Mafia 74: Minimally Flavoured - Game over!

[Bookitty]

I

vote: Phate

for deliberately deceptive spelling practices.

[Bookitty]

unvote; vote: thedragonsprincess

for expressing certainty about the non-pirate alignment of another player.

FOS: Snaps_The_Pirate

for roleclaiming too early.

[Bookitty]

Okay, not a joke vote.

unvote; vote egruntz

You may not agree with the random vote phase, but I really dislike your suggestion of a "no-lynch". Right now I can tell you at least one relevant fact I have derived from our page one discussion: Dark Ermac isn't paying close attention. Why? Because he voted for me "for voting for a pirate." I did not at any point vote for Snaps.

Just because you don't derive anything useful doesn't mean others don't or can't, and pushing for a no-lynch on day one (and your stated assumption is that there automatically WILL be one, which also tells me you haven't read many games here, if any) is in my view counterproductive and rather scummy. You're making a lot of assumptions about what will occur, and jumping to a conclusion without enough evidence.

Additionally, you're a killjoy.

[Bookitty]

You really don't get much information about each other from the start as it is, and that's what makes the beginning of this game slow and rather dull.

I was finding it rather fast-paced and amusing, personally.

Do you think you can get more information from a dead body than from a live one?

@Bookitty
You're the one rushing to conclusions.

What conclusion do you feel I've rushed to?

[Bookitty]

Kitty, you're an experienced enough player. You must have noticed the 'townsperson' underneath his name, right?

Surely. Do you think that the only use of a vote is to cause someone to be lynched?

[Bookitty]

@The Fonz:

As you may have noticed, there's an entire section of this site devoted to newbie games. If you play in a regular game, you take your chances just like everyone else, in my opinion. I am happy to try to teach people, but I'm not patronising new players and condescendingly changing my playstyle and attitudes in order to shelter them from real play when they feel ready to play in a non-newbie game. It's fine if you choose to do so, but both of you are making the classic newbie mistake of overreacting to one vote as if it were the end of the world, and I'm guessing you don't regard yourself as a newbie, Fonz.

In addition, if the only reason for a vote, in your view, is to cause someone to be lynched, that's a pretty odd belief in itself. I don't agree at all, and I doubt many players who engage in scumhunting tactics would agree either.

Egruntz is not the only person with "Townsperson" under his name in this game. He is, however, the only person who came into the game and began sharply criticising other players for engaging in an activity he doesn't like or approve of, while at the same time arguing for a no-lynch, which might be a newbie mistake, as you say. By your logic, I should not have engaged him at all on this topic, for fear of provoking a "newbie meltdown", whatever that is. He didn't seem uncertain, or unsure of himself, and he deserved to be addressed on that level. Your protective attitude toward him doesn't seem to be justified, considering that he seems quite able to make articulate arguments on his own behalf.

By extension, your argument indicates that if someone engages a "Townsperson" in argument and votes for them for making something you consider a newbie mistake (and egruntz clearly still does not view his argument for no-lynch as a mistake, since he is still arguing for it), that you will view this as scummy. I don't agree with this, though obviously that's your right. Most, possibly all (some are lurking a bit still) of the players in this game (including egruntz) have demonstrated the ability to play Mafia well enough that I don't see any need to condescend to them or change my playstyle to accommodate them. It seems a little high-handed that you feel that thjs would be necessary.

[Bookitty]

I stated this:

In addition, if the only reason for a vote, in your view, is to cause someone to be lynched, that's a pretty odd belief in itself. I don't agree at all, and I doubt many players who engage in scumhunting tactics would agree either.

In response to this:

Surely. Do you think that the only use of a vote is to cause someone to be lynched?

Surely.

And you respond like this:

Don't you dare try to lecture me. That's the classic strawman. You attribute to me a position I have never once advocated, (that the only reason to vote is to cause a lynch) and indeed you still feel it necessary to appeal to authority to knock down the strawman.

You said it, therefore it's not a straw man. I didn't make it up. You said, in your own post, in direct response to what I said, "Surely."

Is there some other meaning of surely I've missed out on somewhere?

And I wouldn't dream of trying to lecture anyone. I get that you've claimed this role, and I wouldn't try to take it away from you.

[Bookitty]

No, I'm the one that said that, not liam.

Hmmm. I don't see a reason why scum would point this out, especially since the tags got messed up in liamcool's post and it wasn't obvious.

unvote

[Bookitty]

My reasoning is more this, CKD:

Egruntz was under a bit of pressure, at least from his own stated perspective. My vote was on him. Other votes were on Liamcool mistakenly for a quote that egruntz made. Thus the logical assumption would be that if egruntz owned up to the quote, that those votes would devolve to him, at least in my view.

Waiting a bit, lurking, might allow something else to develop to distract the town. At that time, pointing this out would perhaps be a less risky move. Our attention has been pretty well focussed on egruntz in one way or another, and that doesn't seem like a good thing for scum, nor something they would willingly bring upon themselves, as egruntz did here.

I could be wrong, but my feeling was that scum would have lurked and waited for someone else to point it out, if that was going to happen anyway. It wasn't an obvious thing, due to the tag failure, so it wouldn't have made egruntz seem any more suspicious in my eyes anyway.

Just my opinion though.

[Bookitty]

These questions open to anyone:

Do you feel egruntz' comments more reflect on his inexperience on this particular site, or on his probable alignment?

@Disciple Slayer: Why were you voting for The Fonz, when your later post and vote argues that you agreed with his reasoning?

[Bookitty]

Liamcool, what made you think Mills might be a lyncher?

So far as I know minimally flavoured has to do with night scenes and role PMs, not the roles themselves. In a closed setup, who knows?

[Bookitty]

I don't understand the reasoning for the votes on The Fonz. He and I had what I view as an honest disagreement about how to deal with someone suggesting no-lynch on day one. I didn't get any scummy vibes from him in his arguments against me, and his vote for me was no more threatening than my vote on egruntz.

I don't have any certainty as to whether egruntz's stance on no-lynch was a true newb-tell, or a newb-scum tell, and some other things he's done seem fairly pro-town to me. I'm waiting to see more from him before I draw any conclusions in that regard.

I dislike the meta-game confrontation between Mills and Disciple Slayer. If I had to place a vote right now, I would put it on one of them. Carrying over hostility from one game to another isn't an acceptable tactic. Mills initiated that subject, but Disciple Slayer joined in with a certain fervor (possible scum distancing, I don't rule that out) and additionally voted The Fonz with reasons to come later, then shifted his vote to me with an argument that while reasonable on the surface, makes no sense given the timing of his previous vote on The Fonz. I'm not certain which I find more vote-worthy, but as I said, if I placed a vote right now, it would be on one of these two.

