Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[archaebob]

@ afatchic -

Just replace out if you can't manage anything past this prod dancing. Posting literally once every two days with a promise each time for more is not helpful to this game. I'd prefer you just call it quits and get replaced, instead of pretending like you can commit when you obviously can't.

Please, get your act together.

@ Muffin -

I sincerely hope you didn't think you could just go back to lurking as soon as we moved our votes to someone else.

[SpyreX]

I can't believe you're making me do this. FINE.

Lets get this party started. I give you: Scum Ex Machina.

Hey guys, first game I've played on here, so I'll start this off with a Vote:AlmasterGM for having a Pikachu avatar when Jigglypuff is clearly superior.

Ok, seriously - how did you know I had a Pikachu avatar when I haven't made any posts in the thread yet? The fact that you posses this information means you went and looked at past games of the other players in this game, which is an extremely stretchy move as town when you're only on page one. NOBODY does that. I think it's more likely that you're scum scoping out your victims so you know how to avoid their scumhunting techniques.

Serious Vote: Gammagooey Who said the RVS wasn't useful?

This has been over some (and I'm not going to get into that tooo much) but there's something else we need to notice. I'm not going to spoil it yet, but there's a reason I went to all that extra effort to put the second quote in.

"Killed" is all-inclusive - it could be night-killed, day-killed, mod-killed, or lynched (which is a form of killing). I don't discriminate. It's ironic that you say "semantics blah blah" and then proceed to MAKE a semantics argument - bit of a contradiction, no?

The last line, again, watch for the pattern it dost weave.

It absolutely is scummy - Town don't read up on all the other players in the game before the game has even started. That is a scum move. What is absolutely more scummy, though, is this "bandwagons early good" argument you are presenting. It has the opposite effect of what you say it does - rather than clarify where people stand, it lets everyone hide in the mob and brings us dangerously close to an early lynch based on practically nothing. Terrible plan.

This one moves a bit, but its snuck in the middle. We'll keep on.

Yeah whatever, your excuse is noted. There's bigger fish to fry at this point anyway, like Mordy. As far as archae goes, I don't care whether he agrees with me or not - people agreeing with me doesn't make me like them. Moreover, as you should know if you've read some of my past games, I judge quickly and with extreme prejudice.

(Note: At this point the vote still is on Gamma).

So, we get a dab of meta to try and add the right salt content to this spicy dish of slam-dashery. The early game was dominated with slashes at anyone who suspected him. There's a word for that in the mafia vernacular that just escapes me.... hmmm....

Well, yea, that's not a telling story in and of itself, but lets look at a few other key pieces.

So, we get us a nice little time lapse and then MEGAPOST that most of I've gotta let slide for now (hint: bob, respond so this can be brought to the table).

I was a cop in that game, so I had to play conservatively. Read some of my vanilla town games. Honestly, though, there is really nothing to be gained from this - if I was scum, I wouldn't be playing to my scum meta.

Now, I know looking at that makes you want to scream WIFOM WIFOM (because actually its more relevant here than in most places) but that isn't the main issue: the problem with this it implicitly is saying how useless meta is yet he drops the Mordy line based on...meta (well, drop isn't fair he says he "doesn't like him" much like the "I told you so" in relation to Gamma once THAT wasn't going to get traction).

So, yea, we've got whiplash OMGUS (justified by meta), dropped cases (but not suspicions) and a self-aware meta player utilizing meta for their ends.

However, that isn't the strongest case *SHOCK*. A good portion of it is pure, sweet gut looking at the ebb and flow of play in relation to the amount of activity on him.

That, and the last couple posts of mine were TRYING to see if I could even get a nibble from him but, alas.

It ultimately boils down to a pinch of information and a big ol dab of risk/reward:

1.) For no reason GM insinuated heavily enough that he was vanilla that there is no way I'd buy anything but.
2.) Foilist's bizarro world vote on someone who was after GM really sits wrong with me and one being scum is going to be a power lynch of the other.

So, what are we looking at here in the clinical terms:

If town, its a VT, the minimal damage done by a mislynch.
If scum, there's a beautiful connection just waiting to get lynched as well.

