynch if others don't want an IK lynch.

[DeathRowKitty]

It seems a bit premature to be negotiating. There's no deadline, so why are you trying to hammer out a compromise?

I'm not really trying to compromise. My vote right now is on IK. It will stay there until I no longer think he's scummy or the town decides to lynch someone else I find scummy. Remember that Jason was my #2 lynch candidate. I would be very happy with a Jason lynch. I would be happier with an IK lynch, but the town seems to be splitting on the IK issue. If I know there won't be enough support for an IK lynch, I'd be more than willing to back a Jason lynch and that's what I was saying. If you replace "Jason" with any other player in the game, I wouldn't feel the same way.

I do think Jason's post was good enough to take some heat off of him, though I still think we need to keep a close eye on him.

@Paradox
You do know Zach is gone until the 14th, right?

[DeathRowKitty]

@Drk I know that idk ask you a question concerning whether rc is angelic, or a “scumbag”. You responded “If I had to pick, I would say RC is town.” I want to know, do you find rc suspicious in any way? Do you believe that there is a possibility that rc could be scum? Based on the info now, where is he on your list, near the top, middle, or near the bottom? If the deadline were coming up in a few hours, and there were six votes for him, would you vote for him or let the deadline pass?

I do believe there's a chance RC is scum. No one in this game should be confirmed anythying at this point. If I had to put him somewhere, probably middle to bottom. Usually, you don't need as many votes to lynch at deadline, but I don't know about the rules in this game. I'm guessing you mean would I vote RC or let the day end with a no lynch? Unless RC had claimed a town PR, I would cast the lynching vote in that case. There's a bigger chance of killing scum by lynching someone (even someone I suspect is a townie) than by just letting the mafia kill and a no lynch just gives us less information to work with Day 2.

Yeah I know Zach get's back from vacation tomorrow.

I thought he was gone from the 10th to the 14th. I'll check after I post this (I've already clicked preview so it's harder to look through the thread until I post).

[DeathRowKitty]

Odd...quotes from two of Zach's posts:

Will be V/LA August 10-14

I will be leaving for my trip later today, and will be back on Wednesday.

Anyone want to roll a die?

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: No, the way you presented it was by asking DRK if

he

thought I was the most townie player ever or the most obvious scumbag ever.

Sorry, it's the Kitty part that gets me.

Don't know what I was thinking when I made my username >.<

[DeathRowKitty]

Interesting thought there hiphop. We know his top three suspects are RC, me, and you. I looked back and I found this in one of IK's posts:

I get townie reads from:

Ryan
Paradoxombie
DTM
Shrine
Zach (when he posts)
Dank (haven't heard anything from the replacement, so I can't say one way or the other)

I'd count toro and jason as town if they'd post more, but due to recent inactivity, I can't tell one way or the other. Perhaps toro would lean slightly to the scummy side for not making significant posts and seemingly avoiding getting into the discussion voluntarily. As for jason, I haven't seen anything he's done jump out and bite me as suspicious, except for the inactivity (I'm always paranoid when people with computer problems can still log on often enough to not be prodded, and yet don't make any posts).

The big question (and one that can't be answered without a lot of WIFOM) is this: where in his list of suspicions should we be looking?

The obvious place to look is his list of town reads, since scum would want to make their buddies look good. Unfortunately, most scum wouldn't do that since it would be too obvious. If we instead consider his scum list, either he's done a great job of distancing or you're the only possibility. Remember that he never voted for you. That could be one tie (of course you know whether or not this is the case).

However, if we count the names IK's given, there are two players missing: Jason and toro, who he excluded because they haven't posted enough recently. He says toro is leaning towards scummy, which (WIFOM aside), sounds like a good place to put your scumbuddies. He said Jason was leaning town, which could be a safe spot to put a scumbuddy who's come under a little pressure, though leaning scum would (IMO) be better.