For everyone else, I either have a fairly pro-town read or not enough information to derive any opinion. I'm not going to list who I think is most pro-town, because in my view that's more useful to scum than to the town, but I am hoping that after the holidays we'll get a lot more input from people who haven't weighed in on the debate yet.

[Bookitty]

Why is it, that just because I think differently than you, that I'm automatically either a newbie or scum?

Really

.

Well, the charitable interpretation of pushing for no-lynch is that you are new to the site and thus don't see the disadvantage of giving the scum a free nightkill without any fear of being lynched. Additionally if we all agreed to a no-lynch on day one, no productive discussion could result from bandwagons, watching who was on the lynch, who pushed against it, etc. I think this has been explained to you by more capable and experienced players than me.

The uncharitable explanation is that scum would benefit from a no-lynch day one. They would not run the risk of being lynched, nor have to defend their actions at a later date regarding their behaviour on the day one lynch, they would not have to make arguments that later events would prove false... in general, they'd get a nightkill for free, and so it would be a beneficial move for scum if they could persuade town to a no-lynch. That's why pushing for a no-lynch is widely regarded as a scumtell except in very specific (and not currently applicable) circumstances.

So, that's why, egruntz.

[Bookitty]

... OR, it could just be a specific's playstyle. We aren't getting any information out of day one so far, besides "everyone bandwagon ____, he's scum for not being active!" and so and so.

As I mentioned before, it would be best to not lynch at all if we all can't come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia. And I don't really feel like repeating myself beyond that.

Do you really feel that we aren't getting any information out of day one so far? Is it your experience that town can ever come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia before that person is dead?

[Bookitty]

I was debating back and forth on this. But after a reread of Mills vs. Disciple Slayer in isolation, the choice became a lot simpler.

unvote; vote Disciple Slayer

[Bookitty]

FoS: everyone voting for Diciple Slayer

Bandwagoning and calling Mills an idiot doesn't make him scum and it seems that people are just jumping on him cause he is an easy lynch.

Not why I'm voting for him. I didn't like his unreasoned vote for the Fonz (reasons to come later), and then his switch to me with a well reasoned argument, but all well after the egruntz situation was more or less discussed through. Do a reread of Disciple Slayer in isolation, and you'll see why I chose to vote him over Mills. His tone and level of participation have varied widely, but neither has been good.

The fact that Mills and Disciple Slayer had such a deep hostility toward each other early on, but now seem to have forgotten all about it, makes me think they're scum distancing. So Mills has not dropped off my scumlist. Quite the reverse.

[Bookitty]

@Panzerjager:

Why do you think Elias is town?

[Bookitty]

Actually, in a recently ended game that you replace-modded, Fonz, scum did suggest no-lynch day one. He turned out to be the Godfather.

[Bookitty]

I've seen scum push no-lynch day one. The same discussion came about (no scum would be this stupid!) but then the scum did a variety of other stupid things and got himself lynched. No-lynch is beneficial to scum. PUSHING no-lynch hardly ever is.

I voted for egruntz in the first place because I felt it would underscore my seriousness about not wanting this discussion to become the primary focus of day one. I did not do it because I thought he was scum. (He may be scum. But I did not have sufficient evidence then, nor do I now, to lynch him.) Nonetheless he continued to push this, and we're still discussing it. The discussion is not helpful to town, and actually provides a lot of opportunities for scum to look "pro-town" by objecting to it, while not risking much in return.

We're not going to no-lynch. Egruntz arguing for it is not pro-town, but neither is it scummy necessarily. We need to get past this.

On a reread, Mills strikes me as extremely inconsistent on the whole. I disliked his bringing up of another game in order to attack Disciple Slayer (I think I said that already), provoking a nasty interchange that really gained town nothing. Bringing up other games is bad play, and has nothing to do with a player's alignment in THIS game.

Does some role speculation. Agrees with Xylthixlm that some players are posting without giving any opinions. Argues with me that he wasn't attacking Disciple Slayer because of another game. although Mills brought up the other game as a reason to do so in the first place. Complains because I didn't address his post regarding this (short answer, I didn't believe Mills, and I wanted to see what other people thought of his self-contradiction).

Attacks CKD for "gut" voting for him, saying "I didn't particularly want to bring it up since it would probably just be viewed as OMGUS" -- why would town care about how they were viewed, if they had a valid concern? Then when CKD responds, says:

ckd, I know a lot of people have problems with gut votes, but I certainly don't. I like to make them too. Often I will give the reason and people will call me stupid and more often than not we will later find out I was correct. I know that the reasons are often a 'stretch' but I think it is important to give one anyway.

Which is oddly conciliatory considering his previous attitudes on the vote.

Attacks Dark Ermac for suggesting a random lynch (paraphrased heavily, but that's the gist of it). Then, when Dark Ermac is attacked for stating someone is definitely a townie, says this:

Don't get me wrong - I think I was the first to jump on DE for some earlier post with the same problem - but I'm just not feeling it here. I don't think he's unequivocally saying that he knows that egruntz is town. I think he is saying that he knows (for lack of a better word). It's just something deep down inside that he knows to be true (or something he thinks he knows). He's just using the wrong word but its more the fault of the English language than his own.

I don't think anyone except Dark Ermac can know exactly what Dark Ermac meant there. Certainly in my view the second case against DE is less of a stretch than Mills' first case, but Mills defends him here, while attacking him fairly strongly in the first, less strong case. Asks for the town's input on top suspects, without giving his own (generally this looks to me like scum looking for ideas), and now we're up to the end of the thread.

Something isn't adding up here. So I'm going to

unvote; vote Mills

.

[Bookitty]

I already said that other games have nothing to do with alignment in this game. Thanks for agreeing with me. I'm not sure how a nasty interchange is suspicious because it 'gained town nothing'. I'm not sure it lost us anything either. I don't see how either of these add up to inconsistencies either. I, however, disagree that bringing up other games is bad play and I am surprised to see you say this since they can provide a wealth of meta-information among other things.

Bringing up ongoing games is against the rules. You do note that your posts were edited to leave out those references?

You're pushing it to call my comments 'role speculation'. Someone suggested I was a lyncher and I queried whether that were even possible. I am new to this particular site and it is hard for me to get a handle on things when the games don't stick to the forum rules. You are then incorrect on your further comments on DS. I will not bother to reiterate why - suffice to say that perhaps you should read my earlier posts more closely. As I write this, I wonder why I am bothering to reply to your post. You obviously won't read it because I can only assume you didn't read the last one.

