Open 60: The New C9 - Game over!

[vollkan]

Vote: Ryan

Because you quoted you got pissed off and quoted your role PM in Mini 495

[vollkan]

P.s. Vollkan has no scumtells, kill Vollkan now

Unvote, Vote: Oman

You use the word 'kill' rather than 'lynch' in your demand that my life be ended. Directing your scumbuddies perchance?

[vollkan]

So, how many players here have played a game with CKD before?

I played with CKD in Mini 486 and Mini 500.

In Mini 486 I was masons with CKD. In Mini 500, I was mafia and NKed CKD on N1; CKD turned out to be a cult leader.

[vollkan]

And can you elaborate on that "reason"?

[vollkan]

Vote: Unrighteousout Quitdirty.

I think this is what he means. Not sure who that is, but I don't see their name in the playing list.

"Strange" is an appropriate word then.

@Oman: The flavor of the kill makes it more likely that Timmy was the SK kill though.

Flavour speculation is bad. Mafia can manically stab, and a SK can drown people. SKs can manically stab, and mafia can drown people. The flavour as we have it really doesn't say anything significant either way.

[vollkan]

No seriously kabenon, it made no sense.

I really hope you're being ironic.

Justin Playfair= Unrighteousout Quitdirty

Just - Unrighteous
in - out
Play - Quit
fair - dirty

[vollkan]

Unvote, Vote: Xgirl

Figure THAT shit out.

[vollkan]

I don't care that he is voting me. A random vote is all well and good. But he can't seem to get his facts straight. First he says it's a random vote. Then he says it's not, in the same post. Then he says it was a random vote again, and then once more he says he had a reason behind it. So he's either lying or confusing his story.

Well, let's look at what he has said:

Random Vote: kabenon007
Because his vote is a little strange.

This isn't a "random" vote, contrary to the label. "Random" votes are for comical meta reasons (or to get rid of Oman early on ).

At this point, my question to Wesaq is this: What made you think that Kab's random vote being strange merited a vote? Was Kab's random vote suspicious?

I phrased it not as clearly as i thought. I selected you as a random target. And after that i found a reason to choose you.

So...you picked someone to vote and then contrived a reason?

@kabenon
I've seen, what that was a parody of a name, but like many others was too lazy to figure out.

But i still see no other choice, so the Vote is still with you.

Why do you make this sound like you don't have a choice?

[vollkan]

Posted as I run through the latest stuff:

FOS: Justin Playfair

For being extremely analytical on day 1.

Because the last thing we would want is to have good analysis on D1.

Yes, but he was over-analyzing events that were just stupid. At this point, we really don't know anything and it just looked like he was trying to grasp at anything to try and make someone look like scum. If that makes me look bad for pointing it out, then so be it.

What's worse? Over-analyzing an obviously joke-vote... or criticizing the analysis.

Oh, and I'm keeping my vote on Six Aces, because it's not random.

If random votes are not meant to be analysed, we wouldn't have the random voting stage. Justin's analysis is lengthy, but it is hardly excessive or "grasping at straws".

A word of warning Phate, vollkan always gives off town vibes...

Actually, the only time people tend to find me scummy at all is when I am town. When I am scum, the only argument that usually gets run against me is: "Why haven't you been NKed yet?" - but I also get hit with that chestnut as town, so it fails.

Damn you suspended site page! Had a whole response typed up, and lost it.

You see that little button in the top-left of your screen with the arrow pointing left on it?

If you press that it will take you "back" to the last page you were on, complete with your post all typed up and pretty (at least firefox does it).

Oh well, I'll just say this. I'm not going to roleclaim on day 1, but I will if it's a choice between mafia and something else. But, I'm voting Six Aces because he's scum. If you don't believe me then lynch me, but you'll be sorry.

However, if you want to take a chance on taking out a mafia then let's all look into Six Aces. I realize I probably screwed my chances of making it past tonight, but I'll chalk it up to my inexperience at this site.

*headdesk*

D1 newb soft claim.

Unvote, Vote: Six Aces

Anything to say?