Unvote, Vote: GM

God, I really thought I did that before.

[Gammagooey]

I'm back, opinions of new stuff is as follows:
Obviously, I disagree with Muffin on Almaster.
Muffin is also a Damned hypocrite for saying that cruelty is staying in the shadows right now.

1: Constant pressure on people to give up info. I think the type of info bob is looking for is information that can ultimately damage the town.

Information on who everyone suspects and why is a GOOD THING. Said information is how you catch scum going from one opinion of a person to another without additional reasoning/interaction, as well as insuring that scum can't stay in the background and get away with saying later, "Oh, I always thought <person lynched> was <alignment>, I just never spoke up and everyone else went along with it"

And I may have to re-change my mind on Peanut.

2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.

This is the second time I've called you out on something like this, so I'll say it again. Why do you keep feeling the need to distance yourself from your vote? You already said that you think that he's in your opinion the scummiest person around.

@archae- yes, fatchic is terribly lurky, and it's annoying, and he/she's a liar for not posting before when he said he would. But i think that any shot of an "untainted read" from him has been out for a while, and that you need to get on with defending yourself so that the people voting for you can judge you for your actions and defenses rather than your lack of one.

[cruelty]

Mk, the second two posts were earlier, and am I alone in thinking that they implied he had a hand to play? That being said, how is it pro-town not to post your information? Its not like there are any secrets here that you know and we don't. We're all seeing the same content, so if you have some interpretation, or something we haven't thought of, please either post it, or explain why you aren't going to beyond "you can't make me."

This will be short and dirty, very limited access.

Re: the first sentence - you're going to condemn me for something I never said?

I never claimed it was pro-town to withhold info, I said (and still believe) that it's scummy to constantly try to gain information from other people (in the manner that bob does). Basically, I got the impression that bob was trying to jigsaw a scumlist piece by piece, which I am obviously against.

[Benmage]

Vote Count:
AlmasterGM (3) MordyS, Gammagooey, SpyreX
foilist13 (1) lexprod
archaebob (4) afatchic, peanutman, AlmasterGM, cruelty
afatchic (2) archaebob, foilist13

Note Voting (2) Sanjay, Muffin

[foilist13]

@Cruelty - For the love of god man, post

something

you haven't said already about the other players.

What are your views on Peanutman and AlmasterGm? How bout afatchic or myself? Instead of trying to push an Archaebob wagon, why don't you tell us why you don't suspect the other players, or at least not as much?

[Sanjay]

First order of business, I want to talk about foilist13. I apologize if some of this has been touched on before, and I apologize if it goes on a little long:

The initial point about foilist13 that everyone loves is that he voted for the wrong person and then, when he learned of his mistake, he didn't move the vote.

Is this scummy? Yes. But the real scumminess comes in the explanation:

@Anyone who is still unhappy about me leaving my vote on MordyS - I'll go in depth into what I was thinking so that you can stop asking me about this.

After you pointed out my mistake,

1) I usually find someone to vote for before I stop voting for someone else.

2) You were not in any danger of being lynched

3) You had started to make a case against me, so at that point my vote essentially became a OMGUS vote while I tried to defend myself. Then I built my case against muffin and changed my vote accordingly.

1 is obviously a silly reason since he had someone else to vote for (the person he actually wanted to vote for).

2 is a silly reason too, but I guess I can buy it.

3 is a silly reason unless foilist13 has some good reason why an OMGUS vote in this situation is helpful. Remember this one because it'll come up later.

Put points 2 and 3 together, it implies that foilist13 considered moving his vote when he learned about his mistake and decided against it. This is VERY interesting because it sets up a very bizarre timeline:

Post 42: foilist13 mistakenly votes MordyS.
Post 73: foilist13 recognizes the name confusion. If I am reading foilist13 correctly, this is when he considered moving his vote and decided against it.
Post 76: archaebob asks foilist13 why his vote is still on Gammagooey (hint, it's not).
Post 77: foilist13 tells him why his vote is still on Gammagooey. If foilist13 had considered changing his vote to Gammagooey and decided against it, wouldn't he remember that his vote wasn't on Gammagooey and correct archaebob?
Post 100: MordyS starts building a case against foilist13 and labels him not changing his vote as scummy. This happens AFTER foilist13 learned that he voted for the wrong guy, completely invalidating reason 3.
post 141: foilist13 gives his three reasons for not moving his vote when he should have.