I invite anyone to reread Mills' posts in isolation as I did and note his shifts in behaviour. I did read your posts, as should be obvious by the fact that I did a post-by-post-analysis of them. Your response here is vague, to say the least.

Again, you obviously fail at reading. As I stated previously, I have no problem with gut votes but I do have a problem when

absolutely no reason

is provided and when they are made my a player who has submitted little to no content in this thread to date (and I think ckd would agree with this assessment). Regardless, I didn't attack ckd, I just asked for his reason. He is perfectly entitled to his vote, and I didn't particularly feel that he needed to unvote it (he is welcome to put it back on if he thinks it best), I just wanted a reason!

Fair enough, but the difference in tone was notable, and I think not just to me.

No shit. Welome to Mafia - the game where no one can know exactly what anyone else is thinking unless they are the person thinking it. Welcome to a game built on the premise of making

judgement decisions

about what they are thinking or implying in their posts. This is the equivalent of calling me suspicious for playing the game of Mafia.

I am noting the difference in tone between your previous, not very substantial, but sustained attack on Dark Ermac, compared with this one where you feel you know what Dark Ermac is trying to say and you are defending him. Your previous attack was not consistent with this defense. Did you think he was scum based on your previous attack? What allayed your suspicions so much that you felt you could answer for him on this more serious charge?

I have made my position perfectly clear on several players (DS, DE, ckd) and will be looking to do a re-read in the near future and see if I can drum anything else up. I can't say I am surprised that you bring this up however. No one likes a town leader but someone had to get this thread back on track.

You're claiming the position of town leader now?

Don't quit your day job.

Accuse someone of being overly conciliatory, and they resort to being nasty. Never fails.

[Bookitty]

We should not be lynching antitown players. We should be lynching protown players. I completely agree with the Fonz on this one.

I believe this to be a typo but it still made me laugh.

[Bookitty]

Yeah Bookitty, continue to make misrepresented arguments. It's A++ scum-hunting! How do I get as good at this game as you?

I wouldn't say I am one of the better players on the site, but I would advise you to read some more games, lose some of the arrogance, and try not to take every attack personally. Angry, defensive players always make themselves look guilty, whether they are or not.

I realise you were just being nasty, but it deserved a serious answer.

[Bookitty]

Sadly, it's also a very common scumtell. Town tends to be calmer because they can win even if they're lynched. They have no scumbuddies to protect. Scum tends to melt down because when they die every post they have made is scoured and interpreted for connections, lack of connections, content. They're RIGHT to fear death, and they do fear it more than town.

So, why did you react so angrily and with such condescension, Mills?

[Bookitty]

Sadly, it's also a very common scumtell. Town tends to be calmer because they can win even if they're lynched. They have no scumbuddies to protect. ?

I smell a 'too defensive' argument...

Anger, if anything, is a town tell.

What do you think of the inconsistencies in Mills' reactions that I pointed out earlier?

[Bookitty]

You don't find it odd that Mills attacked Dark Ermac pretty strongly on a semantics issue, and then defended him on a much more telling one?

Hmmm.

[Bookitty]

You

find it odd because:

(i)

you

don't share my opinion over DE's posts;

(ii)

you

consider the second iteration to be the more telling of the two;

You're barking up a subjective tree. You can't villify people for having a different opinion. It's simply erroneous logic.

I think you've exactly done that to me for having a different opinion than you, Mills. You've insulted my playing ability on two separate occasions for having a different opinion from you, and I didn't insult you, even in return.

So how do you justify that behaviour? Is it simply "erroneous logic"?

And whom did I vilify, exactly? I'd like to see quotes supporting that.

[Bookitty]

Do you know what the word "vilify" means? I made a case against you, because I found some of your actions questionable. In your own misspelled words,

Welome to Mafia

And yes, admitting that you're resorting to ad hominem "because I felt like it" makes your arguments seem far more reasonable. Well done.

Calling someone's accusations "laughable" does not a defense make. Neither do random insults and refusing to reasonably address a case made against you. It just makes it look like you don't have an answer, which in fact may be true.

[Bookitty]

I still regard Mills as the scummiest, and his exit from the game doesn't improve that any. Additionally, his reason for leaving seems like a very weak excuse.

I feel for whoever his replacement is.

[Bookitty]

@Xylthixlm: I did say that pushing a no-lynch is scummy. That said, I tend to think it's usually a newbtell, regardless of alignment. I got from your arguments that you disagree with that, but I don't think it's a certain tell of egruntz's scum alignment, and I'm just not going to agree with that. I voted for him to underscore my seriousness, not to indicate that I had any certainty he was scum.

As to Mills and Disciple Slayer, I wondered based on their antagonism and over-the-top theatrics at each other (based on another game, something Mills tried to deny, even though it was in his first post on the subject) if they were scum together and staging a scene. That would be a pretty big scumtell, if it were true. I still don't know if that was the case. A meta read on Mills shows that he has acted pretty anti-town even as town, though.

You don't find it odd that Mills attacked Dark Ermac pretty strongly on a semantics issue, and then defended him on a much more telling one?

Hmmm.

Both are sematics issues. Scum are less likely change their minds than townies. Mills's behavior says nothing until we get more info.

This is an inconsistency, though, the kind you said you didn't see. Attacking someone on a minor semantics problem, and then defending them for a major one, is an inconsistency, and one that I felt he needed to address. The Fonz said I would make a "too defensive" argument against Mills, something I didn't do, but I do think Mills' reaction to the case I made against him was extreme. I expected Mills to defend himself. I did not expect him to resort to ad hominem and then ask for replacement. I'm not certain if that's indicative of his alignment, based on my meta of him, but I am certain that the points I made against him remain unaddressed.

[Bookitty]

What do you think of the inconsistencies in Mills' reactions that I pointed out earlier?

I don't see them.

Regardless of whether you agree with my case on Mills (and I do think his differing reactions are odd), at least you see the inconsistencies now, since you've addressed some of them and excused them as "Definitely a semantics issue."

[Bookitty]

I think that if Mills truly believed that Dark Ermac was scummy in the first instance, and had real suspicions of him, then he should have seen the second one as confirmation of his previous suspicions. Instead, he decided that the second similar (and worse, in my view) "semantics" issue was not suspicious. This seems to indicate that his first suspicions were more feigned than real, since those first suspicions should have resulted in an "I've got my eye on you" attitude, even if he didn't put an IGMEOY on Dark Ermac.

What, in your view, have I done that is similar, Xylthixlm?

[Bookitty]

I found Disciple Slayer pretty scummy, for his inconsistent votes first for The Fonz and then for me (either would have been okay by itself, but the timing and the sequence of the two were really scummy).

