Mini 971: Princess bride - They all lived .......

[CryMeARiver]

CMAR, I see no question directed at me.

Horror, I have no way to verify that, and it's meta. Regardless of whether it's true it's still a cop-out from giving real suspicions so I'm not buying it.

Notice how I still want ekiM and ML lynched over you. Your thoughts on both those players would be appreciated, by the way.

Hell, I want everyone's opinion on ML. He's been going unnoticed all game and he's also scum so that's not a good combination.

Question was directed at ekiM

I will not be able to get on before tomorrow, and in case the deadline extension isn't granted:

I am Westley's Lover, the person that Sensfan tried to marry. I am a hider, who, if I hide with Prince Humperdink or a person targeted for a kill, I will be killed. Otherwise, I am protected from night kills. I cannot claim my true name or else I will be modkilled.

Very interesting flavor coming from farside
Will have to wiki the movie because I don't exactly remember the names and all. By the way, I forgot to ask, is there any claims that have occurred up to this point and is there any reason I should claim now (I have found it useful in games that I replace into to claim upon replacing to clear myself).

[Jack]

I will not be able to get on before tomorrow, and in case the deadline extension isn't granted:

I am Westley's Lover, the person that Sensfan tried to marry. I am a hider, who, if I hide with Prince Humperdink or a person targeted for a kill, I will be killed. Otherwise, I am protected from night kills. I cannot claim my true name or else I will be modkilled.

Doesn't jibe with this:

Because I'm totally pro-town and lynching me would NOT be in your best interest

Because hider is a weak role. Scum like to pretend that their role is super important when they soft claim.

Hider is a role you shouldn't have big qualms about claiming, because they weren't going to try and kill you anyway, and the only use of it is if they try and kill you and fail.

[ekiM]

Parama, a couple of weeks ago you had a hissy fit and stopped responding to anything. I'm not going to do the same you, but please actually respond to what I said here:

]

reaching for reasons to hold onto an RVS vote ofc

Weak. Why would scum have incentive to hold onto a random vote?

Still an open question.

They can't find a better reason to vote so they make stuff up to hold onto the only vote they can.

They can't find a better reason to vote so they make stuff up to hold onto the only vote they can.

Why is scum any more likely to do this than town?

Scum need reasons to push a lynch, regardless of their quality. Their goal is to lynch townies.

The question is: why would scum find it hard to find a reason to move their vote?

*headdesk*

If you agree with fail logic then I have no reason to be arguing with you, because you will just miss the point.

Dodging the question. Answer it.

ML, here's why my point is better than you think it is:

So, Parama. He asks people to vote him at the start so he can OMGUS. That's removing information about whom he chooses to go after. "Let's not worry about the miller claim, we should scumhunt" then... doesn't scumhunt. And spams a page arguing about meta. Fine with this vote.

1. Doesn't even consider that it was an RVS vote
2. Accuses me of not scumhunting even though I was and am scumhunting
3. Didn't spam a page - others started the argument after I brought it up, and it's an argument I've had 100 times and am tired of. Stupid reason

Look at how BS his reasons to vote me are. There's really nothing there.

And this is all the content he provides D1 (I admit, it was short, but still...)

And then in ISO 4 he calls my vote on him OMGUS even though I provided plenty of reasoning to vote him (the same reasoning I

restated

here).

Here were your positive contributions up to that point:

ISO 0-6: nothing

7: I need to scumhunt.

8: Gut says one of the Sens votes is scum. I like my vote for how Jack is acting.

9: Jack is pushing a sensfan lynch without providing reasoning!

10-14: Nothing.

15: Jack, why should we lynch Sensfan?

Summary: one of the Sens voters is scum. Jack is pushing Sens without giving reasons. Zero analysis whatsoever on either point. Since then you've made about 20 more posts to say "I suspect ekiM for suspecting me with reasons I don't like".

You are active lurking, not scumhunting, and it's suspect. You're posting a lot in this game so you must be paying it some attention but I see no evidence you're actually thinking about the game in a critical way and trying to figure out people's motivations.

If you think the amount of content I provided D1 was so low as to be scummy, what do you think of those who provided less? What do you think about the relative content levels people are providing today?

If you think I'm active lurking then you obviously don't understand my logic.

