Mini 844 - P-p-plain! - Over

[lewarcher82]

How do we know?

CoCo, how do I know you don't have the telephone number of all the other 10 players except me? Come on, let us not make it even more complicated than it already is

[CoCo]

How many posts did you just make in a row? I lost count.

Your vote and reasoning is made of fail.

[Kmd4390]

Ok. Keelie, to vote, use the format we've all used. Bolded "Vote: PlayerName".

First of all,

Unvote

. Keelie's OMGUS response is exactly what I'd expect from Keelie as town. As scum, I'd expect more of a "Wait, how'd I slip up" kind of response.

Second of all, I got reactions from other players too.

Rosso is town. His post is obviously for reactions, but using a different player. I'd see this as a little bit suspicious if Keelie were scum, but even then, it would be weak considering my wagon request was the first post of the game, so a scumbuddy wouldn't be too worried. I simply can't find a strong scum motivation for his post. Therefore, Rosso is town.

CoCo is town. There were two posts at the time he posted. Both requested wagons. One included a vote. Another didn't. The logical thing to do is to vote for the one who didn't vote. CoCo did that. Town.

KScope is town. After some non-game threads I've seen, it makes sense that he'd follow Rosso the way he did. And the "slow game" comment is consistent with Drawn Together, where Scope was town.

Alm is town if Pom is scum (which I'll get to in a second). He confused Plum with Pom, which he wouldn't have done if he was scum with one of the two. If Pom is town, ignore this read completely. That is, unless Plum is scum.

Raiv could be scum. Lazy wagon hop on Keelie. No comment on Rosso's Plum wagon attempt. So could also be a connection to someone on that side of things (Plum or Alm?). I'd vote Raiv, but I have a stronger case. Two, actually.

Lew is my third suspect. Jumps on the wagon I started. Seems to want it to go all the way to a lynch. Then wants to set up tomorrow's lynch on the player who started it. Terrible logic. Hypocracy as well. Calls the wagon "pointless" in next post (nobody else had even posted yet!), but then says Keeluie hasn't defended herself. Wishy washy stance, especially considering he voted Keelie. Then he changes his mind when nobody else has even posted again! Unvotes and votes CoCo. Lew, what made you switch? I personally suspect that you were worried about how you'd be looked at for voting Keelie.

So, my case on Lew:
-Wagon jump with intent to lynch
-Setting up a chain lynch
-Says to suspect the player who started the wagon, which
----is bad logic
----is hypocritical
-Calls the wagon pointless while still being on it AND making a point against Keelie
-Switches to CoCo for no good reason.

Pom. Here's where things get interesting. She random votes. Someone who hasn't done a thing yet. No comment on my request for a Keelie wagon. No comment on Rosso's statement that Plum is obvscum. Nothing on CoCo's vote. Pom is looking to avoid attention. Newer player, but intelligent individual. She seems a bit nervous by avoiding the first few posts and with her post before that. "That's everyone, isn't it?". Comes off as a "let's start this, but I don't want to be the one to do it." Then after I ask why she didn't vote Keelie, she says the name is too long. I doubt that's actually why she didn't vote Keelie. I suggested shortening it, and she gave in and voted. But not for wagon's sake, but for having a long name! Which is why she wouldn't vote in the first place.

So, on Pom:
-Anxious to start, yet nervous to draw attention
-Random votes instead of commenting on previous posts
-Bad reason on not voting Keelie
-Contradiction on the Keelie-long-name thing.
-Gave in to my pressure a bit too easily.
-Gave the "long name" reason, probably to avoid calling it a wagon vote.

Vote Pomegranate

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

I'd like to hear from xofelf and Konowa.

So, you're welcome guys. I've given you the scum team on Page 3. Pom, Lew, and Raiv. (That line sounds too much like Mastin for my comfort. Actually, so does that one. I'll stop now. Damn, Mastin would say that too!)