I think it's possible Disciple Slayer and Mills were distancing. I've already made my case on Mills, and it appears to me that he replaced out of the game because he didn't want to answer any questions. (It sort of goes back to the situation with egruntz, where The Fonz suggested I was trying to provoke a newbie meltdown; but at what point is it acceptable to hold someone accountable for their behaviour? I did not think my questions were unfair or especially provoking.)

My vote will stay on Mills at least for now because I'm more convinced that he's scum, but I could easily see Disciple Slayer as his scumpartner due to the over-the-top interaction between the two of them. If my vote was not on Mills, it would be on Disciple Slayer.

@Mod

Is Mills being replaced?

[Bookitty]

@curiouskarmadog:

My case against Mills and his responses start at post 260, on Page 11. Hope this is helpful.

[Bookitty]

Okay, while the site is actually functioning, I will

unvote; vote Eteocles

I very much dislike doing this without hearing from Eteocles, so

@mod:

Can you please prod Eteocles? We're under deadline and one of the main suspects is not posting at all. Is it possible to get an extension on the deadline in this case, pending replacement?

[Bookitty]

I had a more pragmatic reason. I'd really rather not lynch a powerrole, and since he'll have no chance to claim, we don't know if we're doing that.

Still, if he won't be replaced and he won't answer prods, I don't see much other choice.

[Bookitty]

Okay, I have a question. I'm not investigation proof to my knowledge, so that basically means there's a Mafia roleblocker, right? Is there any other real possibility? (I don't know of any pro-town roles who could have prevented my investigation, nor any reason why they'd want to.)

I agree with the suspicions of Dark Ermac, but I was thinking there might be a Xyl/Fonz scumteam before, so I'm not sure about that since I was badly wrong about The Fonz.

Xyl really didn't address Patch (Vollkan, now), Sangy (Skruffs) or sensfan (Rishi) (there may be others that I missed, as well, and please point them out if you notice it), but that might be a factor of them not posting much. I don't really agree with Vollkan's read on the discussion between myself and Mills, but since Mills' replacement has claimed cop, it's pretty much moot at this point.

The reason I became suspicious of Xyl has to do with the timing (and weird abandonment) of his argument with me about Mills' opinion of Dark Ermac. Xyl brought up some suspicions of me regarding my argument with Mills, an argument that he could be pretty sure I'd respond to, right after egruntz's post, quoted here:

Here's my suspicions, in the order of greatest to least:

1. Disciple Slayer
2. Mills
3. Xylthixlm

Not much, but something. I'm still most suspicious of Disciple Slayer due to jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon. As for Mills, it's very suspicious that he leaves when we were getting on him. Not having the style to play mafia isn't a good enough reason to just run out.

As for Xylth... IDK, I don't like him ;o
No, just playing bro. Bandwagons; but no as bad as DS.

Which might have been distancing, and certainly isn't a very good case against Xylthixlm. Given what we know now about DS/Eteocles and Xyl, it might seem pretty obvious, and Xyl might have seen it as far too obvious a linkage. That would explain Xyl's arguing with me back and forth for a while, and then abruptly abandoning it with this:

No, I see your point now. Thanks.

And later, this is a point in Dark Ermac's favour:

Dark Ermac: In other words, you're afraid to tell us who you think is scummy, because doing so might make you look scummy. That's pretty scummy in itself.

Additionally, Xylthixlm's last post was this:

I plan to take a hard look at Dark Ermac, egruntz, and Panzerjager tomorrow.

Which seems odd, because he'd already taken a pretty hard look at egruntz already. I'm not sure why egruntz is included here. My guess is that Xyl was distancing.

unvote; vote egruntz

Additionally, egruntz hasn't posted since January 16th.

@mod, could you please prod egruntz? Thanks!

[Bookitty]

I think (not certain, but I think) that Panzerjager got confused and thought that a godfather would show up as "no result", rather than innocent. That's not been my experience, but he did retract his statement once he considered it. (About three minutes later.)

If I'm wrong, I suspect Panzerjager will correct me, but I thought he just made a mistake and then realised it.

[Bookitty]

It also always makes me think, Wow, really excellent distancing. -makes a note of it-

[Bookitty]

If there truly are two scum groups, then looking at how people interacted with Xyl and Egruntz won't be all that helpful. It also seems really strange, considering their behaviour looked exactly like distancing to me.

For now, I'm going to

unvote; vote OhGodMyLife

[Bookitty]

OhGodMyLife:

QFT. I imagine egruntz is trying to use his mind and his vote to help the town in the way he thinks is best. It just so happens he has a different view of how day one should go down from the majority here.

Xylthixlm, you've been making me uneasy lately. Could just be your playstyle, but I'd like to hear more out of you that just one liners, and you've been way too focused on the way that snaps has been writing rather than whats actually going on in the game. Also this:

Sufficiently bad idiots can be antitown without being scum.

really struck me the wrong way. Lets leave the stupid people alone and go after the scummy people, shall we?

(followed by a vote on Xylthixlm)

OK, Xyl, you've more than reassured me, so thank you for addressing that. The biggest reason for my vote was because I think the DS bandwagon and constant talk of egruntz' no-lynch theory were consuming too much of the town's attention and I wanted to get people to look elsewhere.

These posts in particular seem to be trying to divert attention away from egruntz. Additionally, in the last one, you did the thing that made me suspicious of Xylthixlm in the first place, which is to make a very strong attack and then just abandon it and pronounce yourself "reassured".

[Bookitty]

I've given my reasons for my OGML vote. (I don't remember offhand if anyone else had voted him.) The only other reason I have goes to WIFOM about the night kill and Fonz's suspicion of OGML perhaps being a reason for his death, but that depends on OGML being scum with Xylthixlm, not egruntz (assuming we're right about two scum groups) and I can't find any connections there.

I think a clearer way to say what I meant is that *I* haven't found much of use in looking at how people interacted with Xylthixlm. And I have the opposite problem with egruntz... basically all the interactions I'm looking at there can be taken as legitimate bad reaction to his horrible no-lynch plan, or defending someone who is clearly a newbie... I can't derive much from it either. Nearly all of us had one reaction or the other to egruntz, and I don't have a clear idea whether scum would distance or defend such play. If you see something different, Snaps, I'd be glad to hear it, but I'm not gleaning much I think is definitive or useful in either case personally.

Have you seen any such connections? If so, what information have you derived?

[Bookitty]

Hmmm. I would guess it was because I voted him in the first place, and because I was one of his most active and vocal critics. For instance, Skruffs, he'd have had difficulty quoting your predecessor more, because your predecessor hardly posted at all.