I think you're active lurking because you have made 36 posts and said only a handful of things:

Claiming as miller is OK.

My gut says one person on SensFan is scum.

Jack isn't explaining his push on SensFan, and I don't like it.

ekiM's case on me is so bad he just has to be scum.

The scum are Sens, Ani, ekiM.

ekiM's case on me is so bad he just has to be scum.

I don't understand why CKD is asking SPS about me.

I'm not active lurking!

The depth of analysis on any of this is at most wafer-thin. I've not seen a credible attempt at analysis of anyone's motivation for doing anything.

---

As for your logic, it goes something like this:

• ekiM's reasons for suspecting me are terrible.
  
  
• Scum are more likely to suspect for terrible reasons.
  
  
• => ekiM is likely scum.

I've pointed out problems with your logic in 176. You just ignored that, preferring to say "well, you just don't understand!". To recap:

• My reasons for suspecting you were sensible.
  
  
• There's no reason why scum would find it hard to move their vote.
  
  
• There's no reason why scum can't find plausible suspicions to use.

Try answering.

You still haven't responded to this, just said "This is an oversimplification". Ok, so what is your logic then? WHY is "holding onto a vote" something scum are more likely to do? Is it really that hard to think of a reason to move your vote around?

---

As for the points you raised in your last few posts:

I don't like ekiM's part in the exchange between him and Parama at the bottom of page 9. Why wait so long with the vote? It's fairly clear where it's going and if Parama had suddenly decided to deny it, that would be genuinely suspicious. ekiM seems more concerned about looking justified in voting for Parama here.

Unvote, vote: ekiM

Guys, this is exactly the point of my posts on page 9 and throughout the game. I’m just flat-out telling the truth – yes, the truth may not be what you guys want to hear, but it’s better than lying. And SPS has picked up on that. And sees why ekiM is scum. He’s a pretty cool guy in that way.

Saying "Yes, I have been acting in a blatantly anti-town way, aren't I honest for admitting that?" doesn't somehow make it OK.

Also I'd love to hear from someone how voting for someone at the end of a conversation is a scumtell.

---

ekiM:

(the moment you’ve all been waiting for)

So, Parama. He asks people to vote him at the start so he can OMGUS. That's removing information about whom he chooses to go after. "Let's not worry about the miller claim, we should scumhunt" then... doesn't scumhunt. And spams a page arguing about meta. Fine with this vote.

Reaching for reasons to hold onto a vote. I've been over this before. This is just terrible.

No, you've stopped responding and engaged sulky-child mode when you can't think of why this is actually scummy. See the top of this post.

bv310

- The only game relevant thing he did yesterday in 6 posts was make a random vote.

DDD

- Asked why he should vote Sensfan.

Steam-Powered Shovel

- Said almost nothing.

wolframnhart

- Said almost nothing. Ho hum.

Vote: bv310

. Say something.

Calls out 4 people for saying nothing... and only waits for a response from one. Pretty weak. That's basically "lynch all lurkers".

It's pretty obvious I want more content from all of them.

Also, from the same post.

Parama

- Reactive in RVS. Made 27 posts and said about three non-trivial things. Votes for me because I voted for him. Yippee.

He throws off my case as me OMGUS voting. This is blatant misrep and he's obviously not even paying attention to my reasons.

No, I listened to you reasons and critiqued them. Eventually you stopped responding and started whining instead. SEE ABOVE.

Shovel, yesterday you were asking wolframnhart to follow you onto Para. Now you're voting for wolf. What, if anything has changed?

Seeming like he wants to turn the town against me but doesn't vote himself and doesn't give much real reasoning. He wants others to make the case for him.

No, I was asking why he seemingly changed his opinion without reasoning (turns out the D1 vote was random). You know, scumhunting?

This from you is what reaching actually looks like, by the way, making up bizarre contrived scummy motivations for stuff that has a much simpler explanation.

ISO 6 he makes a wall about how he finds me scummy and then proceeds to hold onto his bv vote. Um, hello? Did you lose your brain? Did you have it in the first place?

It's possible to suspect more than one person at once. It's possible to have more than one person you want to apply pressure to.

You're awfully insulting for no good reason. I shan't respond in kind, but I'd ask you to can it. It adds nothing.

As for your logic, it goes something like this:

• ekiM's reasons for suspecting me are terrible.
  
