AMURIKA MAFIA - Game Over

[Gorgon]

Ooooh boy, McCarthyism II: The Reckoning! Remember, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

On that note ...

VOTE: SaintKerrigan

Only player here I've played with before, and not too long ago either.

[Gorgon]

chamber2 (John F. Kennedy) is mod confirmed to be aligned with the town.

Looks like we have an innocent child then.

[Gorgon]

You mean the innocent child thing? Yeah, if I hadn't thought it worth pointing out I probably wouldn't have done so. It might not be a groundbreaking revelation but at least it was something to comment on at a very early stage in the game; something that might provoke some sort of reaction, and it did. I don't remember ever being in a game with an innocent child either, so it's a novelty to me.

Anyway, since you seem to have voted me for it I would like to hear how that post of mine is incompatible with town.

[Gorgon]

Heck, maybe it's not even an innocent child but some other similar mechanism that someone might have some ideas about. Or whatever. I fail to see how prompting possible conversation about this is suspect.

[Gorgon]

It just doesn't add up.

-He Voted Gorgon b/c his Vote was...

odd

? We call bs. p9 is no more suspicious than p12.

I think it's pretty clear from the context that he meant to say post, not vote. That is, he confirms that he was talking about the innocent child comment. So it's a simple slipup. I was a little confused about this at first but I think there's no way he could really have been talking about my vote.

-We've played in many many games around here and we still had to look up "Innocent Child". We don't think it's even remotely "self-evident".

I agree with this; I think that announcement is worth discussing which is, again, why I brought it up.

-Pressure Votes carry 0 merit when you immediately say "I don't think he's Scum" and cave at the 1st sign of resistance calling it a page1 pressure Vote.

Well to be fair, he didn't say he didn't think I was scum, he said he doesn't

necessarily

think I'm scum, but it's still kind of weird to bring this up when you're putting pressure. When you're doing that I think it's quite okay and even necessary to be pretty emphatic, otherwise the pressure is, yeah, lessened.

All this said, I'm not sure Bulb deserves my vote right now. Although his stated eagerness to get out of RVS could be a case of a manufactured "Look at me I'm a scumhunter!", and his haste to explain that he doesn't necessarily think I'm scum is a bit apologetic, something about his explanation of his motives reads genuine to me. Maybe it plays a part that I voted for a player early in my last game for the "Stated eagerness to scumhunt"-scumtell and he turned out to be town, and very good town at that.

[Gorgon]

Yeah ... seems I was on the money there. Maybe I should just let people defend themselves though. I still find it very hard to resist doing it when I feel the defense is obvious.

Anyway, I just have to comment on this since no one else has so far:

I hate my role.

Okaaay ... but you still want to play I hope? It doesn't do much good to have a confirmed innocent if he's not active.

[Gorgon]

Why did you feel the need to comment on this?

Maybe because your post contained no comment on the goings on in this game nor a vote, and it's easy to read from it a certain reluctance to participate? So I felt someone had to urge you to participate.

[Gorgon]

Maybe because we think your actions thus far are scummy contradictions of themselves?

Yeah, contradictions are what I am seeing as well, but it's more contradictions between words and actions. He says he doesn't mind being wagoned, yet questions you as to your motives for keeping your vote on him while doing no real hunting of his own since you voted him, which he has stated he wants to do. His vote is still on me, yet he's not commenting on me and not looking for any other suspects either. Maybe his questioning you is supposed to constitute hunting but if that's the case, it doesn't really come off as such. More like defense.

I'm good wagoning him now, especially as I don't see anything else that's nearly as votable in this game so far.

VOTE: Bulbazak

That's L-2, if I count correctly and if joel's vote counts.

Speaking of joel I agree that his vote was weird, especially the 'sorry' part. Peregrine's vote was also not exactly well-reasoned, but he seems a little terse in general so far.

[Gorgon]

Crap, I missed goodmorning's vote. Should have triple-checked. It's definitely way too early in the game for L-1.

[Gorgon]

In fact, I don't know how I could have missed it twice, as they even greet each other.

[Gorgon]

As a perfectionist I think I can assure you that pretty much nobody holds me to a higher standard than I hold myself. But oh well, what's done is done and there's no harm done I guess.

[Gorgon]

Ugh, I'm sick today and have mostly stayed in bed until now, but thankfully there are fewer posts waiting for me than I expected. I still hate having to catch up. First things first, answering this post ...

Are you scum?

Do you seriously expect anyone to answer that?

I have seen people get asked this before. Usually people just answer 'No' and even add 'Are you?', but this is the first time I remember seeing a reaction like this.

I had not commented on anything else, because I was away.

I was referring to the actual posts that you had made; they were just questions for Cryo about his reasons for voting you. Maybe you were going to comment on something else later, but I couldn't have known that for sure. I should perhaps have given you time to see how you reacted to your wagon before adding my vote, but I was online and it seemed to be a good call at the time. The vote I had in play was random and I thought it was high time I voted for some substantial reason.

I had not unvoted you, because I saw no reason to, and I wanted to see who else would latch on to my vote.

Fair enough.

The reason I questioned Cryo's vote on me was to see whether he had a legit case for me being scum, or whether he decided to add a third vote to a wagon when the slightest thing that could be conceived as scummy appeared. Hint: One of those is scummy. The other is not.

Also fair enough.

And you're willing to put a wagon at L-2 for hardly any reason at all on the first day of play? Why would you want the day to be over so fast? Because that will only lead to a quicklynch, and leave town at -2.

I don't think there was 'hardly any reason'. I think I had some good reasons. And my motive was definitely not to end the day, hence I made it clear that this was L-2 (although it was really probably L-1 after all; I wouldn't have voted if I had counted correctly), expecting that no one would add another vote. People get put at L-2 all the time without it leading to a quicklynch, even early in the game; it's part of the game. L-1 is more serious though and a sustained L-1 pretty much means that the wagoned player is being asked to claim. But L-2 is just a pretty decent amount of pressure, and you had indicated yourself that you didn't mind being wagoned.

Add in the comment on Joel's scumminess, and I'm definitely not moving my vote now.

If I read you correctly, me commenting on joel's jump on your wagon is all the more reason for you to keep your vote on me ... why?

[Gorgon]

Ugh, joel reminds me way too much of a certain scum newb that I misread as town in my last game. I kept attributing the "scumminess" of that player as "newbie mistakes" and would have paid for it if the most of the town hadn't disagreed with me.

As I was in that game as well, I have to say

exactly

. In fact it's eerily similar; joel has seemingly played on another site where the playstyle is completely different than here, and people are already calling him a VI. The VI/scum debate occupied a huge part of D1 in that game. Here is a link to the game, for those who are interested.

I think the lesson learned from it is that scumminess should never be ignored, and objectively speaking joel has done some scummy things, such as backing away from his votes when people question them. But he's at L-2 already by my count and there's no reason to go for L-1 yet.

I do find this interesting though:

I honestly didn't even notice Bulb FoS me. That does change my thinking a little.

UNVOTE: unvote

I need to think about it more. But for now I'm not happy with Bulb or SK - so watch out.

So the fact that both SK and Bulb FoS'd you gives you reason to reconsider your vote on SK, but you're still 'not happy' with either of them? How does this compute? And what exactly do you need to think about?

And regarding this ...

WIFOM?

You clearly did not read what I said. Using one word to describe what I wrote - then not answering my question. Very lazy - actually read it this time.

I'm not sure whether you're asking what WIFOM means, but just to be clear, WIFOM is a very commonly applied term on this site, in many contexts. It's often used to debunk reasoning such as "If I were scum, there's no way I would have done X," since that person could easily be scum who did X just because it's so un-scummy, in order to point it out later. That said, I am actually not sure how it's supposed to apply to your play and would like to hear more from Om regarding that.

And joel, there's certainly no reason for you to reveal your role so early; you should keep it to yourself for now. Mostly only when the town consensus is that someone should reveal it in order to possibly avoid being lynched should anyone reveal their role D1. There are other circumstances that make it a good idea to reveal your role that early, but they are pretty rare. If you

really

think that town would benefit from knowing your role you can consider revealing it, but if you're unsure you should err on the side of caution.

[Gorgon]

This day sure is progressing nicely.

Okay, now I'm

really

starting to think that the reason you hate your role is that it's crippled in some way, such as you not being allowed to vote. Is that the case?

[Gorgon]

Okay, catchup again, starting with Bulb.

I didn't mind being wagoned, because I felt I could gain information based on who jumped on my wagon and why.

Yet again, fair enough, but since we are on this subject my vote on you was partly to gain information. That's what pressure is for after all. As I stated before though, it may be that my vote was redundant since you already were under plenty of pressure without having gotten a chance to comment on it. I will concede as much.

Due to the speed by which my wagon built up, I have a hard time believing that it was completely town driven.

It's a nice working theory but not completely solid IMO. I have seen completely town-driven wagons build up pretty fast too. Anyway, I think it would be more protown (not to mention consistent with your words) for you to consider all the players that joined your wagon, but there are some that you haven't even commented on.

I didn't like your willingness to jump on my wagon so quickly for what I believe is weak reasoning, therefore I have not been able to rule you out. If you'd like to explain your reasoning better, please go ahead. The sooner I can rule out suspects, the better.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'so quickly'. I could have voted for you earlier but I decided to wait and see, since I was pretty conflicted on you. When I saw how you reacted to Cryo's pressure on you I felt less conflicted. And my vote was definitely not quick as in early on the wagon, it was a very late addition to it.