[Bookitty]

According to your theory, insofar as I can follow it (and correct me if I'm wrong) I was scumbuddies with Xylthixlm, distancing with him during our argument, and then I pushed a case on egruntz that he was scumbuddies with Xyl and was trying to lynch town. But in order to know who egruntz's scumteam was targetting, I'd have to be buddies with egruntz, not Xylthixlm, and so why would I have pushed a case on my buddy when I didn't have to? If there are two scum teams, as we now believe, then they are in direct competition with each other, and they would NOT be bussing right now.

So your argument depends on me knowing that Xylthixlm was killed by one of the scumteams. He wasn't killed by his own scumteam, so you're arguing that I was scum with egruntz and bussed him, since the only way I could know that egruntz's scumteam killed Xyl is if I was on egruntz's scumteam. I don't think scum would be bussing when they know there's two scumteams and they lose if the other one has more people at the end. If there are two scumteams, then it's a safe bet that two out of the three nightkills were scum-kills and the third was ... whatever, so speculating on who might have killed who isn't proof of anything.

You have it backwards. I gave my reasons for thinking OGML might be scum with egruntz earlier, and I was looking for reasons for the nightkills. The Fonz was very combative with OGML, so perhaps that's a reason for OGML to want The Fonz dead. Therefore, it's WIFOM, as in fact I said, because it's a small additional reason why MY vote is on OGML, but it wasn't the bulk of my case against him.

Panzer, if you think I'm scum with inside knowledge about who killed who, which scumteam would that make me a member of, and why? Because your logic only makes sense if I was part of both.

[Bookitty]

I made my case on OGML without mentioning my WIFOM thoughts about The Fonz's nightkill. I don't know who killed The Fonz. I don't see a reason for a vig to do so, but I was suspicious he was scum with Xyl, as I stated previously, so I was wrong about that. I wasn't considering two scum groups at the time because there hadn't been any reason to do so. And additionally, I don't know how you can know it's two groups of three, rather than two groups of two... why are you assuming that?

Your logic is escaping me. According to you, I'm in egruntz's scumgroup, and ... so I accused him of being scum with Xyl, and pushed for his lynch, so I could bus him? WHY would I do that as scum? Would I WANT to even the odds for the other scumteam? How would that be helpful to my team in the least?

Why would scum bus one of their own when there's another scumteam in the equation? What is the advantage to doing so at this point, in your view?

[Bookitty]

The advantage is to raise one's perception as town. Bussing your teammate is a viable option because it makes you look town. It would help your team by not getting you lynched by the town because they think you are town. You weren't the only one who accused him and until you mentioned it I didn't even know you had an arguement against egruntz. Again you'd do it because it'd make you look town.

This is just ridiculous, Panzer. I was the one who brought UP the idea that egruntz and Xyl were scumbuddies. I made the case, I pushed it, and you didn't even know I had an ARGUMENT against him? Did you read anything during the last day of the game?

Your argument is complete nonsense, and you admit you don't even KNOW what happened yesterday. I ask you again, what is the advantage to a scum TEAM to bus one of its members as soon as it finds out there are two scumteams? How does that help a scum TEAM to win?

[Bookitty]

I'll second that question rishi, although i think some of his analysis(in the post 427) I don't necessarily agree with, one being voting OGML.

I'm in consensus with BooKitty. I feel we had it right and we let it slip right through are fingers

Unvote,Vote:Egruntz

\

At this point, I think if DE is scum, there are probably 2 scum groups, Egruntz and Xyl and maybe one other, in "Group A" and DE and company in "Group B".

Okay, this was right after my case on egruntz. So... you didn't know I made an argument against him?

O RLY?

[Bookitty]

Upon further review, I am defeated

Unvote

.

What's your impression of OGML?

[Bookitty]

Bookitty, I've given you my defense to your initial post against me, and you've said yourself that the bit about Fonz's death is extremely WIFOM, so what else can I do to convince you? Have you got anything to say to my last post? You've gone on to discuss the situation several times with various people, but haven't addressed me on the topic again, yet you still keep your vote on me.

Nightkill speculation is always very WIFOMy. I made my case. I don't think it's particularly strong, but making a case, voting, and then watching reactions is about the only way to derive connections. If we have two scumgroups, you're going to have scumbuddies scrambling to defend each other and/or attack people for attacking their buddy.

I stated already I wasn't getting much from analysing Xylthixlm (remember, I thought the Fonz might be his buddy at the time, so that's how far off I was) OR by analysing egruntz. So I made the best case I had, which was inspired by a reread of The Fonz and trying to figure out who would be motivated to kill him.

My thought process (and this should NOT be construed as confirmed fact, it's my OPINION only) was that egruntz might have looked like an easy lynch with The Fonz out of the way (Fonz was his main defender) and The Fonz was also leaning on you fairly heavily Day One, OGML. I am guessing that the scum didn't know there were two scumgroups. Thus, if you were scum with egruntz, it might have looked like a two-fer. Egruntzscum wouldn't have a reason to kill The Fonz, because The Fonz was defending him, so that makes egruntz look like town; The Fonz was leaning on you, and you weren't under much suspicion. By killing him, you'd lose your harshest critic, and egruntz would look more town because his defender flipped town.

This is speculation on my part. It's not fact. But it's some of the internal reasoning behind my vote on you. It's one vote, I'm not calling for a bandwagon. I'm not sure why you're reacting so badly to one vote, OGML, but there's my reasoning for it.

As for Panzer, this is the second time he's decided I'm scum (the first time was when the investigation on me was apparently roleblocked and he decided that meant I was the Godfather) with pretty shoddy reasoning. Since it seems pretty likely that we have two scum groups, I'm going to tentatively say that in my view he's not paying good attention to the game, rather than behaving scummily. It's possible he's scum trying to set up a fake distancing thing with me in case he gets lynched, but that doesn't seem likely to me. If Panzer is scum, I see no way in which he could be part of egruntz's scumgroup given that he agreed with my reasoning nearly immediately. And he's not choosing easy targets the way I think scum would do.

I clear Vollkan as part of egruntz's scumteam for the same reason. I think Vollkan is town anyway, but I am fairly certain he isn't scum on the same team with egruntz.

I'm suspicious of Snaps and OGML for another reason, though; the three people who voted egruntz AFTER he admitted to being scum were Korlash, Snaps, and OGML. I do NOT think scum would bus their teammate, knowing there were two scumgroups. But once he admitted it? Why not take the townie points for being in on the lynch?

Just some thoughts. And no offense taken, Skruffs.