  
• Scum are more likely to suspect for terrible reasons.
  
  
• => ekiM is likely scum.

Oversimplifying my logic - he doesn't understand it (it's not too difficult to grasp) so he tries to blow it off as worthless. He also accuses me of active lurking even though I'm certainly scumhunting.

Next post is more of the same - still blowing off my reasons as "worthless"

You realize you haven't actually responded here, right? If you think that's not the logic of your position, EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.

ISO 10-12: He completely misses the point. He's singling me out for a vote that I admit was bandwagoning... while most votes on the wagon were nothing more than that, though several players would try to cover that up. And he finally votes me because of this one little thing, not everything else. Reaching for reasons more? I'm just being truthful - I don't have to lie to make a good case.

Supporting a wagon you totally don't agree with and previous argued against for no reason whatsoever is amazingly scummy. Saying "Yes, I did that. Aren't I honest?" doesn't change that, at all.

"Reaching"... you keep using that word...

Jack's a competent player so I doubt he's a townie making a mistake. I don't see a scum motivation for coming out like that to take out one guy. I don't see any particular reason to believe DDD to be town.

Unvote; Vote: DDD

.

"blah blah blah Parama is scum guys blah blah blah oh hey the DDD wagon is taking off I'm going to appeal to Jack and join it."

Did you see any particular reason to believe DDD to be scum? You didn't give any and you haven't done so prior to this post.

Because Jack claimed to have role related info for believing him to be scum. Duh?

MacavityLock

- Feel he's town.

Parama

- Still a good lynch.

....

horrordude0215/bv310

- bv310 total lurker. And horrordude is not making me think town. Question for you: if you don't think there's a need to rush the end of the day, why did you ask for a claim from SPS before someone was willing to hammer him?



Hmm.

Unvote; Vote: horrordude0215

.

3 things to point out.

1. Lack of willingness to comment on ML. Just gives town read with no reasons and little mention of him all game.

2. More pushing of my lynch... he's not voting me anymore, if he supports my lynch then he should be on it.

3. Gives the most reason for the wagon being built up - just an excuse to wagon with Jack again. Why are you buddying Jack so much, anyways?

1. He's not done anything I think is scummy and I agree with most of what he says.
2. It's possible to suspect more than one person at once.
3. I'm voting for horrordude because I suspect him.

There's just nothing to make me feel he's town and plenty leading me to believe he's scum. Add to the fact that he's extreme distancing from ML (the other scummiest player) and guys I think we've found our team!

Seriously, I ctrl+f'ed his entire ISO and found about 7 mentions of ML in all.

You realize your whole case for ML being scum is predicated on me being scum? Circular logic much?

[ekiM]

Glad to replace in! I'm so psyched (this was the oldest large theme game that I was familiar with)

So I've never tried this before, but I know I like it when replacements do it and refresh my memory, so if I like it, must be good. Here goes nothing (and by nothing I mean a page by page analysis).

Page 1

Confirmations

Wolf does what I would have done and policy votes bv. Good job wolf!

Parama bandwagon

Beginnings of Sens bandwagon

Page 2

Hey look, Sens, bv, and animorph are all from the same place! MS reunion!

KMD "serious" votes ekiM, seriously? Later reiterates how scummy he find ekiM

ML claims Miller and has a "semi-random" vote on SPS for trying to force a joke

Sens vote ML for claiming miller

Parama wins town points for reaction to miller claim

Page 3

Wolf gains town points for his open mind about miller claim

I like Parama's scumhunt joke, but KMD ruins it and takes it too seriously

Parama and KMD argue about JackScum because Jack didn't provide reason for his vote. Guess who else didn't? Kmd! +scum points

Parama's sig is awesome +awesome points

Yet another pointless meta argument that just sidetracks town

Parama points out that argument is just sidetracking town +town points

KMD finally posts reason for saying ekiM is scum.

ekiM, however, is legitimately scummy trying to stay in the background by jumping the main wagon and contributing to the popular joke.

For the same reason Parama suspected Jack, that you shot down? +scum points

Page 4

Sens selfvotes +scum points

ML says Sens' selfvote is very townie. +dumb points

DDD and Jack argument-I think Jack is just trying to be funny, but DDD has a good point +little town points

ekiM says he has never seen a miller claim, but then says that some people do like to lynch millers. Also has bullshit reasons for find Parama scummy. +scum points

I've never played with a miller claim. I've read games with them. I've read MD discussion about them.