(Hopefully I'm not giving you any ideas), but the natural place to try to list your scumbuddies is near the middle, but slightly scummy if possible (both of my scumbuddies listed me as "leaning scum" in my last game). Of course, scum could see this and just list their buddies as pro-town, so there's only so much you can take from this. Honestly, if scum are playing well, you shouldn't be able to make correct links (if scum are playing really well, you shouldn't be able to catch them to begin with).

@IK
Can you elaborate on your townie read on dank? I know he's been replaced, but I want to know.

[DeathRowKitty]

@IK
Let's say for sake of argument that you're town and somehow you can see into the future and you know that if you're lynched, we still won't go after RC Day 2. Would you still be as willing to be a martyr for your cause?

[DeathRowKitty]

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 agree that does make things more difficult, but IK does have some strange ideas about optimal play.

Day 1 of the game that was brought up earlier, IK replaced in (as detective) and became suspicious of Magnus_orion (magnus was town, but was basically a miller (his twin was scum and they were essentially reversed)). He investigated Magnus Night 1 and found guns, which he then claimed the following day. An argument then ensued and IK kept insisting the real cop should counterclaim if he was lying. Here was the explanation he gave:

A mislynch is a small price to pay, when scum could be gotten a day earlier and without two nightkills (the first nightkill and then the nightkill after the scum dies the next day)? You're not understanding something here. There is more to this than the mislynch. Let me spell this out clearly for you:

Same setup we have here, with one claimed cop who says that another player is scum due to investigation results. Let's say the claimed cop isn't the real cop, and the real cop keeps his mouth shut. The fakecop gets his way, the townie is lynched. Woohoo for scum! There's a nightkill, so two dead townies thusfar. The fakecop defends himself the next day, saying he's insane or paranoid or some shit. If that doesn't work, he's lynched. So one dead scum. Then the scum get another nightkill. That's 3 dead townies.

Three.

Dead.

Townies.

You following?

Reset the situation, the fakecop claims the other guy is scum. The real cop pipes up and convinces the town that he's telling the truth. The fakecop is lynched, scum dead. The mafia get a nightkill, they kill the cop. Boohoo. The next day starts, the town minus a cop, the scum minus a buddy.

3 dead townies with one dead scum is much less preferable than one dead PR and one dead scum. Come on, try and tell me I'm wrong here.

If he's town and he doesn't think we'll lynch any of his suspects tomorrow, he should be in an even worse situation. We'd be lynching a townie today, the scum would get a NK, we'd be lynching a townie tomorrow in his mind, and the scum would get another NK. Even at best, in his mind, we'd be losing a townie today, the scum would get a NK, we'd lynch scum tomorrow (if we follow his suggestions, he thinks tomorrow's lynch is going to hit scum), and the scum would get a NK. That's basically the same 3 for 1 trade-off he advocated

against

in his other game. Of course, it doesn't make sense to me if he's scum either, which then brings us to a WIFOM situation. There is one way I could see it working out very well as scum. He could be saying he's alright with dying so we think he's a townie. He's already offered to claim (no reason he should unless the deadline is set and he's the inevitable lynch candidate) and he might be scum ready to claim a townie PR to get a townie lynched Day 1, leading to his 3 for 1 tradeoff, which in his mind, is good play.

Either way, his martyr play isn't good for his cause (unless he's jester, but I highly doubt that). Honestly, I think he would be just as likely, if not more likely, to do this as scum.

Mod's disappointed in our activity. We have to step up our posting. I think ryan said he plans on posting today and tomorrow, Zach and toro come back. Hopefully that will help our posting, but those of us who are here do need to start posting more (me included).

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK, if you think I'm saying that I'm willing to die just so I can look more town-ish, then go ahead and kill me already and stop wasting the town's time.

Okay!

Daykill: Idiotking

. Oh darn, it didn't work...

Here's my thoughts for a few possible lynch candidates at the moment:

Idiotking

-I still think there's a good chance he's scum. Additionally, he would be a pretty good information lynch. His views on

everyone

have already been explicitly layed out and he's been fairly polarizing.

jasonT1981

-His lynch gives us a decent shot at hitting scum, though not as good as an IK lynch. His lynch wouldn't be as good in terms of information since he really hasn't posted much. If anything, jasonscum would most likely mean hiphoptown.

hiphop

-His lynch would be by far (IMO) our best information lynch. He was the target of an early bandwagon and people's actions towards him during and since could be a great lead Day 2. Unfortunately, I have a feeling we would be lynching a townie.