[Bookitty]

I'm happy with my vote where it is, but I also see and agree with the logic behind a Snaps lynch for reasons I previously stated.

[Bookitty]

I'm happy with my vote where it is, but I also see and agree with the logic behind a Snaps lynch for reasons I previously stated.

Oh... and speaking of wishy-washiness (not to mention that this post is awfully agreeable).

Have you read any of my previous posts, Rishi?

What is your point with this? That I agree with and approve of lynching either of my top two suspects?

[Bookitty]

I'm happy with my vote where it is, but I also see and agree with the logic behind a Snaps lynch for reasons I previously stated.

Oh... and speaking of wishy-washiness (not to mention that this post is awfully agreeable).

Have you read any of my previous posts, Rishi?

What is your point with this? That I agree with and approve of lynching either of my top two suspects?

I'd like an answer to this, please, Rishi.

[Bookitty]

Bookitty : Why do you think voting for Erguntz after he claimed is a scum tell? Don't you think an innocent might also have voted that way? Of all those who voted after his claim, why do you find me the most suspicious?

You're misunderstanding the point of this. I think that not voting for him before his scumclaim, and then suddenly piling on after, is a scumtell. Avoiding taking any position on a serious wagon either for or against, and then voting immediately after such a claim, seems pretty fishy. Egruntz's scumteam would have been aware that there were two scumteams; Xylthixlm's would not necessarily have been. So anyone on Egruntz's scumteam would have been really reluctant to vote him OR defend him, and would have been anxious both to avoid committing to a position on his lynch, and to be on his wagon once that lynch was inevitable, so as to distance to some extent. I do think an innocent voted that way; Korlash was the doc, and he did so.

On what are you basing the idea that I find you the most suspicious of all those who voted after his claim, precisely, Snaps?

[Bookitty]

Rishi, out of curiosity, do you think it's likely I'd more likely be scum with egruntz's group or with Xylthixlm's?

[Bookitty]

Rishi, out of curiosity, do you think it's likely I'd more likely be scum with egruntz's group or with Xylthixlm's?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

Additionally, I think it's interesting that Antithesis wasn't nightkilled, but two of the people Rishi said he believed were solidly town were.

Perhaps the two scumgroups each thought that the other was going to target the cop, and didn't want to waste their kill on someone the other scum would target anyway. It's possible. I think Antithesis is confirmed, because 1) the back-up cop is dead; there'd not be one if we didn't have a cop; 2) the existence of a back-up cop means that there's not likely another cop; and 3) there's no counterclaim of cop given 1) and 2).

Vollkan, what do you think of Panzerjager?

Snaps, what do you think of Rishi? (Not his predecessor; Rishi himself.)

Phate, what do you think of... well... anyone?

[Bookitty]

All right. Looking at this game from the normal perspective of hunting scum isn't working exactly the way it should for me, so I'm going to line it out like this:

I'm certain Antithesis is town; fairly sure (but not certain) that Vollkan and Panzerjager are, as well. That leaves five suspects containing four scum (assuming two scumgroups of three, which seems a decent assumption). Phate and Liamcool are lurking. Xyzzy is lurking as well, though not as seriously as the first two. Rishi is pushing a lot of suspicions a lot of ways, but if he were lynched and came up scum, I can see a link (mentioned previously by someone else) between Rishi and Snaps. I don't see any other definite links.

@mod

Can we get a prod on Phate, please? Thank you.

[Bookitty]

Rishi:

The fact that you're pushing suspicions in lots of directions is a point in your favour. Your predecessor lurked until he got replaced; that's hardly winning you townie points by default.

I can see a link between you and Snaps, and so it becomes more likely to me that you are scum with him; but your own postings are the reason you haven't gotten a vote from me.

How do you feel I've defended Vollkan? Simply by stating that I think he's town?

[Bookitty]

Saying someone is town is a defense, of sort. Of course, no one is really attacking vollkan.

And let's be fair. My predecessor made ONE POST total. This doesn't suggest the behavior of a lurker, but of someone who never really played. It's likely he left the site shortly after signing up for this game.

I'm not sure of the point of these comments.

Do you feel people should be attacking Vollkan? Do you feel that being active and thus on all of the lynches, including the one that hit scum, is a definitive scumtell? Is it equally telling against both Vollkan and myself?

Do you think lurking is a valid scumtell, Rishi?

[Bookitty]

I've been in the game from the start. I've made arguments against the people who were lynched. I was on the lynch because I believed they were scum. I wasn't always right about that, but I was willing to line out my suspicions and stand behind them.

Is it your experience that scum tend to be on all the wagons?

[Bookitty]

Snaps: I cannot reconcile the fact that Panzerjager was the first to suggest two scum teams, and the fact that he agreed with me and pushed egruntz's lynch, with the thought that he could be on Egruntz's team. How do you explain those facts?

Rishi: We've only lynched one scum so far; I was instrumental in that. If your best evidence against anyone is "They were on all the lynches so far", then maybe you could look at people who are defending others and trying to deflect from their lynch, rather than tunnelling on people for something that isn't even a scumtell.

Oh, and while I think of it, precisely why is Vollkan less suspicious than me on the same evidence?

[Bookitty]

Panzer:

Reconcile: 4. to bring into agreement or harmony;

make compatible or consistent

: to reconcile differing statements; to reconcile accounts.

[Bookitty]

****

PROPOSAL

****
All players submit a scumdar giving at least 2 sentences per person. I will post mine first if the majority so wills it. Otherwise, I suggest random sequencing.

I support this. I don't care who goes first.

[Bookitty]

I generally agree with the notion of not making lists, Rishi, but in this game with the amount of lurking that's already gone on, I don't think "giving too much information to scum" is as big a concern as "giving enough information to town."

I'm pretty well assuming that we have two scumgroups of three, but I could be wrong on that. It just seems the most conservative viewpoint, and thus the safest one for town to make. Better to assume worst case scenario and be pleasantly surprised than to assume something better and be painfully wrong.

[Bookitty]

Panzer, you've jumped on me two times for no reason, and had to back down. Do you think it's possible you're suffering from confirmation bias due to your mistaken assumptions in the past?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I couldn't see a reason scum would jump on me so consistently, but at this point I can't do that anymore.

I really don't like nor agree with your scumlist, especially since there is a major inconsistency in it.

unvote; vote Panzerjager

[Bookitty]

@Vollkan: The varying treatment of lurkers, with these two phrases used:

"One of the lurkers has got to be scum." (re: TS)

"One of the lurkers is probably scum" (re: Phate)

"Solidly town. Lurker but when he contributes he actually contributes and seems to be pretty solid." (re: xyzzy)

Interesting views on lurkers, given his attacks on Snaps, whose main offences have been in the line of lurker-hunting.