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

Also, FTR CoCo, I believe in rules. I won't communicate illegally with Keelie about the game, and if she does so to me (unintentionally of course. She wouldn't do so intentionally), I'll request that I be replaced.

[xofelf]

Sorry internet went down last night.. and keeps going down, sorry

I say

Vote: KMD

attacking your co-worker and someone you brought here... shameful.

[Konowa]

Sorry for the late start, access is somewhat limited for me at the moment with this move I am undergoing.

---

I agree with KMD regarding Pomegranate and lew right now, but not feeling Raivann as much.

vote Pomegranate

xofelf, what do you think of KMD's points against Pomegranate and lew?

[Kmd4390]

Seriously, xofelf? I just voted a newbie and got massive reactions and laid the whole thing out and you come in to joke vote? What do you think of my last post?

Konowa, what exactly do you agree/disagree with regarding my cases?

[Konowa]

I agree that Pomegranate is trying to not draw too much attention to herself by following your wishes for a Keelie wagon.

I agree with you about lew, but for reasoning of my own. I am getting a too townie feel out of him right now.

I disagree with you about Raivann, but this is mostly gut.

If I had to list a third right now, I would say xofelf.

[Konowa]

Sidenote.

Mod and all: I currently do not have access on the weekends due to a move my wife and I are undergoing. I am fighting with Comcast right now to get them out to my house and hook us up.

[Pomegranate]

In this post I'm going to dissect Kmd's post against me bit by bit, and refute each section.

Pom. Here's where things get interesting. She random votes. Someone who hasn't done a thing yet. No comment on my request for a Keelie wagon. No comment on Rosso's statement that Plum is obvscum. Nothing on CoCo's vote. Pom is looking to avoid attention

Whenever I start a game, during RVS I vote for someone that hasn't been voted for yet.

Here are some examples:
Newbie 818
Mafia #100
Open 165- for this game I repled in during RVS.

I generally like to see how everyone responds to random votes on them, and the only way to see more responses is to vote for someone that hasn't been voted for yet. I unvoted Almaster when he didn't respond to my vote. Then I joined your bandwagon on Keelie. Again responses. The reason for why I originally used the excuse that her name was too long to type. was to see how much you were going to try to convince me to vote for her.

Newer player, but intelligent individual. She seems a bit nervous by avoiding the first few posts and with her post before that.

Thanks for the complement. I don't understand what your second sentence is referring to. Could you please clarify?

"That's everyone, isn't it?". Comes off as a "let's start this, but I don't want to be the one to do it."

That was me saying "Tyfo, is that everyone? Can we start D1?" Generally I wait for the mod to say that confimations are over before I start random voting.

Then after I ask why she didn't vote Keelie, she says the name is too long. I doubt that's actually why she didn't vote Keelie. I suggested shortening it, and she gave in and voted. But not for wagon's sake, but for having a long name! Which is why she wouldn't vote in the first place.

I think I explained earlier why I gave an excuse not to vote for Keelie right away. And the reason I voted for Keelie wasn't because her name is too long. (Where'd I say that?)

So, on Pom:
-Anxious to start, yet nervous to draw attention
-Random votes instead of commenting on previous posts
-Bad reason on not voting Keelie
-Contradiction on the Keelie-long-name thing.
-Gave in to my pressure a bit too easily.
-Gave the "long name" reason, probably to avoid calling it a wagon vote.

Vote Pomegranate

I thing I rebuffed all your points well.

Also, FTR CoCo, I believe in rules. I won't communicate illegally with Keelie about the game, and if she does so to me (unintentionally of course. She wouldn't do so intentionally), I'll request that I be replaced.

If anyone's unaware, Plum is my older sister. We are being very careful not to communicate illegally with each other about the game. If one of us (unintentionally) does, then one/both of us will replace out.

Also, Konowa, do you have anything to say about me other than "I agree with whatever Kmd said."