I already stated my reasons for voting you in my vote post, although I must admit that given your answers to my prodding and your play since my vote they have become somewhat redundant - but I still feel they were valid at the time. But to reiterate I found your actions to be inconsistent with your words, mainly in that despite your claimed eagerness to hunt you didn't seem to be hunting, and despite your claimed willingness to be wagoned you were still questioning Cryo's vote.

Also, this ruling out suspects talk is weird. What would be the criteria for that, exactly?

I was suspicious of your motives for voting me. You then follow that up by commenting on the scumminess of another player whose scumminess had already been pointed out. I was having a hard time reconciling both of those actions with a town mindset.

Okay ... agreeing with other players can definitely be a scumtell but town still do it all the time as well. It's only if it becomes a definite pattern that it's notable, IMO - and as with anything else context is important. In this case I probably would have commented on joel's vote even if nobody else had done so as being apologetic about your vote is a scumtell in my book. How was this particular agreement not town?

[Gorgon]

I had to go out to lunch. Had a hard time taking a break from this game but I guess you gotta eat sometime. There's a lot of stuff to comment on and many elements of this game are giving me a headache at the moment, but let's try to break it down a little. Next, Hiraki's long post, which contains a few things that are quite worthy of comment.

Anyway, since you seem to have voted me for it I would like to hear how that post of mine is incompatible with town.

This isn't like a "ha, found you scum thing"

But you're certainly leaning like it is.

It was a vote followed up with a question concerning my play, and gut told me that it was a somewhat serious accusation rather than just randomness. Bulb's later comments on the matter then confirmed that, so especially in retrospect I think my take on that vote of his was on the money.

-Pressure Votes carry 0 merit when you immediately say "I don't think he's Scum" and cave at the 1st sign of resistance calling it a page1 pressure Vote.

How is this scummy at all? This just means he's voting badly.

Voting badly IS scummy. I guess one can excuse it with by saying that the person doing it is just VI/noob, but again, referring to the game I just finished with SK, it's not a foolproof defense at all.

Because that was a pretty scummy response to some very light probing.

Could've sworn you were probing for town reads. Oh well.

I mean if someone else cut your finger and you did that I'd be happy. But Joel did it.

He seriously called you out to fight and you just shot a gun towards his head. Shame.

Okay ... SK FoS'd Joel, then Joel voted SK, and SK upgraded his FoS to a vote due to OMGUS. It's escalation, but SK certainly didn't escalate it beyond what joel had already escalated it to. How is Joel's vote on SK 'calling him out to fight' while SK's vote on Joel is 'shooting a gun towards his head'?

Joel gives you a source and what do you do? Do you check to see if it's credible?

No, I haven't checked out that forum yet, but I find no real reason to believe that joel is lying about it or misrepresenting what goes on there when he knows that this is in theory easy to check, and if it doesn't check out he will be in hot water. And you know what? In the oft-mentioned game I was just finishing, where a first time player here from another forum got into trouble D1 and ended up getting lynched and flipped scum, I never did bother to check out his forum at all. Other players did though, and the results of that were decidedly mixed. I didn't do much meta analysis at all in that game, come to think of it, but I think my reads were still pretty good. I think I'm becoming somewhat anti-meta, both because it's work enough to read the current game without trudging through meta, and because meta is a double-edged sword that can muddy the waters just as much as clear them up. The current game is the current game, and I think it's very easy to get a good picture of each player as the game progresses without checking their backgrounds. The only time I did dip a little into meta in that game was when the game was maturing and there were fewer players left to focus on and more incentive to clarify the reads.

That being said, I'm not ready to believe that Joel is a VI just yet, mainly because of how willing he is to shift suspicion onto almost anybody else.

FFFFFFFFFF---

Oh yes, this 'he's shifting suspicion onto almost everyone else' is a classic scum line as far as I'm concerned. Especially (as is usually the case) when it's not really true. As in this case, as far as I can tell. Say what you will about joel's play, but I don't think that's a fair description of it.

[Gorgon]

... you and SK are just trying to find some scum to lynch.

You mean 'you and Cryo', right?

And while I'm replying to this post ...

Also, does anyone else find it extremely tedious to question the innocent child? It's a mega waste of time, right?

Depends on what he's being questioned about. It's never a waste of time to encourage people to stay active and use their vote, IMO.

[Gorgon]

That said, I am actually not sure how it's supposed to apply to your play and would like to hear more from Om regarding that.

The reason I suspect SK is because he/she got really defensive and freaked out when I put pressure on her. Then again, so did I, so perhaps we're all town, and those that are lurking are mafia. That's usually how it turns out.

Ah. I didn't spot this as WIFOM myself, just as a statement of opinion, but yes it is pretty WIFOM-y, although indirectly. "Mafia usually lurk, I'm not lurking, hence I'm not mafia." What's most interesting about this is that Joel hasn't followed up on this theory at all. I would have thought that a player with this opinion would look at the lurkers to find scum among them, but so far Joel has been more occupied with ... other concerns.

Anyone doesn't meet your expectations doesn't make them Anti town. not everyone play as you want to them.

Anti-town is not necessarily the same as scum. Anti-town just means bad for town, and I think that there are quite a few things that are objectively bad for town, rather than just being a matter of opinion. Joel's bet proposition is a good example. Just the self-vote aspect of it is bad for town; self-votes are never good for town. And even if he is town, he is asking that his certainty about Cryo being scum should override all other concerns. It's rather hypocritical that he accuses Cryo of trying to be town leader, while his proposition is itself an attempt to lead the town. Maybe it's just supposed to be some sort of gambit to get a reaction from Cryo, though, but I'm not sure what that would be.

[Gorgon]

How is voting badly scummy? Scum will make bad votes or votes that they know are not true, but that doesn't mean ALL bad votes are scummy. I've seen many town players make what would be considered bad votes, simply because they believed in what they were saying at the time. I've also seen town players with a bad vote or reason to vote actually hit scum. Bad votes by themselves ARE NOT inherently scummy. This is an example of the HBA fallacy.

Good point, I guess the phrasing was just inaccurate. Voting badly

in a scummy way

is scummy, and cannot be excused so easily by appealing to VI/noob. In Joel's case I think his bad votes so far are leaning scummy. His initial vote on you was apologetic, his no lynch vote was because he didn't want to look scummy (as he explained in his next post), his SK vote was OMGUS, and his unvote was not very well explained IMO and can easily be seen as appeasment.

How do you explain this:

...

Well, first of all I don't really need to explain this in the context of your quoted comment on Joel's play in your #113, as 3/5 of those joel posts were made after that post. The issue of whether that comment is a fair description of Joel's play can only really hinge on the posts he had made so far. And even so, it's clear from those posts that he has only pointed fingers on a select number of players, not 'almost anybody else'.

To me that's him deflecting suspicion by saying, "You guys find me scummy? What about these guys? They're way scummier than I am!" That's the main reason my scumdar is going crazy on Joel's posts.

Regarding the last post, it also reminds me of another game I read where a similar tactic was used. Guess what, the noob flipped scum.