[vollkan]

Before anything else, @Jesse: What were your results?

[vollkan]

This sucks. I investigated Peers.

Why?

[vollkan]

Trying to suggest the survival of a cop is scummy when the strong possibility exists of one or more docs- scummy.

"Why are you still alive? Didn't you claim cop? I might have this confused with another game." != "You are scummy because you're still alive and you claimed cop." Kind of a stretch, actually.

It isn't a stretch, actually.

You expressed some level of surprise at the fact that Jesse was still alive. It's reasonable to infer that you were suggesting that his claim was rendered more doubtful because of his survival.

[vollkan]

Police are seeking witnesses in the killing of Peers, Vanilla Townie, who was found dead of two gunshot wounds in a dumpster this morning by Holiday Inn staff.

Does this mean that two killers targetted the same person? I ask as it may provide some insight into the "Doc protection" speculation.

I don't think it can reliably be taken to mean anything.

It could be just flavour, or it could mean he was targeted twice.

My point, Shteven, is that you had no reason to be thinking about it. It's possible for a townie to think it, but why would you? It doesn't do us any good to think about, therefore why bother? However, for scum, thinking about whether the cop will be protected is high on the priority list.

Adding to what farside just said,

Trying to suggest the survival of a cop is scummy when the strong possibility exists of one or more docs- scummy.

Agreed. I'd say it's most likely that he was doctor protected, and that mafia chose other targets instead of taking the chance on there being a doctor protection.

He was responding to Fonz, whose post implied a similar line of thought (ie. that the survival was not surprising given the likelihood of a doc protection).

Also, I really dispute the suggestion that this isn't something a townie should be thinking about. This sort of speculation is very important - to rationalise why Jesse would be alive so as to not cast undue suspicion on his claim.

[vollkan]

I already said, I was more suspicious of the way he worded it, not the fact that he was thinking it. I didn't really explain it in my first post, but oh well. My mistake.

Not really wanting to beat a dead horse here, but saying you didn't fully explain it is an understatement. Here's your follow-up where you specifically say that he was scummy for even thinking it... Totally impossible to misinterpret, wouldn't you agree?

My point, Shteven, is that you had no reason to be thinking about it. It's possible for a townie to think it, but why would you? It doesn't do us any good to think about, therefore why bother? However, for scum, thinking about whether the cop will be protected is high on the priority list.

:goodposting:

Kab, your first post seemed pretty unambiguous that it is

what

he wast hinking that was the problem - not

how

he said it.

@kab - Can you elaborate on what was suspicious about the way he worded it?

[vollkan]

For instance, would a townie have to deliberate about whether or not the cop is going to be protected? No, we have no reason to, whether we think about it or not has no bearing on whether the cop survives the night.

I disagree.

Let's remember the context first of all: Phate had expressed surprise that Jesse was alive. Whether or not it was Phate's intention to do so, Phate's comments appeared to express doubts regarding the likelihood of Jesse's survival. Fonz was the first to respond to this, by raising the fact that the possibility for multiple docs render Jesse's survival perfectly plausible.

Shteven followed this up by agreeing with Fonz and saying that the high objective likelihood of doc protection would very likely have prompted scum to target elsewhere.

I really fail to see how, in such a context, Shteven's comments can be construed as scummy.

For a scum, he has to sit and think and mull over the fact that there is probably a doctor, so should he take the chance and try to kill the doc, or should he just kill someone else.

Absolutely true. Scum will obviously consider such matters in making a NK decision.

However, it's also perfectly feasible that a townie, on seeing a cop surviving the night, would try to rationalise that cop's survival. In fact, as I have already said, such considerations are of the utmost importance in assuring that the claim is not treated with undue skepticism.

But it was the wording that tipped me off to this fact. He doesn't say the mafia thought that he would be doctor protected, he just said, it's probable that he would have been, or something along those lines. So I took that to mean that he was deliberating about whether or not the cop was going to be protected enough, deliberating enough to post that fact.

Fonz has already commented on the fact that you seem to take the less scummy meaning to be the scummier.