Reasons for voting Parama not bullshit.

SPS chimes in saying he likes his vote on Parama. No reasoning. +little scum points

CKD says that "ML is not the lynch for today" which I don't like. If you find him scummiest, you vote/lynch him, no matter what his claim. Maybe just a slip of the tongue, so I'll let it by for now.

Sens switches from voting himself to voting Jack because he is voting him for no reason

Page 5

Animorph distracts the town with meaningless banter

Jack continues to tunnel Sens

Parama drops suspicions and bandwagons Sens with no reasoning

ML makes a protown vig comment +town points

KMD drops suspicions and bandwagons Sens with no reasoning

Sens hammers himself. +Fuck you points

Page 6

Wolf says that Sens is probably a frustrated townie but leaves a caveat at the end. Trying too hard to appear town? +little scum points

Twilight banter. Hey, look Bv returns after lynch. +scum points

Probably still at least on scum on this list due to the SK flip:

SensFan (7) bv310, curiouskarmadog, animorpherv1, Jack, Parama, Kmd439, SensFan

ekiM's 143 is actually pretty sweet +town points (Question though, were you working on this during the night or did you do it after the lynch?)

I wrote the whole post after daybreak of D2.

SPS and Jack vote without reasoning. If you know my meta, I hate this. +little scum points

ekiM's objective standpoint on himself should not be read as protown. He SHOULD answer his own question to himself though.

Two reasons: I wanted to see if bv could be pressured into providing content, as he was the least content D1. I wanted to see if Parama would behave more reasonably if I was voting someone else for a while. No and no.

[ekiM]

By the way, I forgot to ask, is there any claims that have occurred up to this point and is there any reason I should claim now (I have found it useful in games that I replace into to claim upon replacing to clear myself).

ML claimed miller right at the start.
Sensfan was SK and lynched.
Ani was Doc.
Parama claimed the role name "Westley" for no reason at all.
SPS claimed Cop, "Grandfather" with an innocent on CKD N1.
Horror just claimed hider.

[MacavityLock]

They can't find a better reason to vote so they make stuff up to hold onto the only vote they can.

Why is scum any more likely to do this than town?

Trying to blow a valid point off as WIFOM, aren't we? Bad.

It's not a valid point. I still don't understand why a scum is any more likely to hold onto a random vote than a townie would.

Parama, I actually have no problem with the reasons ekiM stated in terms of his vote on you. They're completely reasonable, in my opinion.

Oh really. You've never commented on them, and for all I know you don't even know them. This is more buddying and you seem to have no reasons of your own to suspect me other than that I am suspecting ekiM.

Yup, really. I think your case on ekiM is crap, a case which I was thinking makes you scummy. Also, you admitted bandwagoning an "inevitable wagon" for the sake of being on the wagon. It's ridiculous.

The recent ekiM-Parama debate convinces me to

Unvote. Vote: Parama

.

And you're not even going to comment on any of it or acknowledge what's being said. You're totally ekiM's buddy, aren't you?

My comment was my vote.

If someone ccs my nameclaim then that makes them a real idiot, so I don't see why you wouldn't believe it.

Yeah, that. Laying it on a bit thick, I think.

Unvote. Vote: Shovel

.

Um. Reasons? I know you've said stuff in the past but you didn't seem to have genuine suspicion... and now you're changing without a reason either.

I was actually agreeing with you here. Saying outright that you believe a name claim doesn't make any sense to me, unless you want to telegraph that you think that name-claimer is telling the truth. I could see two reasons for that, and not many more:
1) A cop breadcrumbing an innocent.
2) A scum who wants townie points ("Look guys, I totally thought that Parama was town, and he was! I was right!")

This turn of events does not surprise me.

Unvote. Vote: DDD

.

wagon wagon wagon wagon wagon
When have you even MENTIONED DDD before? You haven't! You're not even going to question Jack's claimed info?

Actually, I did mention DDD. I voted for him in my first vote of the day, very obviously following Jack. I figured based on Jack's early vote that Jack actually did have role-related info on DDD, I followed him early, and when he claimed the info, I clearly believed him. Read my isos 9 and 17 please.