Here's a more believable timeline:

Post 42: foilist13 mistakenly votes MordyS.
Post 73: foilist13 recognizes the name confusion. It doesn't occur to him to change his vote.
Post 76: archaebob asks foilist13 why his vote is still on Gammagooey
Post 77: foilist13 assumes that archaebob knows what he is talking about and answers the question as if archaebob didn't mess up.
Post 100: MordyS starts building a case against foilist13 and labels him not changing his vote as scummy. This is when foilist13 realizes his vote is still on MordyS.
post 141: foilist13 gives his three reasons for not moving his vote when he should have.

This timeline is more believable because there are no contradictions. If foilist13 hadn't considered moving his vote until post 100, it makes sense that he would miss archaebob's mistake in post 76. If foilist13 hadn't considered moving his vote until post 100, reason 3 actually makes sense because at that point MordyS HAD made a case against foilist13. MordyS had made no such case when foilist13 actually learned about the error. This also explains why foilist13 misidentifies who corrected him about the name mistake in the first place. It was archaebob, but foilist13 says here that it was MordyS, probably because MordyS cast the suspicion on him for not changing his vote.

Also, I think foilist13's case on Muffin in post 125 looks like foilist13 trying to change his vote as gracefully as possible once he learned about his mistake. It's not a very good case and I can analyze it in more detail if anyone is interested in that.

More coming, but for now I'm gonna get some sleep.

[peanutman]

And I may have to re-change my mind on Peanut.

Peanutman wrote:
2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.

This is the second time I've called you out on something like this, so I'll say it again. Why do you keep feeling the need to distance yourself from your vote? You already said that you think that he's in your opinion the scummiest person around.

Maybe I haven't made it clear enough. In D1, I'm never sure of someone's alignment. Having been burned for believing I'd found an obvscum early on, I'd rather improve my play to prevent that. Lynching D1 is almost always the optimal play (as opposed to no-lynch) and, therefore, I place my vote on someone suspicious even though I can't be sure. But I still stand by my votes as a record of my suspicions. I would never even try to distance myself from my vote because, in all honesty, when does that ever work outside of RVS?

However, the key part of my statement that you quoted is the fact that it's not

my

wagon. There are certainly others who also have their suspicions on Bob.

[archaebob]

Mk, it's been almost three days now, and it's becoming increasingly more clear that afatchic is actually inactive, and not a luker. He might still be scum, but I don't think that I'm accomplishing much anymore with my pressure votes. It

really

bothers me that I'm not following through with what I originally said I was going to do (regarding lurkers), but especially given that the town is not sympathetic to my plan of pressuring non-posters with votes and halted discussion, I doubt that much would be gleaned at this point even if afatchic WAS a genuine lurker.

So, long story short, I've decided after much consideration to just suck it up and get the hell on with it.

I'm starting me epic reread of the thread now, and y'all had better prepare yourself for some major fucking WORDS.

I might take a day, but you'll definitely see something from me either tonight or tomorrow.

[archaebob]

mod: please deal with afatchic as best you can, as you are the only one who has the power to continue this crusade

[Gammagooey]

And I may have to re-change my mind on Peanut.

Peanutman wrote:
2) It's not my wagon. I am simply voting on someone I'm not convinced of and need more to satisfy my suspicion.

This is the second time I've called you out on something like this, so I'll say it again. Why do you keep feeling the need to distance yourself from your vote? You already said that you think that he's in your opinion the scummiest person around.

Maybe I haven't made it clear enough. In D1, I'm never sure of someone's alignment. Having been burned for believing I'd found an obvscum early on, I'd rather improve my play to prevent that. Lynching D1 is almost always the optimal play (as opposed to no-lynch) and, therefore, I place my vote on someone suspicious even though I can't be sure. But I still stand by my votes as a record of my suspicions. I would never even try to distance myself from my vote because, in all honesty, when does that ever work outside of RVS?