This is a much fairer description of Joel's play, though, and I agree with it.

~~~

So, the only issue I really have with Bulb's last response is how he used posts that Joel made after his (Bulb's) comment on his play to explain that comment, but I guess it's not necessarily scum motivated. It's a bit too blatant as a scum misrep tactic, IMO. Much as he has liked my responses, I have liked his, so I think the mutual pressure has been very beneficial. I'm leaning somewhat town on Bulb now, and his wagon has long since collapsed anyway, so I think it's pretty pointless for me to keep my vote on him.

UNVOTE:

Joel is an obvious vote candidate, but is still at L-2 and thus under plenty of pressure already, and besides, I think it would be useful to just step back a bit and reread.

[Gorgon]

I had to look that up on the Wiki and I assume you mean Mastermind of Sin. No I'm not, but I remember him from back in the day before I had my burnout and left the site for a few years. He was the one with the Nibbler avatar, right? The reason I have a Nibbler face is that some mod was playing around with putting Nibbler faces on players in reference to MoS, and I took it as something of an honorific to get one. I considered changing back to my original avatar when I rejoined the site but eventually decided to keep it as it is.

[Gorgon]

Ah. I didn't spot this as WIFOM myself, just as a statement of opinion, but yes it is pretty WIFOM-y, although indirectly. "Mafia usually lurk, I'm not lurking, hence I'm not mafia." What's most interesting about this is that Joel hasn't followed up on this theory at all. I would have thought that a player with this opinion would look at the lurkers to find scum among them, but so far Joel has been more occupied with ... other concerns.

So, are you saying he is scum or not? Who is your scum read?
You just unvoted. I'm not particularly fan of the 'point fingers but don't vote thought process'.

I think that anyone reading my posts would not miss the fact that I find Joel pretty scummy, and to make it emphatic I do find it scummy that he is not looking for scum among the lurkers. And this sums up the reason why I didn't vote him pretty clearly, IMHO:

Joel is an obvious vote candidate, but is still at L-2 and thus under plenty of pressure already, and besides, I think it would be useful to just step back a bit and reread.

I might vote him later if he doesn't get his act together, but I find no reason to do it just yet. This would probably amount to forcing a claim which I don't think is called for at this point in the game. Deadline is still about three weeks away.

[Gorgon]

Scum gives better things to read when they are at L-1.

That's disputable. First time I've heard this theory too although it does make some sense. But in this particular context Joel has indicated keenness to claim his role already, so I think it's pretty likely that this might be his reaction to additional pressure right now. I'm not sure what else it would be likely to prompt him to do that he hasn't done already. Would you like him to claim now or not?

Also, this seems to be assuming that Joel is scum. How does the theory apply to town?

If someone quick hammers, we have someone to ask better things on D2.

True, but the day will be ended pretty early which is bad for town, especially if Joel is town.

Link me your last town and scum flipped game.

Last town flipped game is easy. In fact I already linked to it, but since you ask, here it is again.

Last scum flipped game is less easy as I had to dig through archives to find it. The way the threads have been closed means that they are not always in correct time order, but I think this is the last game where I played a scum role. I flaked out of it though. I think this is my last full scum game.

[Gorgon]

I've been pretty busy and didn't even take the time to check the game, and wow there's a lot of new content to go through. I've skimmed over it but unfortunately don't have much time to comment as I need to go out soon, so this post is more of a prod dodge than anything else.

A quick note to Om though; I'm not sure what more you want from me regarding the L-1 issue. I think I've stated my case plainly enough.

[Gorgon]

I just went over Bulb's ISO and I'm not really seeing how he is scummy towards joel. Also, Joel not FoS'ing him but FoS'ing SK is a somewhat plausible but still pretty circumstantial case.

I find Om to be more suspicious. He voted joel in his second post and never changed that vote. In fact he never seemed to express any reservations about joel being scum and even went so far as question those who did. Rereading him after the scum flip gives me the distinct feeling that he was preemptively trying to make those who were unsure about joel's alignment suspicious, because he knew joel was scum and was riding hard for towncred.

For instance, when I asked him how his theory about scum giving more information when put at L-1 applies to town, this was his response:

That's moot point and irrelevant since we both have him pegged as scum and we wont be getting someone we think is town to L-1 in first place.

No room for anything but black and white there. I can't say I really had joel 'pegged' as scum although I found him to be scummy. Big difference. At the time I felt Om was possibly trying to set me up there, and the fact that joel flipped scum strengthens that feeling.

It's a pity he's not here to explain this though, and I will wait for his replacement out of courtesy before voting - but he is definitely my top suspect at the moment.

[Gorgon]

I know I said earlier that I didn't see anything wrong with what Dr. Black has posted, but now that I've gone back and looked again, he's hardly said anything except for justification for joining the Joel wagon. It looks bad regardless of Joel's alignment.

Damn it SK, do this!!! You don't even have to worry about the whole 'regardless of joel's alignment' bullshit anymore.

Why is this still relevant? We now know that the guy flaked so the fact that he didn't say anything after joining the joel wagon is null IMO. We can't pinpoint the exact time when he stopped following the game, right? It might pretty easily have been pretty soon after his last post.

[Gorgon]

I'm looking hard at post 298 right now, and so

Vote: Jason

That slot is Scum.

But 298 is a Cryo post that's not very game-relevant?

[Gorgon]

Yeah, I see where you're going now. Your argument yesterday was:

This post assumes AA9 is Town because joels is Scum.
If you don't understand what's wrong with this argument, I can't even begin to headdesk fast enough.
Also - taking strong stances is not unique to Town. Scum do it quite often, actually.

This is greatly strengthened by the fact that joel flipped scum and AA9 flipped town, IMO. I can easily see Om as defending AA9 on the basis that he knew full well that she was town.

[Gorgon]

Hiraki pretty much did the same thing, except he went the other way on joel's alignment. What makes Om's behavior scummy and not Hiraki's?

I've never said that behavior of Hiraki's is not scummy, but since you mention it I find his arrogant, yet somewhat relaxed and confident attitute to be townish. It's a gut read though but I've found that my gut reads are usually pretty reliable. With Om I had a gut feeling pretty much throughout my entire L-1 exchange with him that something was up.

This is null stupid no matter what Bulb's alignment is.

It reeks of experienced trying to look noobie.

Have you ever seen scum try to pull something like that? I sure haven't, to my knowledge.

While we're waiting, I want to know why everyone had such a strong town read on Om, because personally I don't see it.

Well I don't for one, and I'm not seeing any real defense for Om/Jason being town. His defenders seem to be mostly calling null on him.

Our previous reasons pointing DB did and still do apply ...

Why? I gave a reason for doubting that they are in #395, care to address it?

In other news, the NK makes sense now. gm wouldn't be able to use this arguement otherwise.

But the argument was already there before the NK; the NK only adds to the case but is not at all necessary for it. The joel flip alone strengthens the case and as gm explained, killing AA9 straight away just for that one case is plain stupid and therefore implausible.

Regarding Joel I find his explanation of Om's reads to be somewhat plausible, especially after rereading #297 thoroughly. Om did provide reasons for his townread on AA9 that are not really that far-fetched.

However, what started the discussion about that townread was this:

And we are all looking at AaC9 now and I see a town there, so why is your vote still on her?

This does really read like Om trying to paint gm as suspect for voting AA9 (unlike Om himself, who potentially gains towncred for taking a strong stance on AA9, which he explicitly says is townish in #297, and a correct read at that), much like I felt he was trying to paint me as suspect for refraining from voting joel when he was at L-2 and himself as being correct in this matter. So I'm going to go with my gut here and

VOTE: JasonWazza

[Gorgon]

How was the argument there before the NK regardless of any flip, having a town read on someone isn't scummy, you say yourself that he provided reasons SO HOW DOES IT COME FROM SCUM?

The argument was (in gm's #307), and is, that Om was sure enough of his scum read on Joel to start assuming that AA9 was town on the basis of that (he states this explicitly in #308)- and even if he had some plausible reasons for his townread this is still something that can be faked by scum. Call it circumstantial if you will but his sureness in his reads feels somewhat contrived to me.

From now on everyone that has any solid reads are scum, wait no that makes no fucking sense *facepalm*

That's just strawmanning instead of addressing the actual case.

how is this painting anyone as suspect?

He is asking why someone is voting his town read, he didn't call gm scum, he was asking for a case on her OBVIOUSLY, and again for the joel thing, he is asking for reasoning not to vote joel, not everything is trying to get suspicion on people, so everyone pull the rod out your asses, take a de-ego pill, and quit pretending like you are all auto-town and that anything asked to you is trying to call you scum.

Alright, I concede that Om wasn't explicitly implying gm was scummy so maybe me reading that into his words is confirmation bias (although I note on further reading that his 'At least over you' at the end of #308 can also be read as accusatory, since we're discussing this), but with me I felt he was very passively-aggressively doing it, and he was even pretty (but not fully) direct at the end of our exchange:

In one of my games the person who did what you're doing now flipped scum. So, I'm extremely curious about your stand. Tell me more, I'm listening.

I asked him what more he wanted from me regarding this issue in #358 but it seems he flaked before getting around to answering that. But regardless of what his answer would have been I still get a bad vibe from this indirect way of implying scumminess on my part, without giving me anything solid to answer. I have a hard time reading a protown motivation into it.

[Gorgon]

On rereading that last post I realize that my train of thought could have been laid down better so I'll clarify.

It all hangs together; Om being sure enough of his reads to say AA9 = town based on jason = scum

and

to paint me as suspect for being reluctant to vote joel and gm as suspect for voting AA9. It feels contrived and self-serving.

Taken point by point they are all somewhat circumstantial but as a whole it becomes less so - and the main ingredient holding it all together is gut, but as I said I am pretty confident in my gut.

[Gorgon]

Where the hell did everyone go all of a sudden? It's not like we actually have lives to live outside of this game, you know. (The last sentence might have been slightly sarcastic.)

Good question. For my part I've been following what little activity there's been since I last posted but hadn't seen a reason to comment on anything yet. I've been mostly waiting for the pace to pick up to see how things play out, like reactions to my most recent explanations of my Om case, etc.

I'm also kind of meh on the Peregrine thing although I agree with you that flipped scum's suspicion lists are highly unreliable and filled with WIFOM (and yeah, that last game of ours is a very good example of that), completely useless on their own although sometimes potentially useful when backed up by other stuff. Peregrine did do a little of that in his last post but it is admittedly somewhat thin. I'm not sure whether this terseness is just his playstyle in general so maybe some meta would help for once, if I get around to it.