[AlmasterGM]

First of all,

Unvote

. Keelie's OMGUS response is exactly what I'd expect from Keelie as town. As scum, I'd expect more of a "Wait, how'd I slip up" kind of response.

Thus making it an optimal scum play?

Rosso is town. His post is obviously for reactions, but using a different player. I'd see this as a little bit suspicious if Keelie were scum, but even then, it would be weak considering my wagon request was the first post of the game, so a scumbuddy wouldn't be too worried. I simply can't find a strong scum motivation for his post. Therefore, Rosso is town.

Why do all posts have to have a motivation? What if the internal motivation is just to appear as though there is no motivation so that you get a town read?

CoCo is town. There were two posts at the time he posted. Both requested wagons. One included a vote. Another didn't. The logical thing to do is to vote for the one who didn't vote. CoCo did that. Town.

So ... scum don't act logically? If the person who didn't vote is town and CoCo is scum, why would CoCo have any problem smacking a vote on them?

KScope is town. After some non-game threads I've seen, it makes sense that he'd follow Rosso the way he did. And the "slow game" comment is consistent with Drawn Together, where Scope was town.

All of your town reads seem to be of the opinion that "making sense" is an exclusively town trait and "not making sense" is a scumtell. This is false. Scum make sense all the time - it's their job. Also, in this case specifically, considering your metric for evaluating what "makes sense" isn't even from a legitimate game, I find this argument dubious at best.

Lew is my third suspect. Jumps on the wagon I started. Seems to want it to go all the way to a lynch. Then wants to set up tomorrow's lynch on the player who started it. Terrible logic. Hypocracy as well. Calls the wagon "pointless" in next post (nobody else had even posted yet!), but then says Keeluie hasn't defended herself. Wishy washy stance, especially considering he voted Keelie. Then he changes his mind when nobody else has even posted again! Unvotes and votes CoCo. Lew, what made you switch? I personally suspect that you were worried about how you'd be looked at for voting Keelie.

So, my case on Lew:
-Wagon jump with intent to lynch

Uh, I'm missing the intent to lynch part. As far as I read it, he just cast a normal random vote.

-Setting up a chain lynch
-Says to suspect the player who started the wagon, which
----is bad logic
----is hypocritical

Another misquote. He clearly states that he doesn't like day-start games because it's possible to accidentally lynch a pro-town power role. He then says (with a simile) that if that happens, the person who started the wagon should come under suspect. This makes perfect sense - if someone starts a wagon on the cop, don't you suspect them? Minimally, even if not, I fail to see the scumtell you are calling here. I also fail to see how it is hypocritical. You need more explanation.

-Calls the wagon pointless while still being on it AND making a point against Keelie

He gets off it right afterwards.

-Switches to CoCo for no good reason.

Actually, he does give a reason, and given all the random voting, it's not a bad one at that.

So, you're welcome guys. I've given you the scum team on Page 3. Pom, Lew, and Raiv. (That line sounds too much like Mastin for my comfort. Actually, so does that one. I'll stop now. Damn, Mastin would say that too!)

No. What you have done is cleared a lot of people based on nonsense and made a few bad cases. For someone with, like, six thousand posts, I'm not impressed at all.

Vote: Kmd4390

[Raivann]

Good job on getting the game started Kmd.It seems like you say you want a wagon on Keelie then depending on whatever the response to the wagon you already had a trap setup.If people jump on they're scummy or if they vote someone else they're scummy, looks like reaching and a possible scum maneuver.

[lewarcher82]

How many posts did you just make in a row? I lost count.

Your vote and reasoning is made of fail.

my vote: I am just spreading to test reactions.

reasoning: I didn't do any, yet. I will reason as soon as we have elements.

posts: u r right: too many... but tbh they werent in a row, it's just that no1 posted anything during my daytime LoL

[Pomegranate]

First of all,

Unvote

. Keelie's OMGUS response is exactly what I'd expect from Keelie as town. As scum, I'd expect more of a "Wait, how'd I slip up" kind of response.