However, the key part of my statement that you quoted is the fact that it's not

my

wagon. There are certainly others who also have their suspicions on Bob.

I get the basic explanation, which is why I thought it was just a misunderstanding last time. What I don't get is why you keep mentioning it, as it doesn't convince me of any part of your argument, and the only reason I can see to put that in there is to make you look better.
A better question I suppose: How do you think statements like that help your arguments?

[AlmasterGM]

You don't "have" to do anything. Your decision to ignore the cases made on other people is anti-town, and very scummy. My decision to ignore the case on me might be as well, but I have already explained fully why I am choosing to act this way right now. YOU have not.

How is it scummy? How is it any more anti-town than your current behavior? As far as your "full explanation" goes, it's terrible. I have yet to hear one good reason why not responding to cases on yourself is pro-town. Saying "well since you're doing it, so can I" and then saying I'm scummy isn't a response, it's a self-indictment.

P.S. I want you to answer this question, not other people.

]@AlmasterGm - Set aside defending yourself, and your indignation at being ordered around by Archaebob for a moment. Can you tell us who you think is scum based on something other than playstyles? So far I do not buy your argument against Archaebob, since it seems to be based on meta and you not liking him. Show us some scum tells, show us some contradictions. Give us something to justify the wagon on him.

No. This is Day 1. There was no Night 0. With the exception of scum, nobody in this game knows more than anyone else. Given that fact, there is absolutely no reason we should be blindly accepting these promises of future information. I am not going to divert my attention onto other cases until archebob responds to mine. Once he responds, I'll think about it. The end. Why you continually endorse his evasive behavior is completely beyond me.

[Benmage]

lexprod has asked for a replacement and is being replaced by Papa Zito

[Papa Zito]

y halo thar

I'm here to inject some awesome into this game.

But I got to read it first. brb

[Papa Zito]

Holy crap there's a lot of words. I'll have to read through all this again. Good thing we still have two weeks.

Initial impression, we have scum somewhere in: foilist, SpyreX, cruelty, peanutman

Especially worried about SpyreX. I'm not used to seeing almost nothing from him in a game (until that last post I mean). Usually he tries to run the town.

But again, I'll need more than this cursory read because damn people.

P.S. I think we have some alts all up in here.

[archaebob]

@ AGM - you really need to start addressing your posts. Going back and reading you in iso, it is very difficult to tell who you addressing at times. Please make the effort to put the name of the person you are quoting in each quote tag.

I'm going to start with your first case, the wall with 9 points against me:

1)

Foilist 13 and cruelty haven't posted yet. It's still early, but I just wanted to put that out there, as a running list. "

It hasn't even been one day yet and he's already indicting people for not posting. Forced pro-town.

Lol, do you even read the posts you quote? Pay attention, Mr. Debate Team. I'm specifically saying that it's

too early

to be indicting people for not posting,

because

it's only the first day. I'm just making it clear from the onset of the game that lurking is something that I pay attention to. In fact, I even tell Gammagooey in post 72 that it isn't fair to be calling people out on inactivity yet.

All in all, I find it laughable that you would even attempt to paint this as a scumtell.

2) Goes from apparent uncertainty / question asking to a vote without anything significant happening between the two posts. No substantial explanation, either.

AGM - why would you assume that any town player would do what YOU would do? Especially considering that this is his first game, I find it difficult to follow your suspicion of him.

Almaster has played in several games. Not sure how he could actually think this was a good case just now.

vote Almaster

Your right, there is no significant difference

between those two posts

. What your missing is the subtext! Which of course, you conveniently left out of your case. Here's my post 31:

Alamaster, how many games have you played? Can you provide some meta links?

Shortly after this, you told me to check your wiki. So I did. While doing so, I noticed that you played in several games, and concluded that you had too much experience to actually believe the case you had against GG. Hence, I informed the town of my position regarding you in post 41.

I don't think my thought process was really all that mysterious, and I find your selective quotation of my posts to be deliberately manipulative.

3) Asks folist a question, waits 12 minutes (realtime), and then FOS's him without any explanation. What was he doing for those 12 minutes?

Foilist, you aren't reading the thread carefully. Are you trying to find scum, or trying to scrape by?