If everyone could at least post a top 3 scum list, it could help fuel some activity and (more importantly), get everyone's opinions out in the open.

[DeathRowKitty]

Now that we have all this activity going...

I'm going to be V/LA Monday the 17th through Thursday the 20th.


If ryan or toro could at least pop in to say they're still alive, that would be nice.

[DeathRowKitty]

Odd...quotes from two of Zach's posts:

Will be V/LA August 10-14

I will be leaving for my trip later today, and will be back on Wednesday.

Anyone want to roll a die?

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

I will be leaving for my trip later today, and will be back on Wednesday.

I expect I will be kicking back from my week off of work at that point though, so posting won't be a priority. But given that I'm already behind in this game, I'll see what I can do about getting a catchup post up.

Zach did state he would not be posting much and Kitty has left that big part out. Maybe in an attempt to discredit Zach even further and justify his jump on the wagon.

unvote
vote:Kitty

Grasping at straws to take attention off of IK, perhaps? Trying to discredit me, since you were second on my scum list? I'm not sure where you get the idea I was trying to discredit Zach. I stated in my previous post I thought he was gone until Friday. Honestly, I didn't read his posts that closely and thought one of them was just a typo. What bothers me even more is that you accused me of jumping on some bandwagon that I'm fairly certain doesn't exist. I was on the hiphop wagon early in the game, which had long since finished at the time. I put the first vote on you and the first vote on IK. *sigh* Are we reading the same game here?

[DeathRowKitty]

As a matter of fact,

unvote, vote: jason

.

My vote on IK isn't doing anything right now (there's nothing meaningful left to argue about) and I definitely want a better explanation from you. Call it OMGUS if you want, but I think I'm more than justified in voting you right now.

[DeathRowKitty]

I've only made one post that even remotely resembles calling Zach scummy (I voted him for putting a third random vote on you). I've had no problem with his posts since then and I don't see how pointing out what I perceived to be a typo would do anything to make Zach look bad. If I have a problem with someone, I have no problem voicing my suspicions or voting.

I even mentioned in my previous post I thought Zach was away until the 14th and Paradox cleared it up for me in his next post.

you say you didn't read his posts that clearly... well to quote it, you would have had to delete what he had said below to only partially quote him, so you would have seen it I am willing to bet.

No, I didn't have to delete anything. I skimmed his posts for where he'd said when he was going to be away. I saw that sentence and copied and pasted it. The rest was a separate paragraph. Do you copy and paste entire posts and subsequently delete everything except one sentence?

There wasn't even a wagon there to begin with. There was a single vote. I even questioned that vote because I didn't think Zach was back so soon.

Earlier, you FoSed me over very little using Paradox's reasoning. Now, you voted me off very little when you've already said you're careful with your vote. Why should I believe you're not trying to:
A) draw attention away from IK
B) discredit my suspicion of you

[DeathRowKitty]

Don't like DRK's 338 either.

I didn't make post 338.

Can someone reverberate the cases for Toro and Jason and why they are scummy?

Well, I don't remember the case for Toro that well (and wasn't a big fan of it), but I can give the case against Jason. Jason looked like he was trying to revive the dying wagon on hiphop without ever committing to it (and carried on with this for a few posts, in fact a significant fraction of his posts at the time). We then had the 100% certainty fiasco (null tell if that's part of his meta, but he doesn't have any completed games yet). Now, he seems desparate and is grasping at very thin straws, as if he's trying to shift the focus, put some doubt under my initial suspicion of him, or appear to be doing something productive. Plus, he had the odd comments about being bandwagoned early in the game.

Something else I just noticed:

IK was my RVS vote was he not? and 100% in my mind i feel he is scum... there is no way I Can know 100%

Backtracking?

I think that sums up the case on Jason.