Thus making it an optimal scum play?

Rosso is town. His post is obviously for reactions, but using a different player. I'd see this as a little bit suspicious if Keelie were scum, but even then, it would be weak considering my wagon request was the first post of the game, so a scumbuddy wouldn't be too worried. I simply can't find a strong scum motivation for his post. Therefore, Rosso is town.

Why do all posts have to have a motivation? What if the internal motivation is just to appear as though there is no motivation so that you get a town read?

CoCo is town. There were two posts at the time he posted. Both requested wagons. One included a vote. Another didn't. The logical thing to do is to vote for the one who didn't vote. CoCo did that. Town.

So ... scum don't act logically? If the person who didn't vote is town and CoCo is scum, why would CoCo have any problem smacking a vote on them?

KScope is town. After some non-game threads I've seen, it makes sense that he'd follow Rosso the way he did. And the "slow game" comment is consistent with Drawn Together, where Scope was town.

All of your town reads seem to be of the opinion that "making sense" is an exclusively town trait and "not making sense" is a scumtell. This is false. Scum make sense all the time - it's their job. Also, in this case specifically, considering your metric for evaluating what "makes sense" isn't even from a legitimate game, I find this argument dubious at best.

Lew is my third suspect. Jumps on the wagon I started. Seems to want it to go all the way to a lynch. Then wants to set up tomorrow's lynch on the player who started it. Terrible logic. Hypocracy as well. Calls the wagon "pointless" in next post (nobody else had even posted yet!), but then says Keeluie hasn't defended herself. Wishy washy stance, especially considering he voted Keelie. Then he changes his mind when nobody else has even posted again! Unvotes and votes CoCo. Lew, what made you switch? I personally suspect that you were worried about how you'd be looked at for voting Keelie.

So, my case on Lew:
-Wagon jump with intent to lynch

Uh, I'm missing the intent to lynch part. As far as I read it, he just cast a normal random vote.

-Setting up a chain lynch
-Says to suspect the player who started the wagon, which
----is bad logic
----is hypocritical

Another misquote. He clearly states that he doesn't like day-start games because it's possible to accidentally lynch a pro-town power role. He then says (with a simile) that if that happens, the person who started the wagon should come under suspect. This makes perfect sense - if someone starts a wagon on the cop, don't you suspect them? Minimally, even if not, I fail to see the scumtell you are calling here. I also fail to see how it is hypocritical. You need more explanation.

-Calls the wagon pointless while still being on it AND making a point against Keelie

He gets off it right afterwards.

-Switches to CoCo for no good reason.

Actually, he does give a reason, and given all the random voting, it's not a bad one at that.

So, you're welcome guys. I've given you the scum team on Page 3. Pom, Lew, and Raiv. (That line sounds too much like Mastin for my comfort. Actually, so does that one. I'll stop now. Damn, Mastin would say that too!)

No. What you have done is cleared a lot of people based on nonsense and made a few bad cases. For someone with, like, six thousand posts, I'm not impressed at all.

Vote: Kmd4390

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine. You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

[AlmasterGM]

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine. You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

Why?

[Pomegranate]

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine.

You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know

. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

Why?

The bolded, and also that I would've liked to see how lewarcher would've defended himself from Kmd's accusations. The different ways that people react are useful to notice and analyze.

[AlmasterGM]

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine.

You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know

. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

Why?

The bolded, and also that I would've liked to see how lewarcher would've defended himself from Kmd's accusations. The different ways that people react are useful to notice and analyze.

For all you know, lewarcher could be scum himself. This argument makes no sense. As far as how his reaction goes, why don't you just gauge his reaction to both KMD's and my posts? Either way, there will be a reaction.

[Kmd4390]

Konowa, first of all, too townie is a terrible argument. Second of all, Lew hasn't done anything protown enough that I could see that argument making any sense. The rest of your post is fine.