FOS: foilist13

For those twelve minutes, Almaster, I was rereading the thread. I noted Foilist's swap of MordyS and GG's name, and closely re-evaluated his arguments in Posts 42 and Post 59.

Again, this wasn't exactly a mystery. Even if you weren't sure why I was FoSing him at that very moment, I made my reasons for suspecting him abundantly clear within the next few pages. This is yet another pathetic excuse for a scum-tell.

4) Starts talking about the wagon on me significantly after the fact.

What about this quote at all indicates that gamma gooey has been "researching" all the other players before the start of the game?

Lololol. This is an instant fail for two reasons:

1) The quote doesn't at all talk about the wagon on you.
2) You are accusing me of talking about something long after the fact...right after you just finished making a case on my FoS of foilist. Your case on this FoS is LONG after the fact. Most of your case on me is long after the fact, actually.

And even if we ignore both those major flunks, I fail to see your point. In your opinion, is it anti-town to be going back into the thread "after the fact" to bring up things that you don't think have been adequately addressed?

5) Contradiction: First, he indicts people who haven't posted yet and says he's keeping careful watch of who posts and who doesn't. Then, a couple hours later, he's saying we can't expect people to post that much.

It's unreasonable to expect people to post more than once a day. This game only got going at all earlier today, so keep that in mind.

These just keep getting better and better.

Imma refer you to my rebuttal to point one.

6) Asks for other people to comment without actually commenting himself : fishing for popular opinion before committing to any one direction.

I want other people to comment on this.

Actually, I asked other people for comments because I was the ONLY one commenting on the foilist situation. Let me show you the abundance of comments I made, regarding Mr. Foil.

In Post 60, I very directly accused foilist of not reading the thread carefully.
In Post 70, I posted a small case on him, bringing up his misinterpretation of Gammagooey's first post, a contradiction in his dialogue with Chinaman, and his mistaken swap of MordyS's and Gammagooey's name.
In Post 76, I ask foilist why his vote is still on Gammagooey. (hint, hint, it's not!) <- (this actually wasn't intentional, but meh, it worked out pretty well)
In Post 78, I quote a post of foil's, and two of Gamma's, in an attempt to show how foilist is ignoring the arguments being made that render his position illegitimate.
In Post 80, I answer why I had my vote on Muffin, and let him know just how lame he really is. Additionally, I reference the fact that he is selectively responding to my points.
In Post 81, I rebut his attempt to rebut Post 78.

It is not until

post 82

that ask for comments from others.

And...guess what! After I asked for more comments, I kept going! I address Foilist no less than four more times before I ask him for his scumlist.

So, your point is complete bull shit. Your either a moron, or a manipulative scum, and judging by the relatively intelligent tone of your writing, I'm going to go with the latter.

And whatever you may think about my scumhunting of Foilist, I certainly made myself a lot more useful than you did during your calculating abstinence from this thread.

7) Another contradiction.

@ AGM - where did you go?

I think we need to forgive the lurkers for now, given that it's halloween weekend.

I'd say more of a change of heart than a contradiction.

And still, even if this IS is a contradiction, it's the worst attempted scum-tell so far in this case.

8) References a nonexistent justification for a past vote as a defense. Remember, bob never gave any substantial reason for why he voted for me.

I voted for AGM because he had become scummier than my RVS vote. I don't see why that makes you think I'm scummy, and it is interesting that you haven't posted ANY content of any kind about anyone else.

I'll reference you to my rebuttal for point 2.

And again, where was I referencing a non-existent justification? I was PROVIDING a justification, a new one, in response to afatchic's vote.

9) MOST IMPORTANTLY: All his posts are just mountains upon mountains of white noise. There is literally NO scumhunting being done, just tons of questions and random comments that make it look like he's contributing when he is not. Seriously, go read him in isolation - he's so incoherent and random it's funny.

I honestly cannot even bring myself to respond to this. I doubt anybody else needs me to, so I'd like to abstain, if that's acceptable.

----

I'm willing to get to the other stuff later, though honestly, responding to all this AGM bull shit is a big waste of time. I'd prefer to go onto my cases, so let me know if you need me to defend myself anymore.