[Bookitty]

I'm curious, xyzzy, do you think that, with two scumteams, scum will be actively trying to kill town more than members of the opposing scumteam? Why or why not?

Isn't it more likely that scumlists of the type Vollkan proposes would give better information to the scum about who the opposing scumteam is, and make it more likely that they would target the opposing scum? Do you think it's more advantageous in a game with two scumteams for them to each target town, or opposing scum?

[Bookitty]

For the record, I've played with both Toaster Strudel and Vollkan.

Their methods are very different from each other and from mine, but I will attest to the fact that both of them catch scum with their methods. I tend to understand Vollkan's method better, and thus it's more useful to me, but both methods catch scum.

[Bookitty]

Okay, I located the post that gave me the impression that Panzer was town:

Okay before I adovacate the lynch of egruntz with a case I want to indulge in some kill speculation. I think that a vig/sk killed CKD and that there are 2 mafia groups, Xyl's thinking that Fonz was a threat and the other group thinking Xyl was a threat.

My second guess. We have a single, larger scumgroup and an SK and a Vig. Scum still shooting Fonz, Vig Shooting CKD and SK hitting Xyl due to Sk think Xyl is a threat. Do not take either of these as abosolute, they are simply my opinions on the matter. I don't think there should be a huge arguement about this, just throwing my opinions out there.

Egruntz should be lynched. Period. He is currently flailing and Xyl early actions seem to as if Xyl was trying to almost bus Egruntz.*refraining from directing the vig due to that being scummy*

That's a direct attack on members of two different scum groups, but I didn't know there were two scum groups at the time. I didn't pay that much attention to his hypothesis about the two scumgroups, because at the time I was also arguing that Xylthixlm had weird reactions to Egruntz and I thought they were on the same scumteam. I was glad Panzerjager was supporting that idea and didn't think much more about it.

However, it's also a problem because it absolutely refutes Panzer's attack on me for assuming who killed who. He posted this well before I did any hypothesising, and then savagely attacked me for saying basically what he'd said well before. I'm not sure if I was influenced by his post, but certainly I had read it.

Panzer first attacked me for Antithesis's "no result" on me, saying it was certain I was the Godfather (which most people would realise is not the case-- it indicates a roleblocker, which he conceded); then jumped on me because I'd assessed the situation basically as he himself had done previously. Let me look at his argument there:

By your logic you saying that OGML-Egruntz- ___ is a group but the only thing stopping you is that you are set on thinking that they shot Xyl. 3 kills means they could have shot Fonz. The only reason you wouldn't consider this is due to you knowing one of the night kills.

Since your accusing OGML if he is indeed scum he is I believe he is of the XYL scum group. I believe, you are in the Egruntz group and you are just trying to get OGML lynched regardless of his alignment. which is how you'd know your group killed Xyl and trying to pin it on OGML. It would be safe to bus Egruntz because it makes it easier to stay at 2 and you'd be tied with xyl due to dying,

And my response still stands:

I made my case on OGML without mentioning my WIFOM thoughts about The Fonz's nightkill. I don't know who killed The Fonz. I don't see a reason for a vig to do so, but I was suspicious he was scum with Xyl, as I stated previously, so I was wrong about that. I wasn't considering two scum groups at the time because there hadn't been any reason to do so. And additionally, I don't know how you can know it's two groups of three, rather than two groups of two... why are you assuming that?

Your logic is escaping me. According to you, I'm in egruntz's scumgroup, and ... so I accused him of being scum with Xyl, and pushed for his lynch, so I could bus him? WHY would I do that as scum? Would I WANT to even the odds for the other scumteam? How would that be helpful to my team in the least?

Why would scum bus one of their own when there's another scumteam in the equation? What is the advantage to doing so at this point, in your view?

And then after a bit more argument Panzerjager states, "Upon further review, I am defeated".

So he already admitted this argument against me wasn't viable. But now he's resurrecting it.

I'm leaning more toward SK than vig for Panzer, but either way, he's not the lynch for today, since I don't think he's a member of either of the two known scum groups.

unvote

[Bookitty]

Kills can be blocked, Rishi, or protected against (even though we lost our doc, it doesn't mean there isn't a backup or other protective role). We don't really know with any certainty that this didn't happen.

It isn't relevant now, because any independent killer has (or should have) roughly the same goals as town at this point in the game.

[Bookitty]

I am dead set against Kison and Panzerjager deciding in thread who to investigate/vig and then doing so in tandem.

If there is only one scum roleblocker, as Panzer's plan assumes, then if the person decided on is town, we lose at least one and probably two townies, and waste our investigation. Scum have no reason to block the vig of a townie, and would probably block Kison "just in case".

Additionally, if there is only one scum roleblocker, he's on only one scumteam. I'll call the two scumteams Team A and Team B. If the target of these night actions is from Team A, and the roleblocker is on Team A, it's likely that Kison will be blocked (the scum would be dead tomorrow by investigation, so why take a chance?) and that Panzer will be nightkilled. This is the closest to Panzer's stated scenario.

But if the target of these night actions is from Team A, and the roleblocker is on Team B, then Panzer will not be blocked, and Kison is likely to be blocked "just in case" Kison investigated someone else. One scum dead, but the investigation, if not blocked, is wasted on a dead person.

But if we have two scum roleblockers, one each on Team A and Team B, then what? The target can't be on both teams, so on the target's team, the scum would roleblock Panzer to prevent the killing of their buddy; on the other team, Kison might be roleblocked "just in case", or in fact might not be. In any case, we can learn only one person's alignment, and that person is more likely than not already dead and thus their alignment already known.

Saying who the targets will be only gives the scum perfect advance warning of whether to roleblock or not. It seems much better to me that Kison and Panzer target their primary suspects, independently and without advance warning to the scum. Then if there's only one roleblocker, they will have to choose whether to prevent a nightkill or an investigation, without advance knowledge of whether the nightkill or the investigation would harm their team. If there are two, the chances are good that they will either choose the same target to roleblock or that they will guess wrongly about whether to roleblock at all.

If you see any flaws in my reasoning on this, please point them out.

@Rishi: You are voting Snaps. Why are you looking for a better idea?

[Bookitty]

I don't know. I either want Snaps or Bookitty. I just am gut against her

No offense, but your gut sucks. Do you have any case, or anything I could possibly defend myself against?

[Bookitty]

I WAS voting for Panzer. Now I'm doing a reread. I just did a pretty in-depth analysis on why I don't think Kison and Panzer should claim their targets, to which no one has really responded other than Snaps, and his response wasn't very detailed.