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

Pom, to your meta points:
Newbie 818- Had nothing but pointless random votes at the time you voted. Nothing to really look at like the votes that myself, Rosso, and CoCo gave.

Mafia 100- Is ongoing and I refuse to discuss this any further.

165- Ongoing as well.

So. None of your meta points have anything to do with what you've done here. There was real stuff to comment on. Three posts that actually said something that you could have responded to. Instead, you make a completely random vote and don't say a word about the posts before yours.

You say you voted Alm to get a response from him. Well, he ignored your vote. First of all, what kind of response were you looking for from a random vote? Second, why not question him? Why let him off and join my wagon on Keelie? What did you learn from my push for you to vote Keelie?

The nervousness I saw was a feel I got from your posts. You seemed to be trying to post without really saying anything that would grab anyone's attention.

To you saying you never said you voted Keelie for having a long name: See your vote post. It's the reason you gave.

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

Alm,

On Keelie:
I'm not saying anything she did is optimal for either alignment, but more of what I'd expect. What she did is what I'd expect her to do as town.

On Rosso read:
Why are you asking "what if"? That's how I interpreted his actions. If I'm wrong, he can correct me.

on CoCo:
So being logical is a scumtell now? Riiight.

On Scope:
I'm saying that it makes sense for Scope to have followed Rosso as town. If something makes sense from a town perspective, I'm going to see it as a towntell.

On Lew:
Tell me how this sounds like a normal random vote:

but I honestly don't see how one could decide to vote somebody on day 1... I guess this is not even a spread votes strategy: this is the problem with day-start games... if at the end of this BW we lynch someone important, I hope tomorrow we will punish who started it...

Doesn't look very random to me.

1.Another misquote. 2.He clearly states that he doesn't like day-start games because it's possible to accidentally lynch a pro-town power role. 3.He then says (with a simile) that if that happens, the person who started the wagon should come under suspect. This makes perfect sense - 4.if someone starts a wagon on the cop, don't you suspect them? 5.Minimally, even if not, I fail to see the scumtell you are calling here. 6.I also fail to see how it is hypocritical. You need more explanation.

Wow. Just wow. Let me break down the craplogic here by numbering things in your quote.

1. How is it a misquote? I don't see it.
2. How is this only true for daystart and why is it even what you'd look at when looking for scum? I don't know about you, but I'm not going to freak out about suspecting players because "OMG THEY COULD BE A POWER ROLE!!". Anyone could be a power role. Know what else they could be? Scum. It works both ways.
3. Yeah, that's exactly my problem with Lew. Why suspect someone just because they make a vote, people follow their vote in agreement, and the player happens to flip town? I don't see how someone who makes a case on a town player is any scummier than those who vote the same player later. In fact, I'd be much more likely to suspect people who vote later.
4. Not at all. In most games, scum have absolutely no extra knowledge about who is a cop on Day 1.
5. Because it's a terrible reason to suspect someone and it sets up the next day's lynch for terrible reasons.
6. What is hypocritical is that he calls the wagon pointless and says to suspect me for starting it

while he is ALSO voting Keelie

.

I don't care that he got off the wagon. My concern is that he voted Keelie in the first place. Why do it if he disagrees with it?

Ok, why do you think he voted CoCo over Keelie then?

So because I gave my reads on PAGE THREE, and you aren't satisfied with their strength, I must be scum? Tell me this then. Who has given a better case than mine on Pom. Who has given a better case than mine on Lew? Hell, how many cases are better than the one I gave on Raiv? Your reason for suspecting me applies to every player in this game more than it applies to me. I'd suggest rethinking your position.

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

Raiv, there was no trap. I just watched for everyone's reaction. You say I call everyone scum regardless of what they do. Look at my reads. Several are town reads. Nothing to say about why you voted Keelie? Or why you didn't comment on Rosso's statement about Plum?