[DeathRowKitty]

Sorry for getting prodded. I was V/LA and I posted it in the thread but forgot to bold it. Looks like the big thing to catch up on is the recently-formed don case, so I'll just comment on that for now.

I have no problem with someone making a vote based on the RVS. The game would go nowhere if people didn't. Making a vote based on the RVS

as we're approaching a deadline?

That could be a problem.

The PR claim was very odd. I can see how it might benefit him (and possibly even the town) though. I don't want to say more than that. No need to help the scum do their job if don is town.

@don
Before I give any opinions on the situation, there are two things I'm interested in knowing:
1) Were you aware of the coming deadline?
2) How bad are your current time constraints?


@IK
Your vote came

after

the PR claim. Do you feel someone who just claimed a townie PR is a good Day 1 lynch?

[DeathRowKitty]

if i leave my slot "not voting", it would be abigger problem, no?

As we approach the deadline, obviously we want someone with enough votes to be lynched, but
1) the deadline isn't here yet
2) we're not exactly at a point where we need to be actively seeking out more votes for IK

The fact that you didn't know about the deadline makes your vote less suspicious in my mind. Putting another vote on the player with the most votes as the deadline approaches based solely on the RVS is definitely very suspicious. Reading the RVS and giving your opinions on who you find scummy makes sense, although a vote is a very odd way of doing so.

Having a lynch ready for deadline is definitely good for the town, but looking for the first person to appear scummy in the game and putting a vote on that person near deadline isn't (unless we're desperate for votes).

Of course, I realize this isn't the current situation, but the quote seems to be hinting that you have a different opinion, which may be your meta or may show that you're just trying to get someone lynched.

[DeathRowKitty]

I didn't include this in my last post, but I don't plan on voting a claimed PR Day 1, 5 RL days before the deadline. If don really does have a town PR, claiming more specifically hurts the town. Only keep a vote on don if you either don't believe his claim or if you're completely dissatisfied with his explanation.

Also,

Mod, I'm currently voting for Jason, not IK

.

*This has been corrected and informed... Thanks.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Drk I can claim as a PR too, does that mean I am one.

Anyone could claim a PR and not be one, but without better evidence against dj having a PR, I see no reason to vote for him, especially close to a deadline on Day 1.


Personally, I think dj should be given a little credit for putting his suspicions on the line after only having read the RVS. Sure, a vote is an odd way to show suspicion about the RVS this late, but at least he did.

@DTM
You say you still have your vote on dj because he hasn't explained his case, but is that really worth a vote in this situation? The RVS was analyzed to death early in the game and can you honestly tell me you weren't at all suspicious of IK early on? I also wonder about policy-lynching someone who claimed town PR, but that's a different argument altogether.

FoS DTM

. Odd play to say the least.

when i replaced in and failed to get caught up you didn't care at all about me. now you seem to "need" my participation.

How do you know DTM didn't care about you while you were gone if you didn't read most of the game?

[DeathRowKitty]

This is definitely interesting. Townie asking to end his suffering or scum hoping to weasel out of getting lynched? TBH, I thought he was going to claim a townie PR (as a fake-claim). I still think IK is a very good day 1 lynch.

I still don't rule out the possibility of IK-scum, though his willingness to be lynched is interesting (he could be creating a WIFOM situation). He has connections to several players (me, DTM, RC, dj, jason at the least), and if we mislynch, we lose a vanilla townie.

unvote: jason

I do plan on voting IK (unless someone else suddenly becomes scummier), but there's no reason to rush. We still have 4 days to lynch and it's better if we use that time for final discussion than to rush a lynch. Unless someone disagrees with me, it would be nice to have

everyone's

thoughts on IK's claim post so we have everyone's opinions recorded if IK gets lynched.

Obviously, we're in no danger of accidental hammer yet, but no one hammer until toro responds to accusations against him (along with anyone else I may have forgotten about).

Also, if someone who wants a hiphop lynch could reiterate that case quickly, it could be beneficial to those who haven't voted yet.