[Gorgon]

Apologies for not posting. My laptop gave up the ghost yesterday so I have no regular Internet access outside of office hours or when I am visiting someone who can lend me a computer (like right now) until I get it fixed. I will have more time to post something useful tomorrow at work. Anyway, I still like my vote, for what that's worth.

[Gorgon]

Bulb sums up the Om/Jason case pretty well in #539. I think Jason's play has not been convincing so far. He voted Bulb early on for what I feel is a pretty weak reason and since then he has mostly spent time defending his slot. Speaking of Bulb, he feels townish to me and I would not vote him over Jason if it comes down to that (since he is currently the only other real wagon going on). Hiraki's point about Bulb saying he didn't mind being wagoned and then looking like he did mind when he got wagoned hard is admittedly something that I pegged as scummy at the time, but I think he explained that in a pretty plausible and consistent manner; he did use his wagon to scumhunt using the working theory that scum would be on his wagon, and it turned out there was at least one, i.e. joel. There's been a pretty townish 'flow' to his reads in general.

but I find no real reason to believe that joel is lying about it or misrepresenting what goes on there when he knows that this is in theory easy to check

Just to note, since I missed this in block of text skimming deluxe

but this is literally the dumbest logic ever (part like 9 now)

just because something is easy to do doesn't mean that people will do it

if i tell you that a guy has a penis, will you check if he has one?

I'll concede that it's a bit lazy logic, but it's still logic and not really that stupid. I mean, scum don't usually make blatant lies since the price of being found out is so high. If you lie that a guy has a penis and you know that I could very easily check it and you'll be in big trouble if you're lying, it's mostly you who would be stupid. It would be even more stupid to do this to a group of people, most of whom have a vested interest in picking through every word you say to find fault with it. I like all logic like that which saves me some legwork.

/meh, honestly trying to get scum to jump on a weakish wagon.

That tactic probably won't work now that you've admitted that it's what you're doing, so who are your real top suspects?

[Gorgon]

If you are that concerned about the wagon, I would sincerely suggest you address the case against you and any questions that have been asked, and that you would get to scumhunting. Or you can get lynched. Your choice.

This. Mainly the scumhunting part though.

[Gorgon]

518 was more of damage control for making a mistake.

I don't really care if you believe me or not.

Jason is town. Okay?

So the 'damage control' consisted of stating the opposite of what you're now saying you believe to be the case? WTF? And you still haven't explained why you flipped on Peregrine.

I'm starting to doubt my gut town read on you as well as my own commitment to this game for the past few days. This is stuff I should have picked up on if I had been paying better attention.

Jason's claim is ... convenient though. I can see scum coming up with a fakeclaim like that in a theme game.

[Gorgon]

Well, the claimed role seems unique enough that it could be claimed without much fear of it being directly counterclaimed, but still, given that my scum read is admittedly not very strong and that I obviously could be following this game better I will

UNVOTE:

[Gorgon]

I've been spending the weekend mostly having the flu and am slowly recovering, but I see there's not been all that much posting since I last checked in here. I'm looking at DA now and have a couple of questions.

VOTE: Hiraki

Why?

"took the vote off Joel, tsk. tsk. totes scummy"

Like we wouldn't have put it back on if it was needed. goddamn.

Define 'needed'.

[Gorgon]

Hiraki, so you were deliberately going against the leading wagon as some sort of gambit? Am I getting that right?

[Gorgon]

Gorgon really ought to be voting.

I know, deadline coming up and all, but I'm pretty torn.

What mainly gives me pause regarding Hiraki is the fact, as has been pointed out, that joel explicitly said to him that he 'appreciated the defense'. Would scum really say that to their partner?

And regarding DA I'm still waiting on answers to my questions. I have a feeling that they might be trying to lurk their way to the deadline. Maybe the best thing to do now is to try to get their attention with a vote.

VOTE: DansAdvent

[Gorgon]

Konowa's last post does look like some pretty fenceposty filler stuff though. But it's not enough on its own to vote him.

[Gorgon]

I agree that Hiraki's phrasing seems to suggest that he didn't go to the sample PM so this sorts of clears him although one can never be 100% sure about these things. It's certainly all the more reason not to lynch him to day though.

I don't see how DA is 'cleared' in a similar way though. Cryo explicitly mentioned the sample PM 'bird-brained' ability in #747 and the fact that even VTs have some sort of ability like that had been discused before DA anwered that question.

DA also has not explained his vote on Hiraki which I have explicitly asked him to do.

I'm keeping my vote unchanged.

[Gorgon]

My vote on Hiraki is simple. I have town reads on everyone else besides Hiraki and Peregrine. I didn't find Hiraki's push on SK D1 legit.

Bah, I actually kind of agree with you on that last one; I've always found that push a bit weird. It's also weird to have so many town reads though.

What do you think about Konowa being completely lost during this town PM talk? How is that not enough for ya'll to follow us to lynch scum?

I'm not sure that 'competely lost' is a correct characterization but it's a bit iffy that he didn't pick up on what you were referring to in #747. I also decided to ISO him and I see that he still hasn't explained why he believes the Jason claim. After unvoting he then jumps onto the Hiraki wagon after having stated in #551 that his case on him was 'more gut than anything else'.

Also, this is an interesting issue that's popped up:

Actually, looking and seeing that it's kthx makes sense. I remember reading a Town game of his awhile ago, no I don't remember what, and seem to recall him tunneling relentlessly like this.

Was that player town or scum?

Also, I think you might be slipping here; you seem to be assuming that Cryo is tunneling town and trying to appeal to him and the other players as such.

I might be willing to switch to Konowa but not just yet though. It's pretty typical that the game is suddenly moving fast now that the deadline looms near and it's a lot of stuff to process.

[Gorgon]

So you think I'm dumb scum who didn't notice that it was called AMURIKA MAFIA? Really?

An alternative explanation is you pulling WIFOM; "I wouldn't risk this if I was scum", but I don't really see the benefits TBH. A bit too risky to be a beneficial gambit the way I see it.

I'm inclined to believe that an Amurika-aligned MT is possible, not least because on checking up on her I came across this:

During her lifetime, Mother Teresa was named 18 times in the yearly Gallup's most admired man and woman poll as one of the ten women around the world that Americans admired most. In 1999, a poll of Americans ranked her first in Gallup's List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century. In that survey, she out-polled all other volunteered answers by a wide margin, and was in first place in all major demographic categories except the very young.

Also, it makes sense that a competent mod would throw in something like this to make things more 'interesting'. That is, create a situation exactly like the one we have on our hands right now.

[Gorgon]

We are Ann Coulter (Ann Cunter).

Glenn Beck here, since we're doing this. I still don't think that this game is as simple as 'lynch everyone who claims non-bona-fide-Amurikan' though.

[Gorgon]

Reg, us VT's will handle this one. Hiraki is town.

VOTE: hiraki

What changed?

Anyway, I can't possibly see a protown reason for Hiraki's offer to do a 'trick' if he receives three votes. Especially since he has claimed VT so there can't be any game mechanics behind this

unless

he was holding something back or is actually scum.

I'm a VT btw.

[Gorgon]

Gorgon: why don't you give us a name with that vt claim.

I already did that yesterday so I thought doing it again would be pretty redunant. I might as well do it again though as I didn't provide the part in the parentheses. My full name is Glenn Beck (The Backbencher with Tourettes).

[Gorgon]

Well, that's three votes. Guess it's time for Hiraki to show us some magic.

[Gorgon]

Hold on; I'm writing a somewhat long post just now.

[Gorgon]

Also considering his last post was waiting for Hiraki to 'do his magic' and Hiraki did his magic before he came online his last time him not reacting to it at all doesn't make much sense.

Well, Hiraki's 'magic' doesn't make much sense so my main reaction to it was 'WTF?', and I didn't see a reason to rush posting that reaction. I was pretty busy yesterday too so if I had posted anything it would have been mostly filler. Regarding the supposed mechanistic nature of my posting it's something I heard in my last game as well (although I think the only player who mentioned it was scum) so I guess there's some truth to it, but I was town in that game as well so I think that's good proof of it being just playstyle. Also, not voting joel when he was at L-2 is a pretty similar to an accusation that plagued me somewhat throughout the that game, where I withdrew my vote on the scum who ended up getting lynched D1 when he reached L-1 early, and then considered voting him again later in the day but didn't actually do it (but funnily enough the player I was voting at the end of the day was scum as well). This is even more of a long shot in this game as joel was modkilled so who knows what I would have done if, for example, the joel wagon had lost steam and I had still found him to be the most scummy and in need of more votes in order to secure his lynch?

So your case is pretty circumstantial and can be shown to be based mostly on behavior that is pretty similar to stuff I did in my last game, where I was town. I'll concede that my lack of activity is bad though and your vote is a nice solid kick in the butt for me.

Vote candidates for me are Hiraki, Jason, and PV. Pretty much in that order. Not really seeing a good case on anyone else right now.

Hiraki is pretty erratic and hard to read but his Bulb vote was very weird and puts him firmly back on the scumdar. I see nothing wrong with the Bulb post that Hiraki quoted when he voted him; he's raising some pretty legitimate points. Maybe Hiraki's just tunneling this hard on Bulb but it doesn't read genuine to me.

Jason has yet to explain his vote on Bulb properly, and the reasons he seemed to give in his vote post I found to be pretty scummy (Bulb thinking that Jason's claim is bogus is actually a very good reason all on its own for him to vote him as the only way it can be bogus is that if Jason is scum; yet Jason tries to paint Bulb as suspect for having this as the only reason for his vote and for not believing what 'nearly everyone else' believes). I think that the legitimacy of his claim is something that can be argued about until the cows come home, and this argument is making my head hurt (for example, the powerroles seem to be somewhat minimal if Jason is scum, but then again I was expecting an investigative role somewhere in the mix and was quite surprised when none turned up, so this does seem to be an unusual setup in general, and I'm not the best at analyzing setups for balance anyway) - so it's easier to read into his actual behavior which has not been very protown.

PV has done a lot of what I would consider to be lurking in plain sight in this game, especially today (although I note that he hasn't been very active in his other games for the past few (RL) days either). This makes him hard to read and more neutral than scummy but I have townish reads on everyone else other than Jason and Hiraki, so ...

VOTE: Hiraki

[Gorgon]

@Gorgon- Nice self-meta. Need a link for that please.

That'll be the third time I link to it in this game, but sure.

PV isn't scum (or, not because of the claim stuff anyways). His name is DJ, that doesn't mean he IS a DJ. He never claimed to BE a DJ. He said he might be or that may have been his name or something.