[Benmage]

afatchic is being early prodded...not liking this inactive play. 24 hours before she gets replaced.

[SpyreX]

Sup Zeets

See, you are right that I'll try and run a game when I have to. I've got nothing but good vibes from bob and right now its his show. Same with Mordy.

And you should know better about meta, sheesh.

And you mentioned the other big problem with this game. Its a secret what it is.

[foilist13]

Unvote, Vote:AlmasterGM

Now Archaebob's responded, now there is no reason for me to keep my vote off of you.

No. This is Day 1. There was no Night 0. With the exception of scum, nobody in this game knows more than anyone else. Given that fact, there is absolutely no reason we should be blindly accepting these promises of future information. I am not going to divert my attention onto other cases until archebob responds to mine. Once he responds, I'll think about it. The end. Why you continually endorse his evasive behavior is completely beyond me.

That last couple of sentences pretty much finishes it in my mind. After he responds you'll think about it? Really?

[cruelty]

unvote, vote foilist

I'll make a detailed case when I get home, for now, don't like what I'm reading, and am happy with bob's recent contribution.

Not really liking AGM, more concerned with foilist. That's two people I'm declaring suspicious in one post.[/b]

[archaebob]

Peanutman

First substance post of the game from Mr. Nut:

Spyrex accusing AGM of a scum-slip about the word "killing" is really a weak argument to contribute to the building AGM wagon. His quote seems much more like a visceral reaction to Archaebob's comment that says much more of his annoyance to the latter's RVS joking-style than to the game itself.

As for Gammagooey, there is one thing he stated that really doesn't sit well with me.

Mordy-I have trouble seeing the motivations for a mafia to stick his neck out and say that something is absolutely not scummy and draw attention to himself.

Why feel the need to prevent thoughts of buddying between you and Mordy. I had given that prospect much wait until you went out of your way to mention it. Even if this isn't the case, I am rather opposed to identifying people as town, in the early days for a few reasons. For one, the scum can single-out people who seem most pro-town based on those statement. Also, it can cause the town to ignore them in their scumhunting, based on the fact that some people feel they are town.

He has established a couple of things with this first part of his post:

1) He doesn't like people saying that other people are townish, because it makes it easier for scum to scope out their victims.
2) He is more offended by people saying who they think are town than he is by people making weak arguments. (I'm judging this by the relatively light treatment of Spyrex, and the full quotation and paragraph given to Gammagooey).

@ Foilist, regarding your voting behaviour. If I can accept that you wanted to keep your vote on Mordy, even after realizing your initial case was on Gamma, you state that you weren't compelled to change your vote. I can therefore assume you felt that Mordy was also scummy in some way. Is this true? If so, what about Mordy do/did you feel seemed scummy?

Peanut creates a totally original defense for foilist out of thin air, and hands it to him. I can tell he thought really hard about it. Worried by the hole that foilist seems determined to dig himself, peanutman jumps in with some leading questions in an attempt to show his partner the light. I want everybody to pay careful attention to this, as this might be the biggest solid slip of the game so far. In the face of a very scummy looking foilist, peanutman's response is not to question him with guarded suspicion,

but to proactively make up a defense that had not at all been hinted at by foilist or anyone else in the thread.

I consider this the scummiest move by anyone in the game right now.

Next section:

Now, for my preliminary case on Archaebob. Vote : Archaebob. Here's why:
1)

@ Chinaman - why aren't you voting for Muffin or AGM?

@ China - I just asked a question. You and foil are the one's drawing conclusions about what I "want" you to do.

Now, your question does ask why he isn't voting. However, taken in context, you aren't so much asking him way he isn't voting but more insinuating that he must vote on one of those he has suspected. And as for "drawing concusions" on statements, isn't that the whole basis of MafiaScum? In the end, I draw the conclusion that you were pressuring Chinaman to vote which is scummy in my book when the game is already flowing at a nice pace.
2) Your play style, a plethora of short posts, many lacking serious and valuable content, gives the allure of activity and any kind of questions may seem like scum-hunting, but it doesn't hold as much weight when really looked into. I encourage you to make longer, more coherent posts, with more content.
3) Regarding your exchanges with Foilist, you repeat at many times that he is ignoring your important questions and arguments, but I had trouble myself finding them. If you do have questions that are repeatedly unanswered, either repeat them, quote them or link to them. It would make your arguments much more convincing to me, and to the rest of the town I believe.
3)Also, you vote without any explanation.

unvote

vote foilist

Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:

@Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.