Why aren't there more Shovel votes?

BWAHAHAHA you're not voting Shovel at the time you say this. Way to push a lynch without actually being on it.

Um, yes I was. Check my isos 18 and 19.

I considered Jack but I knew I wouldn't be able to breadcrumb an "Innocent"-result on Jack.

Yes, what does this mean?

Unvote. Vote: horror

Jack, you need to start providing actual content tomorrow.

What does any of this post have to do with horror? Why are you just bandwagon while acting like giving content?

Explained immediately after in my iso 22.

[CryMeARiver]

By the way, I forgot to ask, is there any claims that have occurred up to this point and is there any reason I should claim now (I have found it useful in games that I replace into to claim upon replacing to clear myself).

ML claimed miller right at the start.
Sensfan was SK and lynched.
Ani was Doc.
Parama claimed the role name "Westley" for no reason at all.
SPS claimed Cop, "Grandfather" with an innocent on CKD N1.
Horror just claimed hider.

Thank you sir

[Parama]

Parama, a couple of weeks ago you had a hissy fit and stopped responding to anything. I'm not going to do the same you, but please actually respond to what I said here:

I'm not responding when the whole argument against me makes no sense and you're failing to respond properly.

As for the points you raised in your last few posts:

Saying "Yes, I have been acting in a blatantly anti-town way, aren't I honest for admitting that?" doesn't somehow make it OK.

Also I'd love to hear from someone how voting for someone at the end of a conversation is a scumtell.

I'll admit to screwing up because I have nothing to hide.
And it's not simply voting me at the end, it's your reasons and the fact that you waited so goddamn long to vote me.

No, you've stopped responding and engaged sulky-child mode when you can't think of why this is actually scummy. See the top of this post.

No, you just can't think up a good explanation. Get over it. I know when someone is reaching, and your post is just that.

It's pretty obvious I want more content from all of them.

Then why did you vote one over the other 3?

No, I listened to you reasons and critiqued them. Eventually you stopped responding and started whining instead. SEE ABOVE.

This is completely irrelevant to the point I raised.

This from you is what reaching actually looks like, by the way, making up bizarre contrived scummy motivations for stuff that has a much simpler explanation.

I'm working out what the most likely explanation for each scenario is.

It's possible to suspect more than one person at once. It's possible to have more than one person you want to apply pressure to.

You're awfully insulting for no good reason. I shan't respond in kind, but I'd ask you to can it. It adds nothing.

I'm sorry, when scum makes themselves so obvious yet nobody seems to care I get pretty pissed.

You realize you haven't actually responded here, right? If you think that's not the logic of your position, EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.

I explained my logic first, THEN you simplified it. And I went over it again in 402. You're just not even trying to respond to it.

Supporting a wagon you totally don't agree with and previous argued against for no reason whatsoever is amazingly scummy. Saying "Yes, I did that. Aren't I honest?" doesn't change that, at all.

It doesn't change what I did, but I'm admitting to a mistake. The point about oversimplifying my logic is a mistake you're not willing to admit to, so you keep pushing it. That's how I know I'm right.

"Reaching"... you keep using that word...

I keep using it because it keeps applying.

Because Jack claimed to have role related info for believing him to be scum. Duh?

And you believed him without a second thought? Did you ever stop to question him?
(Note: I knew he was lying but I voted anyways because I knew Jack had reason to find him suspicious and I tend to trust the reads of my townish reads. Plus nobody was switching to ekiM anyways :/)

1. He's not done anything I think is scummy and I agree with most of what he says.

Examples?

2. It's possible to suspect more than one person at once.

But you appear to be suspecting me the most out of everyone, yet your vote is in a different place.

3. I'm voting for horrordude because I suspect him.

You suspect me too, so why aren't you voting me? This contradicts your last point.

You realize your whole case for ML being scum is predicated on me being scum? Circular logic much?

You totally missed my ML case then. It's not based solely on you being scum. If you somehow manage to flip town I'd still want a ML lynch.

[Parama]

It's not a valid point. I still don't understand why a scum is any more likely to hold onto a random vote than a townie would.

They're not actually scumhunting, they don't feel like coming up with good "real" reasons to suspect someone so they hold on to what they've already got in hopes to push a lynch without much effort.