[DeathRowKitty]

@DTM
I never said I don't think IK is scum. The fact that he claimed vanilla just makes things a lot easier in my mind. We can lynch him, have (in my mind) a better than average chance of hitting scum, and if he's town, we lose a vanilla.

[DeathRowKitty]

FoS toro

You brought up the fact that IK only had two votes first, but it seems like you didn't want to put your suspicions on the line with a vote and waited for Zach to vote first.

Mod, is talking during twilight allowed in this game/is there going to be a preset time for twilight?

[DeathRowKitty]

I think that's L-1. Obviously, I can't stop anyone, but I would prefer if no one hammered until we get closer to the deadline, especially since toro still didn't respond to DTM. It might even be good if someone unvotes to give us a little breathing room.

@dj
Seconded. He seemed very enthusiastic to rush IK's lynch in that last post and reiterated the same few points over and over.

[DeathRowKitty]

I sense a catch-22 in the IK situation. The more votes he has, the more he looks town because he seems so willing to die. The fewer votes he has, the more plausible it is that he's trying to make us unvote him with his recent display of suicidal tendencies. I'll do a re-read to better gauge the situation.

[DeathRowKitty]

I re-read and I can still see it either way, though Paradox definitely makes some good points about IK.

With only 2 days left until deadline and some players we can only expect to post once or twice in that span, we really need to pick a lynch soon to make sure we get enough support for it. I'd support a lynch of IK, jason, toro, or hiphop (more or less in that order).

[DeathRowKitty]

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.

I'm actually siding with IK on this one. I read toro's statement as a soft-claim, not breadcrumbing. In fact, I think that might have been his intention, but I don't think it would be wise to press the matter as of yet, especially since that was potentially our second soft-claim (dj's being the first).

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

My gut is saying weird things to me about IK, but for the most part, I agree with this.

Vote: jason

Jason wouldn't be as good of an information lynch, but he's definitely scummy and less blatantly so than IK, which could be more telling of scum trying to blend in.

It would be nice if ryan, shrine, or RC could stop in soon so we have a better idea of where the town is leaning and (hopefully) find someone whose lynch the majority of the town supports.

[DeathRowKitty]

Wait what? IK is scummier than Jason, yet you're voting for Jason? That makes no sense at all.

I said Jason was

less blatantly

scummy than IK, nothing about how scummy they were in comparison.

Most people who play mafia on this site know all the common and obvious tells and can reasonably avoid them. We still have to be careful of players who are blatantly scummy (like IK), but Jason (to me) feels very suspicious for exhibiting more subtle scummy behavior, as if he's playing more to avoid giving off obvious tells than he is to actually play a pro-town game.

Yes, it does appear I'm wagon-hopping because I probably am. Since page 7, I've been mostly concerned with IK because I was getting a strong scum read on him. More recently, he seems slightly less scummy (I'm still very suspicious of him though), while Jason's been seeming scummier with each post. Now that I see the town doesn't support an IK lynch, it makes sense to switch wagons. It's not like I don't find Jason scummy. Plus, an iso-read on Jason doesn't exactly make him look pro-town...

Overall, I'd put Jason and IK about even in scumminess. The deciding factor before was information, which an IK lynch would be better for. When DTM mentioned gut feelings, it made me reconsider. My gut doesn't exactly say townie on IK, but it gives me a very confused read, whereas it's screaming scum on Jason, which an iso-read confirmed.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, DRK... whats with the vote hoping as of late?

Just to point out, I've used my vote conservatively this game as compared to last game, where I voted 9 times for 6 different people on Day 1.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Zach
I can see why you would find vote-hopping suspicious, but is it really unwarranted here, given what I've said?

Also, I think gut feelings can be very useful, even if you don't know where they come from. For example, let's say for example you feel like proving Fermat's Little Theorem (the following is actually something that happened to me) and you need somewhere to start and the following theorem you happen to remember comes to mind: pCk is divisible by p for k=0, 1, ..., p-1. Why? I don't know, but it has to do with prime numbers. Gut feeling number 1. Next, induction pops into mind. Why? Why not. Gut feeling number two. Presumably, you're going to induct on a, since inducting over the primes isn't particularly feasible. At this point, the proof is very straightforward. Induction using the binomial theorem. QED. Going on gut feelings, the proof took about a minute to find.