So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.

I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.

(Note: if anybody still needs me to defend against the points in this case, let me know. At the moment, I feel like I've adequately addressed them already in my response to AGM.)

The major thing I want to draw attention to in this case is the thought process he is using to form his ideas against me. The key word here is "assumption". Every point he makes in this case is something that he assumes to be true about me, as a result of some element of my posts.

I want it to be clear that I don't consider his case to be totally illegitimate, as I think his points were fair at the time he made them. What strikes me as very off is the extent to which he is willing to assume the worst about me from a very limited amount of evidence. And this is scummy to me because it contrasts extremely sharply with his attitude towards foilist.

In his first point, he talks about my attempt to "pressure" Chinaman for a vote. I admit completely that this was exactly what I was doing, and my post 65 was designed purely to see who would call me on it, and who wouldn't. Here's what peanut had to say about it:

Now, your question does ask why he isn't voting. However, taken in context, you aren't so much asking him way he isn't voting but more insinuating that he must vote on one of those he has suspected.

And as for "drawing concusions" on statements, isn't that the whole basis of MafiaScum? In the end, I draw the conclusion that you were pressuring Chinaman to vote which is scummy in my book when the game is already flowing at a nice pace.

Interesting how ready peanutman is to "draw conclusions" about me that are negative, while he was not only willing to give foilist the benefit of the doubt, but even willing to help him defend himself just moments before.

And this is the pattern:

2) Your play style, a plethora of short posts, many lacking serious and valuable content, gives the allure of activity and any kind of questions may seem like scum-hunting, but it doesn't hold as much weight when really looked into. I encourage you to make longer, more coherent posts, with more content.

Yeah ok. Fine. My playstyle at the point was to ask a lot of questions without revealing too much. And you consider this a scum-tell? As in...scummier than AGM or foilist? Seriously? I mean, hey, where's

my

benefit of the doubt?! Why aren't you giving

me

some secret code to help me defend myself, like you did for foilist?

Oh that's right. I'm not aligned with you. My bad.

Skipping this next paragraph, I'd like to continue with this:

3)Also, you vote without any explanation.

unvote

vote foilist

Six posts earlier (p62) you also FOS'ed Foilist without any explanation. In fact, nothing had been said on his part since your previous post concerning him. It seems arbitrary to place that FOS. On top of that, you vote him about 10 minutes later after he said this:

@Archaebob - Your one word/one line posts aren't helpful. You're poking at other players seemingly at random, which I suppose is your idea of scumhunting, but thus far I have posted more content than you have.

So rather than making statements about me, respond to my arguments.

I draw the conclusion that it is mainly an OMGUS vote. And the fact that you don't justify your votes of FOS's is quite scummy to me, in the sense that you can find ways of justifying it later, if need be. With a vote, I prefer reasons accompanying it so that is can be better analyzed later. I agree that you did have arguments against him, but I want to know what compelled you to affirm your suspicion with a vote.

That's what you'd like to believe, isn't it?

So lemme get this straight:

Foilist votes somebody for a really really bull shit reason, and even manages to vote for the wrong person while doing it. Once the fact that it is the wrong person is brought to his attention, he decided to stubbornly keep his vote where it is, giving some more bull shit reasons for why he didn't feel compelled to switch his vote.

Your response to this is to ask him in the most delicate, conciliatory manner possible if he was, perhaps, keeping his vote on the second person because he

did

in fact have separate reasons for suspecting him. Craftily, you plant your defense of him as a series of leading questions, hoping he'd take the hint and crawl his way to the surface.

Now, I vote for someone who has done all the things that foilist has done. Granted, I keep my reasons for this vote a little ambiguous at first, but they became pretty clear not too much later. My vote is completely justified, whether or not I took the time to explain it completely, and I keep a steady dialogue with my target, asking pointed questions, and showing the town what my issue is.