Yup, really. I think your case on ekiM is crap, a case which I was thinking makes you scummy. Also, you admitted bandwagoning an "inevitable wagon" for the sake of being on the wagon. It's ridiculous.

Calling a case "crap" does nothing to disprove it. At all.
And yes, thank you, I did admit to bandwagoning. Can anyone else on the wagon truthfully claim their vote wasn't a bandwagon?

My comment was my vote.

But you didn't state explicitly why the argument made me look like scum to you.

I was actually agreeing with you here. Saying outright that you believe a name claim doesn't make any sense to me, unless you want to telegraph that you think that name-claimer is telling the truth. I could see two reasons for that, and not many more:
1) A cop breadcrumbing an innocent.
2) A scum who wants townie points ("Look guys, I totally thought that Parama was town, and he was! I was right!")

I was questioning your SPS vote.

Actually, I did mention DDD. I voted for him in my first vote of the day, very obviously following Jack. I figured based on Jack's early vote that Jack actually did have role-related info on DDD, I followed him early, and when he claimed the info, I clearly believed him. Read my isos 9 and 17 please.

That's not your own suspicion, that's following someone else's suspicion for no real reason.

Why aren't there more Shovel votes?

BWAHAHAHA you're not voting Shovel at the time you say this. Way to push a lynch without actually being on it.

Um, yes I was. Check my isos 18 and 19.

My fault I missed the vote.

I considered Jack but I knew I wouldn't be able to breadcrumb an "Innocent"-result on Jack.

Yes, what does this mean?

Unvote. Vote: horror

Jack, you need to start providing actual content tomorrow.

What does any of this post have to do with horror? Why are you just bandwagon while acting like giving content?

Explained immediately after in my iso 22.

Why didn't you have it at the time of your vote though? You can come up with reasons when you place a vote, too.

[ekiM]

Parama, a couple of weeks ago you had a hissy fit and stopped responding to anything. I'm not going to do the same you, but please actually respond to what I said here:

I'm not responding when the whole argument against me makes no sense and you're failing to respond properly.

This is a joke. You completely failed to explain why me holding on to a vote was scummy. You still haven't. You've "failed to respond properly" to most of what people have said all game, as you've cheerfully acknowledged "I'm just tunneling LOL!!!" "SORRY, only interested in ekiM right now!!".

As for the points you raised in your last few posts:

Saying "Yes, I have been acting in a blatantly anti-town way, aren't I honest for admitting that?" doesn't somehow make it OK.

Also I'd love to hear from someone how voting for someone at the end of a conversation is a scumtell.

I'll admit to screwing up because I have nothing to hide.

You can keep saying that but it's not actually any kind of a defense.

And it's not simply voting me at the end, it's your reasons and the fact that you waited so goddamn long to vote me.

And why is this scummy?

It's pretty obvious I want more content from all of them.

Then why did you vote one over the other 3?

Because I only have one vote and bv had the least content so far. Is this meant to be a serious question?

This from you is what reaching actually looks like, by the way, making up bizarre contrived scummy motivations for stuff that has a much simpler explanation.

I'm working out what the most likely explanation for each scenario is.

The most likely explanation for someone asking why someone suddenly changed their opinion on someone else is not "because they're trying to subtly turn the town against the someone else". It's "because they want to know why the someone suddenly changed opinion.

It's possible to suspect more than one person at once. It's possible to have more than one person you want to apply pressure to.

You're awfully insulting for no good reason. I shan't respond in kind, but I'd ask you to can it. It adds nothing.

I'm sorry, when scum makes themselves so obvious yet nobody seems to care I get pretty pissed.

I'm not scum. The reason you've given for suspecting me are garbage. Sorry. If you're town, reassess this game.

You were being rude to other people too. It's just unnecessary.

You realize you haven't actually responded here, right? If you think that's not the logic of your position, EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.

I explained my logic first, THEN you simplified it. And I went over it again in 402. You're just not even trying to respond to it.

Bull. You said "I've been over this before".

Supporting a wagon you totally don't agree with and previous argued against for no reason whatsoever is amazingly scummy. Saying "Yes, I did that. Aren't I honest?" doesn't change that, at all.