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

Lew, why post and not comment on my case on you? Do you plan on defending yourself?

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

Pom is actually right, Alm. If you answer for people, you make things too easy for them. This is especially bad if you are town answering for scum, because we don't get their reaction to pressure. You make it easier for them, and they can coast to victory.

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

Also forgot in the post where I said we needed to hear more xofelf and Konowa. Plum should say something too. And xofelf should post actual content.

[Kmd4390]

I agree that it's a mostly pointless case, but why are you answering for lewarcher? I'm sure he can explain himself fine.

You could be scum defending your scumbuddy for all I know

. Let people answer cases( and questions) directed at them by themselves.

Why?

The bolded, and also that I would've liked to see how lewarcher would've defended himself from Kmd's accusations. The different ways that people react are useful to notice and analyze.

For all you know, lewarcher could be scum himself. This argument makes no sense. As far as how his reaction goes, why don't you just gauge his reaction to both KMD's and my posts? Either way, there will be a reaction.

But if you are answering for him, you make his job too easy. If he's town, he'll have answers and there won't be a problem. If he's scum, then, well, you just gave answers so he doesn't have to.

[Pomegranate]

Pom, to your meta points:
Newbie 818- Had nothing but pointless random votes at the time you voted. Nothing to really look at like the votes that myself, Rosso, and CoCo gave.

Mafia 100- Is ongoing and I refuse to discuss this any further.

165- Ongoing as well.

So. None of your meta points have anything to do with what you've done here. There was real stuff to comment on. Three posts that actually said something that you could have responded to. Instead, you make a completely random vote and don't say a word about the posts before yours.

What did Rosso's vote, Coco's vote, and your own vote have to look at, as opposed to mine?

You say you voted Alm to get a response from him. Well, he ignored your vote. First of all, what kind of response were you looking for from a random vote? Second, why not question him? Why let him off and join my wagon on Keelie? What did you learn from my push for you to vote Keelie?

I wasn't expecting a response. He didn't respond, so I joined your wagon on Keelie.

The nervousness I saw was a feel I got from your posts. You seemed to be trying to post without really saying anything that would grab anyone's attention.

Like what? Some examples?

To you saying you never said you voted Keelie for having a long name: See your vote post. It's the reason you gave.

I said it wasn't any real reason. I can't make a post like "I'm going to join Kmd's bandwagon to see how Keelie responds." You don't get responses that way.

Plum should say something too.

She's in school right now. She'll be home later.

[Kmd4390]

My vote requested a bandwagon. You could have:
A) Wagoned by voting Keelie
B) Called me out for requesting a wagon.

Rosso called Plum obvscum. You could have:
A) Agreed and voted Plum.
B) Called out Rosso.

^Both Rosso and myself made a vote/statement that was obviously not backed by anything and appeared more confident than we could have been. It's a good place to start.

CoCo made a decent point on Rosso. You could have:
A) Agreed with the point.
B) Disagreed with the point.

Also note that CoCo

did

choose option B regarding Rosso.

Wait, so you voted Alm for a response, but didn't expect to get one? That seems... off.

I gave examples earlier. The post just before Day started was one. The random vote, ignoring the three posts before yours, was another. The post where you say Keelie's name is too long to vote is another. The post where you give in to my pressure and vote Keelie is another.

But making your Keelie vote look random doesn't get a response from her either.

[Pomegranate]

Rosso called Plum obvscum. You could have:
A) Agreed and voted Plum.
B) Called out Rosso.

I called Alm obvscum too, IIRC.

[Kmd4390]

plum is obviously scum.

Why isnt she dead yet?

Vote: AlmasterGM

.

Obvscum.

These are different. Rosso grabs attention by asking why Plum isn't dead. You simply use the term "obvscum" which is obviously meant to be a joke. Rosso's has more of a reaction seeking feel.

Why not respond to my other points?

[Pomegranate]

Why not respond to my other points?