I've given PLENTY of opinions on people throughout the game. So I'm not certain why you're singling me out for this, Rishi, since I was voting up until Panzer's claim, since I'm doing a reread, and since Panzer has already indicated that he's most likely going to vig me tonight. Since I'm town, that's not a good thing, but since he's going on gut, I can't defend myself against it.

I'm not voting for Snaps, because I'm not finished with my reread. I'm willing to vote him to avoid a no-lynch, but I'm not convinced he's the best lynch for today.

I really am curious why you singled me out for this, Rishi, when I was voting up til very recently, when I have been forthright and open with my opinions, and when I have posted far more recently than a lot of other non-voters. Can you explain?

[Bookitty]

Without doing a reread (and so you're not getting my detailed reasoning) I'm willing to lynch Xyzzy/Phate as likely members of one scumteam and Toaster Strudel/Rishi as likely members of the other. Snaps is a possible replacement on either. I think the original scumteams would have looked like this:

Xylthixlm/Xyzzy/Phate

and

Egruntz/Toaster Strudel/Rishi

And when I was voting for Panzer, I had him pegged in Toaster Strudel's spot.

I can't support any of this right now, without doing my reread, but there are my general thoughts.

[Bookitty]

Actually, Vollkan, try "two-shot vig".

You'll get a few more.

[Bookitty]

To avoid a no-lynch (and because I'm not sure I'll have a good chance to check in later in the day) I will

vote: Snaps

to ensure we get a lynch.

This may be overkill, but as far as I can see there are only four votes on him, so that ought to be a lynch.

[Bookitty]

Well, since I don't have the ability to roleblock anyone, Panzer, that's not what happened.

So are you deliberately lying, or just going with your gut and saying whatever comes to mind?

Can you explain why you're so fixated on me?

[Bookitty]

DESPITE his weird and unsupported tunnelling on me, I still think Panzer is town.

I don't think he is scum with Egruntz, because he went after Egruntz pretty hard. That's not as big a tell as it might be with two scumteams, because I doubt the scum knew there were two scumteams to start with. So that could have been bussing, but I do not think it was.

And I'm sure he's not scum on Snaps' team, because he was pushing a case against Snaps nearly from the beginning of that wagon. And by that time everyone knew there were two scumteams.

So for those who are voting Panzer, and disbelieve his claim, which team do you think he's on? And why?

@Panzer: Your gut STILL sucks.

[Bookitty]

In a game with two scumteams, what is the benefit to bussing, aggressively or not?

It seems to go against the primary win condition, to give up one of your own teammates. Especially since Snaps would be the second member of that team to go, making a win nearly impossible for that team.

It makes more sense to look at the people who were offwagon on the Snaps lynch, or who pushed back against it (I would fall into that category) than to look at someone who pushed the wagon from the start.

[Bookitty]

Indeed, there is something to be said for the argument that the very fact that bussing poses more risks in a multi-scumgroup game makes it more rewarding

if done well

, because most people will take

exactly

you are taking now Bookitty.

(bolding mine)

Is it your argument, Vollkan, that Panzer is doing it well? I have not regarded his play in that light in this game.

While I fully believe you are capable of fooling me in that way, I don't think Panzer could do the same.

[Bookitty]

The safest thing to assume is that we have two scumgroups of three each. Assuming something else tends toward a false (and possibly dangerous) sense of security.

It is possible that Panzer claimed two-shot vig as a scum gambit. I don't think so, and I'm not willing to vote him, despite his weird fixation on me. But I would like some explanations:

1) Panzer, why is Toaster Strudel obvscum? I know why I think she might be scum, but I'm curious as to your reasoning here.

2) PEG, why do you regard my argument with Egruntz as minor, when ultimately it ended with him being lynched due to my mistaken belief that he was linked to Xylthixlm? Or are you referring to my original vote on him Day 1?

3) To anyone: What's the precise case against Panzerjager? Is there something I missed?

[Bookitty]

Before his claim, I was suspicious (and probably somewhat OMGUSsy, due to his repeated jumping on me without any basis for it). Since then, I've been pretty convinced he's town suffering from confirmation bias.

[Bookitty]

I absolutely do. I'm just not comfortable with Toaster Strudel's comments about "distracting from a Panzer lynch". And I'd like her reasoning for why a Panzer lynch would be a good thing.

[Bookitty]

Everything I read on egruntz and you just seemed to be crazy small gameplay, or really piddly crap attacks, that didnt really strike me as crazy strong really.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't feel it's true, but I'd like to know specifically your basis for thinking that an attack that was instrumental in getting someone lynched (rightly, but for the wrong reasons) was insignificant.

[Bookitty]

Okay. The first bolded thing is a comment on Egruntz's case against Xylthixlm. I was commenting that saying "As for Xylth... IDK, I don't like him ;o " was not a strong case against Xylthixlm. So you're wrong there.

I was voting Egruntz right up til he was lynched. Admittedly, after he was lynched, I stopped voting him, and went after OGML, with the reasoning given in the quote you listed. Perhaps you feel I should have continued to vote him after his lynch, but I thought that wasn't really productive.

Do you really think I should have continued voting for Egruntz after he was dead?

[Bookitty]

I was not accusing Egruntz of accusing Xylthixlm of distancing. I was saying his crap case (which I SAID wasn't very good) might have been distancing FROM Xylthixlm. I was accusing Egruntz of being scum WITH Xylthixlm. Now, I was wrong about that, but your whole argument that I was reluctant to vote Egruntz and that I moved my vote as soon as I can is complete nonsense. I started that case, I followed it through to the end, and I don't regard it as a weak attack when it was instrumental in getting him lynched.

I don't think it's a typo when you were using my LATER vote on OGML, after Egruntz was lynched and dead, as some sort of evidence that I moved my vote off Egruntz. That's more than a typing mistake.

[Bookitty]

I'm still waiting for pickemgenius to explain his comments. It's well past Monday now.

I still don't think Panzer is a good lynch. If we choose to disbelieve his claim, we have an unexplained death night one. I suppose it's possible, if we have a 3-person scum group and a two-person scum group, that the two person scum group might have been given another kill, but I've never been in a game with two scum groups where they were uneven, and I don't know how likely that is. In any case I am not willing to lynch him today. I believe his claim.

For those who were pushing his lynch: do you disbelieve his claim? How do you explain the extra kill night one?

What does town gain by lynching him? It's very clear what scum gains; not so clear to me what town gains by doing so.

[Bookitty]

I really enjoyed this game until someone shot me.

Nice job, Elias.