It doesn't change what I did, but I'm admitting to a mistake. The point about oversimplifying my logic is a mistake you're not willing to admit to, so you keep pushing it. That's how I know I'm right.

I'd be willing to discuss your logic if you didn't refuse to do so. Direct quote from you in this game (to ML): "If you agree with fail logic then I have no reason to be arguing with you, because you will just miss the point." --> this is just a blatant refusal to engage with someone because they disagree with you.

Because Jack claimed to have role related info for believing him to be scum. Duh?

And you believed him without a second thought? Did you ever stop to question him?

(Note: I knew he was lying but I voted anyways because I knew Jack had reason to find him suspicious and I tend to trust the reads of my townish reads. Plus nobody was switching to ekiM anyways :/)

I believed him after thinking about it a bit.

1. He's not done anything I think is scummy and I agree with most of what he says.

Examples?

Huh? There are no examples of someone not doing something, and I'm not about to quote most of what he's said.

2. It's possible to suspect more than one person at once.

But you appear to be suspecting me the most out of everyone, yet your vote is in a different place.

No, I

dislike

you most, almost viscerally. That's different. Horrordude is more likely to be scum, which is why I'm voting for him.

3. I'm voting for horrordude because I suspect him.

You suspect me too, so why aren't you voting me? This contradicts your last point.

Because I suspect horrordude most and I only have one vote. What the fuck? How is this worth asking? This really is a waste of time.

[ekiM]

It's not a valid point. I still don't understand why a scum is any more likely to hold onto a random vote than a townie would.

They're not actually scumhunting, they don't feel like coming up with good "real" reasons to suspect someone so they hold on to what they've already got in hopes to push a lynch without much effort.

Scum want to look like town. It's not hard, at all, to come up with something that looks like plausible scumhunting.

The only time this logic would work is if someone's scum game is A) incredibly lazy B) too stupid to come up with something that looks like scumhunting. Mine is neither.

[MacavityLock]

It's not a valid point. I still don't understand why a scum is any more likely to hold onto a random vote than a townie would.

They're not actually scumhunting, they don't feel like coming up with good "real" reasons to suspect someone so they hold on to what they've already got in hopes to push a lynch without much effort.

And a townie would hold onto a random vote because something happened to make their suspicions legitimate. How do you tell them apart?

Yup, really. I think your case on ekiM is crap, a case which I was thinking makes you scummy. Also, you admitted bandwagoning an "inevitable wagon" for the sake of being on the wagon. It's ridiculous.

Calling a case "crap" does nothing to disprove it. At all.

It's impossible to "disprove" a case without a flip. I disagree with your case and think it's scummy.

And yes, thank you, I did admit to bandwagoning. Can anyone else on the wagon truthfully claim their vote wasn't a bandwagon?

Animorph probably wouldn't, as he gave an actually reason for it in his vote post. You'd have to ask ckd and KMD for their reasons.

My comment was my vote.

But you didn't state explicitly why the argument made me look like scum to you.

Meh, laziness and obviousness.

I was questioning your SPS vote.

And I gave you my reason, which was basically in agreement with you.

Actually, I did mention DDD. I voted for him in my first vote of the day, very obviously following Jack. I figured based on Jack's early vote that Jack actually did have role-related info on DDD, I followed him early, and when he claimed the info, I clearly believed him. Read my isos 9 and 17 please.

That's not your own suspicion, that's following someone else's suspicion for no real reason.

Damn right it's a follow. My "real reason" was obvious role-related reasons from someone else.

Why didn't you have it at the time of your vote though? You can come up with reasons when you place a vote, too.

'Cause I didn't feel like it at the time.

[farside22]

Vote count

ekiM (3) Parama, Steam Powered Shovel, Debonair Danny DiPietro
Kmd (1) CryMeARiver
Jack (1) Horrordude

Horrordude (4) Jack, ekiM, Kmd4390, MacavityLock

Not voting:

curiouskarmadog

with 10 alive it will take 6 to lynch
Deadline is June 10, 7:30am PST

^^look new deadline

[Parama]

Not much time to post right now, just going to say that ML is keeping his cool under pressure while ekiM is getting incredibly pissed and is attacking me directly instead of my case, which is not the reaction of a townie to a good case. So ekiM is definitely still top of the priority list.

[Jack]

No let's stick with horror.