I agree with this; I think he cleared this issue up pretty well in #938. The claimed role seems a bit weird and the way he went about explaining it definitely was, but I don't think this makes him scum on its own. First claiming homeless dude and then DJ Spider and having to damage control for that would be a major scum slipup; something I think scum would be very careful to avoid.

Bulb is not. A) he's taking claims as serious references to history or something. B) he backed up his vote with extra reasoning when the claim should have been enough for him. C) gut.

A) is a pretty good point. While researching the claim is legit it is true that Bulb seems to be taking it too seriously; this DJ Spider thing could meana lot of things and doesn't have to be a real reference to a DJ Spider in order for it to be a genuine town role in this game. So the fact that one can't find a real DJ Spider who was homeless at some point means nothing IMO.

B) is pretty normal though; if you peg someone as scum it's not unusual to ISO them to back it up. Although it wasn't necessary per se I don't see how it's scummy.

[Gorgon]

I think you avoiding posting a reaction there

is

incredibly scummy, town don’t care about their image and thus post what is running through their mind whereas scum don’t feel the need to go out of their way to post something that could come back to hurt them and had I not been the one to notice you being online but not posting it wouldn’t have been brought up. Also the fact that you’re stating you avoided posting because it’d be “Fillerish” is showing that you care about your opinion more than what I believe town would at this point.

It's untrue that town don't care about their image (at all, as you seem to be implying). I for one care a lot about my image when I am town and do go out of my way not to post stuff that could come off as scummy. I usually put a lot of thought into my posts and reread them many times to make sure they look good, which I believe is a sound strategy in a game where everything you say will be scrutinized minutely and repeatedly by a bunch of people. I've also been deliberately avoiding posting too often in this particular game as it is something I tend to do, and I need to teach myself that sometimes it's better to just wait until you really have something to say. As to the last part, what does 'at this point' mean? Is there less reason to care about your image at this point in the game than in other points?

As for the Joel thing, sure at some of the points where you posted he was near L-2 / L-1 thus you not voting him is somewhat understandable but the sheer number of times where it occurred points more towards you timing your posts where you don’t have the buss and can rather redirect attention elsewhere.

I had to read this a few times and think it over to really get where you're going with this one; it seems like you are saying that I timed my posts deliberately so that joel would be at L-2 or L-1 when I posted. In light of this theory of yours I checked out my posts for myself. #110 is the first post where I say that I didn't want to vote joel because he's at L-2 and from what I can tell he was from then on very consistently at L-2 up until page 14. I then posted #358, a minimal-content catchup post (and from what I recall I didn't even realize that joel had gone down to L-3 at that point), on page 15 and he got modkilled on the next page. So the facts seem pretty inconsistent with your theory. Also, what does 'it' (as in 'it occurred') refer to? The only thing I can think of is that it means me stating that I didn't want to put joel at L-1, but the only reason I had to keep explaining it was because Om decided to make an issue of it. It's pretty sucky to have it brought up again later as I believe I made myself very clear on that point and that my behavior was reasonable.

I have a massive problem with Gorgons Post 955; in it he states that Bulb looking into claims (Re: Homeless man / DJ spider) is a good point in a way that implies he believes it’s a scum-tell but in Post 797 he himself did ‘claim-research’ to see if Mother Theresa could plausibly be American-aligned.

Two things here. First, I didn't actually agree that I found this scummy and perhaps I should have made that more clear. I was more agreeing with the fact that Bulb's 'catch' wasn't as solid as he himself seemed to think it was. Second, comparing this with my research into Mother Theresa isn't really applicable since that is very obviously an actual person so that one could expect the mod to model the role somewhat on that person, whereas there is no really famous DJ Spider that comes to mind; although you can Google and find some DJ Spiders that tells us very little about whether the mod based the role on one of them. PV hasn't himself linked the role with any actual DJ Spider out there in the real world, so to go out of one's way to assume that it would be and base one's opinion of the legitimacy of the claim on that assumption is rather far-fetched. In short, it's not the claim research as such that I have a problem with; it's Bulb's line of logic in this particular case.

I think the above work really well as a partner ie. Distance / FoS partner but never really drive their lynch.

It also, yet again, works really well as a cautious player not wanting to put another player whose whose alignment he is unsure of and who has previously shown an eagerness to claim his role at L-1, IMHO. I'm not sure what more I can say about that.

[Gorgon]

I've also been deliberately avoiding posting too often in this particular game as it is something I tend to do, and I need to teach myself that sometimes it's better to just wait until you really have something to say.

the lynchpool

it yearns for death

Unvote, Vote: Gorgon

(regfan, do not pussy out of this por favor)

You could have found out for yourself with a tiny bit of meta that my posts are considerably less frequent in this game than in my last game, where I feel I went overboard with my posting - but the fact that I decided to be honest (quite needlessly; I had no real reason per se to bring it up when no one else had commented on it directly; Reg was commenting on a particular instance where I was logged in but didn't post and I could have tried to explain just that instance away if I was really trying to dodge the issue instead of being honest about how I'm playing this game) about the fact that I am doing this deliberately gives you a reason to vote me and the rest of my post seems irrelevant in your eyes. A perfect example of what I was talking about; the slightest chink in your posts can be used against you so there is a very definite reason for town players to be concerned about what they post. In this particular case though the vote is so blatantly off IMO that I hope that I'm not alone in seeing it as such.

And I'm the only one voting you now while you put me at L-1? Now that is depressing ... as is the fact that I spent about half an hour writing this post to make sure nothing in it can be twisted against me before thinking 'Fuck it, let's just treat this like the game it is and try to have fun with it.'

[Gorgon]

PV claimed to be a homeless guy. He then claimed his name was DJ Spider. These 2 claims don't mesh (There was a whole big discussion about how this was a lie. Seriously, I'm surprised you both missed it.) Furthermore, I looked up the claim name, like I have everything else that has been claimed, and this one did not check out. He's lying. We've shown that he's lying. And he should be lynched.

I don't agree that he has directly shown to be lying. His stated full name (or whatever you call it; name plus paranthesised part like all players seem to have in their role PMs) is A Homeless Man (DJ Spider).

Maybe

this is damage control to combine the two unmeshing claims but I think that's a long shot and that scum don't mess up this badly with their claims; the alternative explanation of him having been referring to the first part in his initial claim and then expanding on it later by referring to the paranthesised part is more plausible to me. And as I said before, your criteria for this claim 'checking out' is too narrow IMO.

[Gorgon]

so you're sticking by a vigkill theory without the vig claiming?

How do you get that out of Bulb's post?

[Gorgon]

I pretty much agree with Bulb that it's hard to get definite reads out of #302 as WIFOM plays a big part, but if I had to try ...

There are two confirmed townies there that he calls out for lurking, and the third one, SK/Tracey reads town to me. In #104 joel posited the theory that mafia were to be found among the lurkers, so it looks from that that this was a pretty straightforward case of trying to set up a cheap policy lynch on a hapless townie for lurking and direct attention not just away from himself but his partners as well. Note that he doesn't really build any sort of case on those people apart from the lurking so it's all pretty passive aggressive. Also, joel ended up voting AA9 in #333 who is a confirmed townie but was something of an easy target at the time so I think it's quite plausible that his overall play was pretty naive, complete with never going after a partner. If he did I think it would be SK rather than Cryo, and very unlikely both, but I think it's most likely, everything considered, that neither is scum.

The very positive town stances on Om and Bulb are most likely to me to be either buddying or invoking WIFOM ("They'll never believe I was so bold as to call a partner town with such conviction!"). Which one is which is hard to say without further reads, but with them I think it's pretty plausible that with Om it's WIFOM and Bulb it's buddying. Both being WIFOM is pretty unlikely here IMO.

All this could be just confirmation bias based on my existing reads, but I think it does strengthen them somewhat.

[Gorgon]

@Gorgon- Nice self-meta. Need a link for that please.

That'll be the third time I link to it in this game, but sure.

I'll grant the style and tone are similar to what you have here.

Do you have any recent scum games?

Nope, my last game and this one are my only recent ones. I gave what I think is my last scum game in this post.

[Gorgon]

I came across an interesting thing while looking into joel and his votes in depth ...

VOTE: Bulbazak

Do you even know what a chainsaw defense is? It's when scum attack the people on their partner's wagon or pressuring their partner. And what you have been doing is blatantly attacking those pressuring Joel.

For now, I'm voting VOTE: ArcAngel9, but I want a decision on Cryo.

It's the pointless vote for Bulb that irritated me.

As you can see the first three posts are pretty tightly spaced and the fourth is him explaining his reason for voting retroactively.

Since joel votes AA9 on the very same page as Bulb explains what a chainsaw defense is I think it's pretty unlikely that he wasn't fully aware of the concept and that it was generally found to be scummy. So does he then go right ahead and chainsaw defends Bulb, his partner, in the hope of invoking WIFOM? Or is he instead thinking "Oh, so if I chainsaw defend some townie they will think he is my partner if I flip?". The latter is a more straightforward thought process that I would expect from an inexperienced young player, i.e. if there was any thought process beyond just going after an easy target.

[Gorgon]

Remaining Scum are Hiraki and maybe Gorgon.

Vote: Hiraki

Gorgon is one of the less noticeable players. I personally am calling him likely Scum, though I'm sure the playerlist is probably half and half on that. Has claimed VT.

This game just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

Vote: Gorgon

I think if Gorgon flips Scum then chances increase that bulba is, but for right now I think he's Town. If Gorgon flips Town, Hiraki ought to be lynched.

It looks to me like gm's been pretty passive-aggressive and wishywashy towards me today. Is that just me?

Same goes for Hiraki in fact. This is after gm has called him scum and is voting him:

Hiraki hard-defended joels D1. Does this make him Scum? Who knows, but he certainly looks bad. Has claimed VT.

[Gorgon]

For the record, I have no reason to believe in an SK, as they are usually indicated by an additional death. For there to be one here, that means on two separate nights a kill a was blocked. While certainly possible, it's just frankly not very believable.