Of course, that situation isn't an exact analogue to the current one, but hopefully it had some relevance. I don't know what exactly makes my gut tell me Jason's scum, but something about his posts does. Even if I can't see a clear path through his posts that say he's scum (though his posts do look scummy), like I couldn't see a clear route through the proof (though I could see the outlines of it), my gut (hopefully) shows me more clearly that he is scum.

Sorry for the math examples, but for some reason they're the first things that come to mind >.<

[DeathRowKitty]

]Vote: Deadline Extension

@Zach
I gave the case for Jason earlier when ryan asked for it.

[DeathRowKitty]

Now that we have enough players voting for an extension,

unvote: jason

. We have 48 extra hours and there's no use letting them go to waste

[DeathRowKitty]

Why are you unvoting without revoting?

Two reasons:
1) If everyone keeps their votes, the extension is effectively meaningless. I wanted to keep my vote completely open, even if I don't currently plan on changing it.
2) It's better to have people decide who's scummy based on their own feelings, not how many votes people have. By taking votes off, it would force others to make their own opinions. Of course, my unvote probably didn't help this much since no one else unvoted.

Besides, I don't think Toro even has a power role. I've seen too many scum say things like "Oh look at me, I've got an awesome game-winning power role if you just let me live one more day!" to trust it.

Do you really think it will hurt to let him live a little longer, perhaps long enough to have a chance to validate his claim? There's no reason to lynch a claimed townie PR day 1 unless there's very strong evidence that person is lying.

Mod, I think/hope you meant

Thursday

27th.

I do... Fixed. That's what you get for using Ctrl-c...

[DeathRowKitty]

I believed [DRK] would of cast the hammer vote eventually if my vote remained. I don’t think you would be lynched without my vote.

You're kidding, right? I had the opportunity to hammer and I specifically said that no one should hammer until we were closer to the deadline. I seem to recall even suggesting that someone unvote. If we got close to the deadline (probably several hours) and IK was still alive, I would have hammered him, but no sooner. Read the thread before you make comments like this.

As for the second part, you're misinterpreting my motives. Here were the biggest lynch candidates withing the past week or so (in no particular order):
IK
jason
toro
dj

Toro and dj are now safe from lynch due to claims, leaving IK and jason, my two top suspects. Having extra votes out just gives scum something to latch onto and a way to blend in with a wagon near a deadline.

I've voiced my opinions throughout the thread. They're there for you to read. It's time for players who have been less vocal to commit to a lynch. I'm on often and I still have plenty of time to put my vote back. If you want something more committal than that, my suspicions are completely sufficient to put my vote back on jason and if nothing changes, my vote will be on jason well before deadline.

[DeathRowKitty]

@Toro
...and you figured

now

would be the right time to claim that??? I'm pretty sure IK is the only one still looking to lynch you (except possibly shrine) and you're at

L-5

. Knowing we have a roleblocker doesn't help us much. Knowing we have a roleblocker could potentially help scum more. Why did you just claim???

[DeathRowKitty]

There was only one player looking to lynch you. Any reason you couldn't have waited until Day 2 to claim?

[DeathRowKitty]

It doesn't help the town to know you're a roleblocker (or only to a small extent). It does help the scum. For example, scum often have to choose who performs a kill. Knowing that you're a roleblocker, the scum know who you suspect and they can avoid having that person perform the kill.

[DeathRowKitty]

I understand this, but have your "feelings" on jason changed any at all?

No. Nothing's happened that could change them.

Now that we have less than a day until deadline,

vote: jason

Everyone give icemanE a big applause!

*applause*

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm vote-hopping now because I unvoted and then revoted you? I've made a case against you, so no, I'm not just desperate for a lynch I can "grasp onto". In case you haven't been reading my posts from the past few pages, I already explained why I took my vote off. Nice try (actually it wasn't a nice try), but you fail to discredit me.