Townies get pissed when they don't think the case is good.

[Parama]

The case is good though .-.

[Parama]

Also

Horrordude (4) Jack, ekiM, Kmd4390

I just can't get on this wagon.

And what if I told you that I can confirm if Horror is telling the truth or not, if you give it a night?

[Kmd4390]

Parama, on your ISO read of me:

I gave my reasons on ekiM. Just not in the same post I voted him. I also said exactly why my vote was on him and not Mac. ekiM seemed scummier.

Just because you think meta is weak doesn't mean I do. You don't have to agree with me.

I answered exactly why I switched to you. VCA TM. Which I trust more than my own reads. Also, my tell on Shovel was a newbscumtell, so him not being a newb changes that completely.

On the DDD vote being random (huh?), no. I don't random vote. I switched because I believed you both to be scum at the time, so lynching him was just as good.

Um. My VCA TM is probably the best scumhunting I've done in most of the games I've played, so to say the fact that I used it means I'm not scumhunting is nothing but BS.

On ekiM, yes, his play reads scummy to me. But I tend to always read him as scum and VCA TM seems to point to him being town.

On my Shovel vote, no, I wasn't trying to just draw a claim. I was trying to get a decent lynch. I had been debating because VCA TM showed him as town, but my early tell on him seemed pretty strong. Nobody was interested in lynching you though and I second guessed myself on DDD, so I was fine lynching Shovel til he claimed.

Also, I think it's kinda funny how these ISO's seem to lead you to scum reads on basically everybody who you did them on. (edit: I see you did a more clear list after you posted these. Still, 5 suspects is a lot, but you listed them a little better there).

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

CMAR:

Yeah, I saw ekiM as scummy, so that is what I pushed. That a problem for you?

I gave my reasons later on ekiM.

Wait, how was my ekiM vote similar to Parama's Jack vote? Serious question cuz I don't see it.

I gave my reason for my Sens vote. I have a meta tell on him that is probably a bigger meta tell than anything I have on any other player in all of mafia. I saw that, so I voted him. I said a few posts before the vote that I was starting to see that tell.

Also, what Parama said. You seem to be buddying to him in that post up until you FoS him.

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

On Horror's claim....hmm.

Questions. If you hide behind scum, do you die? Who did you hide behind last night?

The Can't-claim-name-modkill thing is something I rarely believe when I see a claim.

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

CMAR, post 424:

"Ends RVS"- For me, RVS never starts. I look for whatever I can find early and blow it up so I have reactions to guage.

Yeah, I didn't see Jack as scum. I saw his posts as reaction-fishing which is generally a protown action and fits as something Jack would do as town based on what I've seen from him in other games.

You are misrepping by saying I couldn't come up with a reason. I just hadn't shared the reason. Was kind of hoping someone would ask so I could make a bigger deal out of it. And like I said above, I don't see where the contradiction thing is coming from.

When I voted Sens, I did NOT drop suspicion of ekiM at all. Hell, I called him scum in the very post you quoted to try saying I dropped it.

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

Wait. The name claim Parama did for no reason was....Westley???

Um.

From Horror's claim:
"I am Westley's Lover, the person that Sensfan tried to marry"

That..um.. Sens tried to marry?

Yet you are the lover of....

the character name who Parama claimed?

Am I missing something here or does this mean Horror is scum who just botched a fakeclaim?

[Kmd4390]

And what if I told you that I can confirm if Horror is telling the truth or not, if you give it a night?

If this is true, I may unvote.

[Kmd4390]

Horror's claim just looks so bad though.

[Parama]

If you know anything about the film at all, the flavor makes perfect sense. Don't think there's a botched claim anywhere in there.

[Kmd4390]

Yeah, I know nothing about it.

Just seems weird that he's claiming to be your claimed role's lover, yet Sens was trying to marry him or something.

[Parama]

Movie plot: Prince Humperdink is trying to get the Princess to marry him, but the Princess is in love with Westley and tries to escape from the Prince. So the claim really does make sense.

At least that's what I remember it being. I've only seen it once but that seems about right :/

[Jack]

Prince Humpadick is evil, and buttercup is only marrying him because she thinks her true love westley is dead.

[Kmd4390]

Hmm. Ok. Still want Horror to answer my questions before I decide if I believe him or not.