I pretty much agree with this. Two nights with only one kill each night means that the theory of two kill factions rests on two contingencies. Not impossible of course, but far from proven. The AA9 kill admittedly looks weird as a mafia kill but I don't think it makes much more sense as an SK kill either - and it has to be either one since nobody has claimed the kill.

Anyway, I never was particularily persuaded by the part of the Om/Jason case that rested on the assumption that she was killed in order to flip her as town and the case is quite strong enough without that part.

Also PV, you seem to be basing your Bulb case somewhat on the assumption that Jason is scum (if I'm reading you correctly), which is reminiscent of what Om was doing to me on D1. It may be hypocritical of me but I'll state for the record that if Jason is lynched and flips scum I think you should be looked at in this light, especially since although I can kind of see where you're going with that case, I personally think it's pretty weak after going through Bulb's ISO; his play against Jason reads pretty genuine to me. The #831 and #839 combo is especially pertinent; if Bulb was really trying to soft push Jason there was no real need for him to go back to voting him with the reason 'Wait, his claim is bullshit' after voting you and saying he'd explain it later. This is mostly gut of course though.

I'm still disappointed by the lack of Hiraki votes. Since doing his Ra magic trick where he called the three people voting him scum he has voted five people, only one of whom was on his wagon, so I'm not really seeing anything really protown about that move. It has now been nine RL days since he voted me and since then he has been pretty terse and hasn't contributed much of value IMO. I see no obvious reason for his Bulb vote in #910 and his vote on me seemed opportunistic. I could go on but I guess I just would like to hear from the rest of you why you think he's town.

[Gorgon]

Great. I'm AFK for about 24 hours and there's a lynch when I get back. I don't think it was a bad lynch though although some more time for discussion wouldn't have hurt at all. And since the thread's still open ...

he called the three people voting him scum

I've already addressed this, no?

I must have missed that then. You're still being pretty terse in your posting though.

Gorgon, what is your read on Jason?

Pretty much unchanged from #923. His blowup doesn't say much other than he was very angry and it's something that could come from both town and scum in this situation.

I also pointed out that Bulb has done it the three players.

You mean soft push (which is what I'm addressing in the stuff you quoted)? Because it read to me like you were mainly accusing him of avoiding voting Jason. The 'three players' thing fits the trend of him doubting claims better, and you seem to be talking about that:

I've never played with him before, but casting doubt on some claims but others are acceptable seems selective to me. If he wants to make flavor arguments, then fine. Or setup speculation, I also understand. But using all three plus "I can't find you on Google" makes it seem less genuine.

Fair enough. It reads pretty genuine to me although I disagree with it. Again that's gut though.

However, Hiraki's day1 defnse of "noob Joel" I guess would be incriminating, but I don't get the feeling Hiraki would defend a scumbuddy. Also, I felt the same way, if not as strong, so don't really think it's all that scummy.

I actually at the time felt that his hard defense was not incriminating, but the opposite of that, so I had Hiraki as town after D1 but it's his more recent play that comes off as not protown at best and scummy at worst. Maybe he was invoking WIFOM with his hard defense of Joel and felt he had something of a free pass from there.

Aside from vote-hopping and voting you, why is he scum?

Lack of juicy content, i.e. some actual contribution to the game. That's actually my main reason. Just look at the length and content of his posts lately. Maybe he's just bored with the game and/or confused about it, but this behavior

is

scummy.

Vote: Jason

GOD DAMN IT I WAS GOING TO UNVOTE

Then why didn't you when you last posted before this post? At what point did you want to unvote and why?

[Gorgon]

Vote: Hiraki

Can we lynch him

now

?

VOTE: Hiraki

[Gorgon]

Now, we aren't saying Hiraki is town, but we are saying that this portion doesn't make sense as a scum slip at all. We are also saying that D1 super defense of Joel doesn't make sense either. We are also saying that his reaction to the PM fiasco doesn't make sense as scum either. We are basically saying Hiraki isn't the best lynch today.

I never saw the game mixup that Reg mentioned in his death post as a scumslip but I don't think it makes him town either, and I already addressed the fact that the Joel defense came off as very townish to me initially but his later behavior, especially yesterday, trumps this in my eyes. The PM discussion is something I need to take a closer look at though. For now I still think he's the best lynch today just as he would have been yesterday.

Reg was finally dealt with by scum (probably). His largest read yesterday that he never got around to was Gorgon. Coincidence? Scum setting up Gorgon or Gorgon not wanting Reg to get around to the case?

Well, he did make a case against me although it is true that he never really addressed my response to it, and in his last post he stated he didn't see me as town. Anyway, I think the most likely reason for his kill is that he was the only PR left, and an IC at that. If there were other factors involved at all in that kill decision they were probably secondary, and as you imply yourself speculating about them involves plenty of WIFOM anyway.

We aren't sure about the 3rd party thing. The most Reg gives us is that he's sure, but he didn't point out any ability to point to proof of being sure. We have 1 kill at night each night. This doesn't point to 3rd party either. It's possible that 3rd party is either non-killing or x-shot and shots were used up if they hit someone doc protected. At any rate, we aren't wanting to 3rd party hunt today anyway.

It looked to me like Reg based his insistence of there being a third party mostly on the fact that he didn't feel the AA9 kill made sense as a mafia kill. Yet another night with only one kill makes the third party theory rest on yet another contingency though so I agree that hunting for a third party should not be a priority.

[Gorgon]

I agree that Bulb's musings about that interchange between Hiraki and PV look town; either that or a clever fake but as with Bulb's other stuff it reads genuine.

Regarding the interchange itself it does look pretty inexplicable, especially the 'pepperoni' post, but is this something that happens, i.e. scum discussing investigation results using code during the day? I don't recall having come across it before but I guess anything's pretty much possible in a theme game.

I could go for PV today although I still prefer Hiraki.

Goodmorning has also been slacking off lately which means I've been looking into her, but reading back her general attitude still seems townish to me.

Cryo and Bulb are pretty solidly town for me.

Tracey is probably town.

[Gorgon]

I agree that Bulb's musings about that interchange between Hiraki and PV look town; either that or a clever fake but as with Bulb's other stuff it reads genuine.

Then same question to you. How do Bulb's musings look town?

Like I said, it's either a genuine town line of thought or a scum fake. If he's scum he most likely knows full well whether or not that exchange between you and Hiraki had some relevance (which it probably wouldn't if he is scum of course). I just think it's more likely that town-Bulb is genuinely perplexed by that interchange, especially with the way he phrased his musings, than that he is scum manufacturing it. I don't know how else I can explain it; it's simply that in my experience scum are usually less likely than town to post original thoughts like these that indicate that they are genuinely perplexed by the game and are trying their darndest to figure it out - and experience this fits pretty well with common sense.

Then why didn't you when you last posted before this post? At what point did you want to unvote and why?

I read this post and was ready to unvote, but scrolling down, I saw Goody's hammer.

That's pretty much what I thought; I just wanted to make sure your explanation matched mine.

Can we discuss lynches now? Misunderstandings do nothing to make the game stagnate less.

Wow, I agree. The Cryo/Hiraki exchange was cringeworthy to read and it didn't give any information about their alignments that I can see, and it had the side effect that this question got completely dropped:

This back and forth has bothered me for awhile. It starts out with typical IC is scum and devolves into the biggest "what the crap?" moment I've experienced thus far in mafia.

Why isn't this guy dead?

Why is this post scummy?

That Bulb post is the very same post that I was explaining why I found townish above, so Hiraki definitely owes an answer to Cryo's question.

Anyway, I agree with two out of the three in the lynchpool posited by Cryo, and no prizes for guessing which ones.

[Gorgon]

Ugh indeed. Too many townies acting antitown and getting themselves lynched in this game so it looks like we are at L-1 today. Very likely two mafia and no SK tonight, what with yet another single NK. I will consider my vote very carefully today.

[Gorgon]

EBWOP: I meant LyLo and not L-1 of course.

What about his phrasing stands out to you as honest?

Mostly the part where he says that the exchange has been bothering him for a while, and also where he ends with saying that it's driving him crazy. Again, it could be faked but gut says it's genuine.

That's pretty much what I thought; I just wanted to make sure your explanation matched mine.

Gorgon, what is your read on Jason?

Pretty much unchanged from #923. His blowup doesn't say much other than he was very angry and it's something that could come from both town and scum in this situation.

Uh?

With 'my explanation' I was referring to the explanation I had in my head for your line of reasoning. So basically I was saying that you confirmed that you were thinking what I thought you were thinking. I didn't say up front what I thought it was since I would have been handing you a convenient out if you are scum. The reason I asked was that your post gave me a vibe as possibly being simply a somewhat generic scum 'oh deary me I was going to unvote', to kind of distance from the lynch - and the fact that you gave the very same explanation for it that I was expecting you to give means that it reads legit to me.

Hope that's not too confusing.

[Gorgon]

Yeah, speaking of L-1, that's actually a fact now. Let's see ...

Tracey didn't hammer which she didn't have any real reason not to do if she is scum and PV is town, so I think that can be ruled out.

(Same line of thought applies for the rest of you regarding PV + myself)

So, either gm and Bulb are both scum

or

PV is scum.

That's sound logic, right?

[Gorgon]

Since I'm town, either both scum are voting, or one of you or Gorgon or trolling from some unknown reason.

Yeah.

I ain't trollin' and I don't think Tracey is either.

The only other possibility would mean a scumteam of 2 out of 13. I don't think that's the case.

I was going to post pretty much the exact same thing. Two scum left is basically a given.

[Gorgon]

I've been racking my brain and rereading from multiple angles because I really want to get this right, and all in all PV being scum makes more sense than the other two being scum. For one thing, it requires only the single contigency that he is scum while the latter possibility rests on two contingencies, and I have for quite a while found that one contingency to be more likely than either of the other two, at that. Bulb's last post is also mostly good and something that I don't really seeing scum as doing at this point in the game (why not just 'work out' that PV has to be scum based on the deadlock instead of going to the trouble of digging up all that dirt?), but there is one thing that stuck out intuitively and still sticks out after I've gone over PV's voting history:

4.) PV has been on every major wagon (except Joel's). This was what I noticed d3 before I got distracted by Jason again. It's a record of opportunism.

That's just not accurate. Although I'm admittedly not quite sure what 'major' is meant to mean, there are L-1 wagons that PV wasn't on, like the one on me D3 that went to L-1 on page 39, and the Jason wagon that went to L-1 on page 25. In fact, PV started the DA counterwagon to that one that ended up getting DA lynched and stuck with it until the end of the day, so to talk of opportunism in that regard is a moot point.