Gotta go now. Will be back on later.

[AlmasterGM]

I'm not saying anything she did is optimal for either alignment, but more of what I'd expect. What she did is what I'd expect her to do as town.

There's still a non-sequitor in your logic. Just because she did what you'd expect her to do as town doesn't make her town (which is what you claim). My argument is that, as scum, it'd be optimal for her to make the exact same play.

On Rosso read:
Why are you asking "what if"? That's how I interpreted his actions. If I'm wrong, he can correct me.

It's not a what-if - I'm arguing your assumption that posts by scum always have a scummy motivation. IMO, Russo is just as likely to be scum as he is town.

On CoCo:
So being logical is a scumtell now? Riiight.

That's not what I said at all. You said that CoCo was town because he made a logical play. I argued that scum can make logical plays as well, and that logic isn't a tell either way. You keep mischaracterizing my arguments as attempts to get reads one way or the other, when in reality all I'm doing is showing how your "town" reads are flawed.

On Scope:
I'm saying that it makes sense for Scope to have followed Rosso as town. If something makes sense from a town perspective, I'm going to see it as a towntell.

What if something makes sense both scum and town, as Scopes' play did?

On Lew:
Tell me how this sounds like a normal random vote:

Because 1) it's not even page 3 yet and 2) he prefaces it by saying there's no way to decide who to vote for, thus implying his vote is random/has little justification.

Wow. Just wow. Let me break down the craplogic here by numbering things in your quote.

1. How is it a misquote? I don't see it.

Because he isn't doing or saying what you say he is.

2. How is this only true for daystart and why is it even what you'd look at when looking for scum? I don't know about you, but I'm not going to freak out about suspecting players because "OMG THEY COULD BE A POWER ROLE!!". Anyone could be a power role. Know what else they could be? Scum. It works both ways.

I'm not sure if you only play mafia on mafiascum, but in many games, the game begins with night actions. This reduces the D1 randomness because you have information you can use to characterize power roles. Lew simply seems to be referring to this fact and saying how it doesn't apply here on MS.

3. Yeah, that's exactly my problem with Lew. Why suspect someone just because they make a vote, people follow their vote in agreement, and the player happens to flip town? I don't see how someone who makes a case on a town player is any scummier than those who vote the same player later. In fact, I'd be much more likely to suspect people who vote later.

Depends on how hard they tunnel the wagon. If people just pile on, then I am in agreement with you. However, if the person is really pushing for it, then I think suspicion is in order.

4-6.

Ok, I sort of agree with you here. Still don't think lew is scum, though.

So because I gave my reads on PAGE THREE, and you aren't satisfied with their strength, I must be scum? Tell me this then. Who has given a better case than mine on Pom. Who has given a better case than mine on Lew? Hell, how many cases are better than the one I gave on Raiv? Your reason for suspecting me applies to every player in this game more than it applies to me. I'd suggest rethinking your position.

I think your reads are bad. No read is better than a bad read, so I don't care that you have posted more text than the other players. If you want to cop out and say it's only page three, then maybe you shouldn't make such definite reads in the first place. According to you, logical strength of arguments is the mechanism we use to find scum. At the point where, in my opinion, you have the most logically flawed arguments in the game, why shouldn't you be my number one suspect?

Pom is actually right, Alm. If you answer for people, you make things too easy for them. This is especially bad if you are town answering for scum, because we don't get their reaction to pressure. You make it easier for them, and they can coast to victory.

Unfortunately, I don't think lew is scum, so I don't think this is an issue.

[Pomegranate]

Pom is actually right, Alm. If you answer for people, you make things too easy for them. This is especially bad if you are town answering for scum, because we don't get their reaction to pressure. You make it easier for them, and they can coast to victory.

Unfortunately, I don't think lew is scum, so I don't think this is an issue.

Personally I don't find Lew to be very scummy, but that's beside the point. you should've let him answer for himself.