You're at L-2. Looking at who's voting who right now, IK probably isn't getting any more votes. That makes you the obvious lynch right now. (Unless someone else objects), claim or die.

[DeathRowKitty]

Apparently you didn't see the word eventually. Why don't you follow your own advice and read the thread?

I said no one should hammer. Why would I suddenly decide to hammer after saying that, even if I were scum? I suppose you're right that I would have hammered

eventually

given the opportunity, but the way you phrased it before, you seemed to be implying I was going to hammer out of the blue.

So you are saying that being that you are not lynching scum, the scum will help get the lynch. Smooth?!

Not what I meant. If bandwagons are already built up and we approach a deadline, scum can just put another vote on someone and blend in, including bussing their scummates. Having fewer votes on possible lynch candidates means that scum have to give their own two cents on the people they vote for. Also, I didn't want to put it in my previous response since it would have ruined the point of forcing scum to choose someone, but at the time of my unvote, I would give greater than a 90% chance of jason being lynched, so there really wasn't a risk (especially since the other 10% was IK). Seeing where the votes fall, especially since IK still had the most votes, can be very revealing.

No doubt if Toro or Idk, instead of Jason, ended up getting a push for them you would of put your vote with the rest of the Bw. That was probably your real reason why you unvoted.

I would have given support to an IK lynch, but I wouldn't have supported the lynch of a claimed town PR (toro).

[DeathRowKitty]

Didn't notice the claim before I made that last post.

That claim definitely makes things more interesting. It's not the kind of standard claim you would expect from scum (doctor, cop, etc.), yet I have to wonder why he would ask for a second request to claim when he's the clear lynch candidate. I'm going to do an iso-read on jason and decide whether or not I believe the claim.

[DeathRowKitty]

Okay, here's my dilemma. Two townies claimed PR's without coming under heavy suspicion. I feel comfortable accepting those, since there's no reason to fake-claim before you're forced to and it would just come back to haunt you. Three PR claims on Day 1 seems very unlikely.

Jason's claim was practically forced. In fact, it was forced before I even asked for it. He was at L-2 and it was extremely unlikely anyone else would be lynched. Why wouldn't he claim?

I did an iso-read and I still find him very scummy. I don't believe his claim.

However, his claim is verifiable. Day 2, he should tell us which post he picked and the verdict and that should make it much easier to determine whether or not he's lying. Therefore,

unvote, vote: IK

. If jason's lying, his claim will come back to haunt him and probably on Day 2.

[DeathRowKitty]

I am town-aligned.

[DeathRowKitty]

How much longer until deadline?

15 hours and 32 minutes from the time of this post.

[DeathRowKitty]

@hiphop
You're still voting jason. Are you still advocating for his lynch? What do you think of his claim?

[DeathRowKitty]

I still am a member of the town.

I'm not connected as I'm not a mason or member of the mafia for that matter.

I think the first quote should be alright, but Toro, claim your alignment anyway. No need to take chances with this.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, jason, had don not told us all to claim our alignments, which sentence would you have tested?

[DeathRowKitty]

Yes I believed we should of lynched Jason.

As I've already said, I don't believe jason's claim, but Day 1 isn't the time to be guessing which claims are real. If he does turn out to be a townie PR (and especially the one he claimed), there's still a pretty decent chance to find out. If not, he'll still be here Day 2.

@IK
If you see this before night starts, are you really a vanilla townie?

[DeathRowKitty]

\Bah post

Go scum!

[DeathRowKitty]

Zach rulez

I think that sums things up quite nicely.

Also, ryan

[DeathRowKitty]

@Anyone
What do you think of the level of distancing/bussing in this game? Was it effective, excessive, unconvincing, etc?

[DeathRowKitty]

Anyone else think ryan should be nominated for best effort in a losing game? He put the town in a position where they only had to correctly lynch once to win and gave the town a chance Day 5 by not killing Paradox. Pretty sweet game for a vig.

[DeathRowKitty]

I nominated ryan.

[DeathRowKitty]

Link to the nomination