I want a response to this before I vote; there's no hurry.

[Gorgon]

As usual your explanations sound genuine, and I did miss the fact that PV pretty opportunistically said he would be willing to hammer Jason if he 'didn't feel strongly he was town' by the end of the game day and Jason called it scummy. Another lynched townie who suspected him (for what that's worth).

This is absolutely hilarious given the current situation btw:

Who do i think is scum, at least 1 of the following (2 is possible) {bulbazak, PeregrineV, goodmorning}

Tracey still hasn't said much today and it would be good to get her input on the situation. I'm almost itching to vote but again, a bit of patience never hurts.

[Gorgon]

Mostly the part where he says that the exchange has been bothering him for a while, and also where he ends with saying that it's driving him crazy.

Why?

Tough question. It's just something that I don't think scum would make up, and not in that exact way. If he made this up it certainly had not been bugging him for a while nor would it have been driving him crazy. He could of course have added those embellishments for additional deception value but I think it's more likely that he didn't. It's hard to explain gut calls like these any further. It's of course probably influenced by my general town-leaning read on Bulb but to what extent I can't say. I usually try very hard to overcome any confirmation bias in my reads although it's hard to eliminate it altogether.

How do you feel about that theory of Bulb's yourself?

You don't think it's possible that I just went along with this?

It is certainly possible that you did just go along with it but I still think it's more likely that you didn't, even though my head is currently full of WIFOM because of you asking.

Anyway, maybe my question was somewhat silly one since scum don't usually slip up on explaining this kind of stuff but I felt like asking it at the time anyway. Some really weird explanation would have been a red flag but the fact that you gave the 'right' one is a green flag.

[Gorgon]

Gorgon, do you think I'm scum?

Well, I'm still leaning town on you as well as Bulb and gm. I realize though that assuming there are two scum left (which is very very likely) at least one of you has to be scum, and that's independent of whether or not PV is. If he's not then two of you are, i.e. Bulb and gm. If he is then one of you has to be his partner. Which one is a tough call though.

The above is all the more reason for me to think that PV is scum since it's more likely to me that just one of the rest of you is scum than two.

To reiterate, for a town-you the scenario should quite plainly be the same as for me; i.e. the scum have to be Bulb and gm if PV is town. Do you think this is the case?

[Gorgon]

I see. If that's what you mean, then presuming you're not Scum with PV (unlikely) I'd lean towards agreeing with you.

Well, if Bulb is scum with PV then it follows that PV and joel were the only scum on his wagon so Bulb would automatically be correct. Why then would you lean towards agreeing with him only presuming that he is not scum?

I'm also curious as to why Bulb addressed his question specifically to gm.

Still waiting on an answer from Tracey as well but getting bored waiting.

[Gorgon]

How do you feel about that theory of Bulb's yourself?

I don't even remember what this is referring to anymore. What theory?

The theory that Hiraki's and PV's pizza interactions were some sort of veiled scum interaction; you have been asking why I find that theory and the stating of it townish so I'm curious about your own take on it. Looking back though I do see that you had something to say about it in #1142.

As for the former, I'm not stating my reads just yet.

Why not?

Are you asking me if I believe Bulb and Goody are scum, or

are you asking me if town-me would believe that

if PV was town?

Wait...What?

I don't get it either. It's basically the same question; if a town Tracey believes you and goody are scum then she believes that PV is town. There are obviously not three scum left or the game would be over.

I also included the 'town-you' part simply because Tracey would only be in a comparable situation with me regarding this issue if she is town, and you're probably bolding that part because it very much looks like a scumslip.

Her post is indeed very derpy and doesn't convince me of much of anything. I'm not sure if I see the need to wait until tomorrow to just hammer PV. I'm still having a hard time seeing how both Bulb and goody could be scum and I don't get why Tracey seems to be seeing it. It is admittedly consistent with her reads in #1119 and she has voted both of them before, but on what I consider to be somewhat weak grounds in both cases, especially the goody vote.

[Gorgon]

I don't get it either. It's basically the same question; if a town Tracey believes you and goody are scum then she believes that PV is town. There are obviously not three scum left or the game would be over.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. I never claimed there were three scum left?

I wasn't saying you did either. My point was that if goody and Bulb are both scum then PV has to be town because there can't be three scum left, i.e. what I was getting at was that believing Bulb + gm to be scum and believing PV to be town is essentially the same thing; one implies the other.

I also included the 'town-you' part simply because Tracey would only be in a comparable situation with me regarding this issue if she is town, and you're probably bolding that part because

it very much looks like

a scumslip.

No. It doesn't.

So you say ...

I'm still having a hard time seeing how both Bulb and goody could be scum and I don't get why Tracey seems to be seeing it.

Where did I say that I believed they were the scum team? In fact, I specifically avoided commenting on my read of them.

I was actually a bit confused about this from reading your reply but I did come to the conclusion that you were agreeing that they were by:

To reiterate, for a town-you the scenario should quite plainly be the same as for me; i.e.

the scum have to be Bulb and gm

if PV is town.

Do you think this is the case?

Yes.

I think.

Although the part where you later say that you are not stating your reads just yet does contradict it somewhat, and my question might have been unclear.

All I see is you avoiding giving reads on people. At the very least, you should trust some more than others. So if you can't give adequate reads, at least give us a list ranked from those you trust the most to those you trust the least.

I don't want to, though.

Fine then, but I'm not going to wait around for you. I'm pretty confident in this after having gone over it extensively, and if I'm right the night's survivors can hopefully sort things out better tomorrow ftw:

VOTE: PeregrineV

[Gorgon]

Oh hay guise. It's almost as if the sound of my hammer drew you in.

[Gorgon]

Yeah I think it's likely too (and it does totally look like I ninja'd Bulb) but you never really know with this game. Now all that remains is to wait on Nacho anyway ...

[Gorgon]

I wasn't saying you did either. My point was that if goody and Bulb are both scum then PV has to be town because there can't be three scum left, i.e. what I was getting at was that believing Bulb + gm to be scum and believing PV to be town is essentially the same thing; one implies the other.

Yes, I understand that. What I don't understand is why you're saying this? I already agreed that that was the case unless I was missing something.

Wow, my bad. I was getting really confused as to what the issue between us here was but it cleared up when I spotted a word that for some reason I hadn't seen before. I've bolded it:

Or wait. Are you asking me if I believe Bulb and Goody are scum, or are you asking me if town-me would believe that

if

PV was town?

Omitting this word changes the meaning of the question drastically and I feel pretty silly now ...

[Gorgon]

I'm definitely not ready to vote just yet.

My gut is leaning Tracey, especially after her play yesterday, but looking over goodmorning I can see reasons for pegging her as scum as well. Maybe that's just paranoia though.

Anyway, I'd like to start with a couple of questions for each of you.

Well, originally it was because I thought it was automatically you-PV or Bulb-Goody, in which case keeping my reads to myself and waiting for you to vote first would be beneficial. Now, however, I'm hiding them because

I'm not entirely sure what my reads are myself

.

My

most solid read

was just lynched, leaving me confused.

Can you explain this?

I know that if Hiraki flips Town the likely scumteam is Tracey/PV.

What did you base this knowledge on?

[Gorgon]

That said, he's never dropped his town read on Goody. If I remember correctly, she's never even dropped to a null.

Then you remember incorrectly. I would classify this as at least null-ish:

@Goodmorning

- You've recent lack of effort doesn't match up with your early game play. I'd like to hear where you stand on each player and why.

I don't read posts A1, A2 and B in quite the same way as you do. I think that they look pretty natural given the context and that to read purposeful tying into them is somewhat circumstantial. Speaking of which, reading back knowing PV is scum, I get some pretty bad buddying vibes from this (but of course to be fair, one could probably call that circumstantial as well):

Gorgon- I understand playstyle differences, but since I used to post like that when I was gung-ho, I can hear what he's saying.

Your interpretation of C is quite plausible to me but it says nothing about which of us is likely scum IMO.

I simply don't get where you're going with D.

The first thing I notice is Gorgon's complete lack of mention of PV (early-game, anyways),

Really?

Peregrine's vote was also not exactly well-reasoned, but he seems a little terse in general so far.

... and his complete obsession with Bulb.

Lolwut? The Gorgon/Bulb incident early game was driven by both of us and I'd say it died pretty quickly. I have like three back-and-forth walls with him and I was engaging with other players as well while that was going on so to call this an 'obsession' is a pretty blatant misrep. Unless you're talking about my later play but I can't possibly see how that could be fair either after ISO-ing myself.

Gorgon's play yesterday was eh.

How so?

And the hammer was kinda bad.

Again, how so?

[Gorgon]

Most solid =/= solid.

I don't want to split hairs about definitions, but it was certainly apparently solid enough for you to lament his lynch.

Then you remember incorrectly. I would classify this as at least null-ish:

I wouldn't.. Considering, ya know, a short twenty posts later he clumps her into his absolute-town pile?

Which post is that? Link please because I'm not seeing it.

I don't think one example disproves my point... Even so, as I said, I skimmed.

Well, it does logically disprove it. If you're really concerned with reading players fairly you do not make blanket statements like this which you cannot back up. What then remains of that statement? What pattern are you seing in my play and why? Why is that scummy?

That was a joking remark, it didn't mean anything game-related, really.

Fine, we'll drop it then.

You seemed more opportunistic and aggressive. Your early play was more rational and patient.

Opportunism is indeed scummy but I wasn't opportunistic there. Don't know what else I can say about that.

My level of 'aggression' depends very much on my reads and the game state.

I was very rational, in fact that was the most rational day for me as knowing that either PV or both Bulb and gm were scum helped a lot to deduce that PV was the best bet.

And yeah, I was somewhat impatient and you refusing to give reads was the last straw. How did you expect me to take it from there? You gave me nothing to work with.

I think my play was warranted considering how that play went down and it did catch scum in the end.

]Well, you WERE the hammer

So? Is that inherently scummy?

B, you overexplained your hammer a bit too much.

I don't think I did. Also, this characterization conflicts somewhat with the one of me being impatient.

And, c, you assumed you would be the night kill from the sound of it.

I said that the night's survivors could hopefully sort things out, which meant 'whoever survives the night'. I frankly had little idea as to who would be a likely kill tonight and didn't give it much thought.