Your response is, pages later, to interpret that the most likely explanation for my vote was OMGUS in response to a little quip made by foilist against me. You further "draw the conclusion" that I'm a likely candidate for scum as a result of this vote. You VOTE for me to be lynched.

No no no. Not buying it at all.

---

In his next post, two of peanut's paragraphs are very interesting to me.

I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt in the early stages of mafia games. Given that the majority of the players are town, chances are when I pick up on something and I question them, they are probably town. Nonetheless, I do question them to get a read, but I don't feel the need to always be aggressive. Therefore, regarding Foilist, I am trying to understand his logic, and, if his claim is true, I wanted to know what he found scummy about Mordy.

Finally, regarding the Foilist BW, I don't get a strong scum feeling from him. To be honest, I don't think a scum would act in this way on the first day. This could of course be taken into WIFOM so I'm not claiming him town but I wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch on Foilist just yet. Others have acted scummy as well.

The special treatment he is giving to foilist is pretty blatant. His vote is still on me, even though foilist hasn't responded with an explanation of his vote on Mordy. In fact, his vote STILL on me. Foilist NEVER answers peanutman with a response that would corroborate his theory. Naturally, this doesn't bother peanutman at all, and he never proactively mentions foilist again.

And he wouldn't advocate a D1 lynch of foilist just yet. Mhmm. Interesting how he doesn't seem to mind keeping his vote on me later on in the game, when I'm put up to L-3. Interesting how deliberately, and how

desperately

peanutman tries to shift attention to someone other than foilist.

I partially call him out on all of this in my next post, and he responds:

@ Peanutman - why do you give the benefit of the doubt only to foilist? you had no problem voting for me on your second post.

I'm not just giving Foilist the benefit of the doubt, you have it as well. I'm not claiming you're scum, but my vote is on you because I still have my suspicions. If you were to pursue your line of thinking, I shouldn't be voting anyone at all, correct? That is not the intention of me giving the benefit of the doubt.

I just won't get tunnelling someone because of one seemingly scummy action and blow it out of proportion.

You are so fearful of tunneling that you try as hard as you can to shut down discussion of foilist as quickly as possible? You find nothing about him worth questioning, and nothing suspicious? If this is genuine, then you have a SERIOUS paranoia of tunneling.

And yet...Peanutman, your vote has been on me since your first serious post. And you have never attempted to generate any discussion on your own about anyone who wasn't either me or Gammagooey. You have had nothing to say about AGM, and nothing to say about foilist (besides deciding to give him the benefit of the doubt). If that isn't tunneling, I don't know what it is.

unvote

vote peanutman

[archaebob]

That's it for today, but don't lynch anybody when I'm gone, because there is more coming.

And by more...i mean MOAR.

[Muffin]

@ Muffin -

I sincerely hope you didn't think you could just go back to lurking as soon as we moved our votes to someone else.

Certainly not.

Unfortunately it's midterm time at my university and, quite frankly mafia is low priority at the moment. Am currently catching up and will post soon.

[foilist13]

I thought I had already answered all the questions about why I left my vote on MordyS, but the truth is obviously I didn't have a great reason and I couldn't be bothered at the time. The reasons I posted occurred me after the fact, but my mind was not on my vote, yes even after it was pointed out to me.

To Archaebob's post, your whole case is resting on my flipping scum, so I am wondering why you find it more worthwhile to lynch Peanutman when you seem convinced that I am scum. Also you've demonstrated that you find Almaster at least as scummy as the rest of us do, so don't you think it would be more productive to lunch either him or me since your cases against us are not contingent on the presumed alignments of another player?

[archaebob]

@ foilist -

It's more complicated than you think. And like I said, there's whole lot more to go over before the end of this day...and by more, I mean MOAR.

@ everyone -

I don't think we should waste anymore time right now on AGM. He's already been discussed ad nauseam, we know he's going to pull his whole disappearance shtick right now anyways, and I think it'd be a huge blunder to lynch him before discussing everything else.

I'd really like to hear everyone's thoughts on peanut right now. (not that i'm trying to give the town orders, or anything).