~~~

If you really want a breakdown of my play yesterday from my point of view complete with reasons for my actions I'll provide it. Don't have the time for it right now but I will.

[Gorgon]

I rarely see people think someone's scummy for NOT placing the scum in the nullish region as opposed to the town/scum regions.

Invocation of WIFOM?

Anyway, the main point was that gm found your town read of PV to be unconvincing, which you are apparently not defending.

[Gorgon]

Here is my breakdown.

After it was clear that it was either Bulb/gm or PV I went over Bulb's and gm's interactions (that, among other things, was the 'gone over it extensively' part in my hamer post) and they did not look scum/scum at all. They had pretty solid town reads on each other throughout and even defended each other. (Speaking of the unlikelihood of scum having a solid read on a partner ... how likely is it with two players?)

This is exactly the reason why I don't think I overdefended the hammer at all. I could have gone through these interactions but I was waiting on Tracey to give me

something

I could work with and make sense out of and then I just got fed up with waiting. What are you going to do when the only other player who really was in a position to give me accurate dynamic read-based input refuses to give reads? Also, since I was hammering this issue was moot anyway as with PV town the game would have been over and with PV scum a gm/Bulb scumpair would become impossible (duh).

Anyway, Gm and Bulb,

no matter what each of their alignments were

, were contained within a bubble of knowing or 'knowing' PV to be scum, so for them their only logical and expected behavior was to just pretty much wait until the day ended. Of course they could and did provide some input but it doesn't take much imagination to see how it's distracting or 'distracting' to have a 100% read. They just basically want to get the guy lynched. Other concerns are secondary. As town they would behave like this for real and as scum they would just fake it, secure in their little 'bubble of obvious knowledge'. I.e. hard to read dynamically. It affects both their own flow and throws off reads on them.

A much more extreme situation applies to PV; town or scum, he knew or 'knew' that gm/Bulb were the scum! He had it all figured out and was completely unproddable. So he was enclosed in the ultimate 'bubble of obvious knowledge'. Kind of like an ultimate tree stump.

That only left me and Tracey as people who were not contained in these 'bubbles of knowledge' and could have a undistraced conversation with people, especially each other. Our conversation was not very productive (not to mention confusing, but that was partly my fault of course), I had a pretty solid read on Bulb/gm not being the scum, a pretty solid read on Bulb independently, a townish read on gm and a scummish read on PV, who was 'stumped' to the max so there was not really anything to get out of him.

So I hammered. Correctly. It was the right move, period.

Is that logic clear enough?

>The fact that Tracey was in the very same position or 'position' as me but struggled remarkably hard to work out the correct situation is also very telling. I think it basically shouts 'position'.<*

>The same applies to her apparent inability to work my play yesterday out for herself.<

I had some inkling of a doubt at the start of the day because her play yesterday was so unexplicable, and yesterday was really not very productive in terms of reads on gm, that I thought it best to see how this day went. I explicitly opened the possibility of gm being the scum partly to give me neutral cover to question them and check their reactions to me and each other. Result: Overall gm reads more town than Tracey today. She plays it cool, man.

So yeah, I don't have any doubt anymore; Tracey is the lynch.

VOTE: TraceyLynn

I will eat all of my wardrobe if this if wrong.

[Gorgon]

EBWOP: 'a pretty solid

town

read on Bulb independently'

I worked so hard on that gem and wanted to make it perfect. Oh well. Can't win 'em all.

[Gorgon]

GORGON DIDN'T RESPOND TO MY LAST POST. COUGH.

I had no need to. My hammer post pegged you as scum in my eyes and since gm didn't hammer I'm 100%. Speaking of bubbles of knowledge ...

[Gorgon]

Sure why not? I've got nothing better to do in this game.

This sticks out in particular:

Which post is that? Link please because I'm not seeing it.

Here ya go.

This is not PV clumping anyone into an absolute town pile. It's clumping three players into a 'meh' pile as a direct response to a question about who is liklely scum, which is pragmatic and opportunistic and a classic scum move. It leaves a lot of options open for later. It says nothing really about PV's 'read' on gm at that time.

[Gorgon]

I don't want to split hairs about definitions, but it was certainly apparently solid enough for you to lament his lynch.

Yes? He may not have been a solid read, but he was my

most

solid read, so why would I want him or be okay with him being gone?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there's a certain discrepancy in you refusing to give any reads and all and saying you don't know anything really and then having a most solid read on someone. If it was indeed most solid it should have been enough to go on and comment on.

Fine. "Complete lack of mention" obviously was wrong. Change it to "99% lack of mention". My point still stands, no? You're strawmanning me, and I don't like it. You understood what I was saying, and one post (that I

did

miss in the skim, by the way) doesn't disprove my point.

I wouldn't call it a strawman. A strawman would be attacking you hard for this point which I don't think I did. I was merely pointing out that your blanked statement was incorrect and I still think that an honest town player would have phrased this differently. But meh, it's a minor quibble.

I never even said that it

was

scummy, either. I said that it was the first thing I noticed.

Do

I think it's scummy, though? Only when you add in that you mentioned and talked about Joel a lot. But even then I'd say it's more null than alignment indicative, really.

Why did you include it in a post where you come to the conclusion that I'm scum then? Of course I assumed you were (at least very possibly) implying it's scummy and therefore I asked for a clarification. And the result is that it's null. Yay.

So? Is that inherently scummy?

Given the circumstances surrounding the hammer, yeah, kinda. We were

four days

into day three. And it was LyLo! And considering you hammered scum, it makes sense for you to be the scum buddy "coming to the rescue", no?

That's circumstantial and completely moot now anyway. See my hammer post above.

Anyway, the main point was that gm found your town read of PV to be unconvincing, which you are apparently not defending.

Why would I?

Why not? Why not take the opportunity to explain your town read on PV since gm was bringing its integrity into question?

[Gorgon]

/thread

[Gorgon]

Crap, a new page. Completely screwed up my joke. It doesn't work as well like this.

[Gorgon]

CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

[Gorgon]

Lesson to learn: Don't bother giving or stating reads or typing up a long post to leave behind because no one reads it.

This is a problem in mafia in general. If a player isn't around to push his agenda people are reluctant to use their old stuff. The read it and take it into account and may even vote on it but then it dies down. It's just that the game that's going on right in the moment has more influence than the past. Though of course, late game especially is a stage where people should dig that stuff up and use everything they have available. People don't even seem to do a lot of that either; they are so focused on reading the remaining players that they ignore the dead townies, except of course in analyzing their interactions with the living players. But going, "Hmmm ... Player X had these reads back then and maybe it's time to take them into consideration." is something that players rarely seem to do.

[Gorgon]

Mafia QT is here: http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/SZ6wGg94X3c

[Gorgon]

Also, I figured out during the night phase why AA9 died. She PR slipped. Badly, I might add. Can't believe I missed that...

Scum missed it too then. Actually I felt it was a blunder shortly after the decision and for a while afterwards but it turned out OK.

[Gorgon]

It was a fun game for sure.

[Gorgon]

Just going to state for the record: Mass claim was a horrible move. It just ended up confusing things more. My reads were just having a harder time clicking after that, and everything became a muddled mess. Do you know how much quicker we could have gotten PV if it wasn't for that? That move has essentially turned me off to unnecessary mass claims (You can check out True Love Mafia for further evidence of this.).

I agree. I liked the massclaim a lot and think it definitely helped scum to win.

[Gorgon]

pain-in-the-assclaim pun