If he had said "The mafia thought...." that would be a real cause for some concern.
Saying "It's probable..." is, as I have already stressed, something that is perfectly likely to come from a townie - particularly in the context already outlined.

[vollkan]

Farside, unfortunately I can come across as "wishy washy" as I try to be balanced and open minded in my posts.

You say this like it is part of your meta...Can you point to any completed town games where you exhibited "wishy-washiness"?

[vollkan]

i hate to ask, but does bringing up past games have any relevance?

It can, particularly in relation to very broad playstyle issues.

As an example, I often get attacked or questioned for being aggressive against people. I then just need to point out how I do this consistently and it takes the steam out of the argument.

However, something very specific like: "Well in Mini 123 I voted xyz who had claimed doc and I was town. Thus, my vote for the claimed doc here shows it is not scummy." is less valid.

[vollkan]

Take vollkan for instance. His large posts, contentful, appear pro-town. But he also does them when he is scum.

Yes. Content from me is a nulltell.

[vollkan]

While we're waiting for an official vote count, I'd like to figure out a few things from the vote of ysterday. I have something I'd like to address about the voting yesterday that I just figured out. Intially I thought, unless my count was inncorrect, that players piled on after Six Aces already had enough votes to be lynched. This was Shteven and SSF. Would anyone find it below the mafia to pile on after a scum buddy's fate has already been sealed in order to blend in with the town? I thought so. However, I was wrong. I thought Peers had hammered Six Aces and I made a comment about his advatar being appropriate. I was mistaken, as everyone knows that Peers voted for Jess. Oops. SO Shteven cast the deciding vote, hence my count is wrong int that regard. That does leave SSF casting a meaningless 11th vote, but it's within a reasonable time of Shteven's post. More importantly, he could have miscounted like I did. So that leaves me in the same place I was talking baout scumtells and metadefenses.

To be frank, I don't believe that scum are any more likely to vote before the hammer than after. A guilty investigation is a death sentence, so it seems most sensible to me that scum would willingly join the wagon, in the hopes of blending in. SSF's vote is basically a nulltell.

[vollkan]

I think we should keep the idea that Jesse might be scum in the back of our minds, just as a last thought kind of thing. We can scum hunt without worrying about it too much. If we can't figure it out, we can always go back and examine him thoroughly later.

It seems like Jesse's dominating the thread; there isn't much other hunting going on at all. I'm not saying I'm blameless in this either, and a lot of it is due to the shortness of day 1, but there isn't exactly much going on that we need a reminder to not forget Jesse.

I agree.

The main problem I am seeing in this game is that, given the events of D1, we've missed out on the sort of snowballing discussion that is usually generated on D1.

For now, I am going to

Vote: Kabenon

. I didn't like his stance on shteven, and that's the best lead I have right now.

[vollkan]

It is stated at the beginning of the thread that there is no vigilante. The only killing roles that are in this game are the Mafia, and the Serial Killer. Which makes this comment about the Vig uninformed at best, and deliberately confusing at worst. I would assume that the roles would be known by all players, although I could be wrong, so this is more scummy than accidental in my eyes.

I don't think it is inconceivable that Shteven might have forgotten about that. Off the top of my head, I can't recall what roles may or may not be in this game. That said, the proper thing to do would be to check to verify what he was saying.

The fact that you have made the following two posts so early in our proceedings is of interest to me:

A word of warning Phate, vollkan always gives off town vibes...

And then later, giving an example:

I agree that a particular scumtell, or even town tell, cannot be placed on everyone. Take vollkan for instance. His large posts, contentful, appear pro-town. But he also does them when he is scum. I want to wait for a recent vote count before I vote, mostly because I don't have time to check myself. (I'm lazy and busy, sue me!)

All right, so you have warned us twice that Vollkan may be scum however town he may seem. Do you have any reasons for suspecting Vollkan beyond his usually seeming town that would warrant two warnings about him in the first nine pages?

Well, my first game was with vollkan here on MS. I was town, he was scum. He did exactly what he is doing now: long posts, responding to everything thrown at him with long posts. He was scum in that game and I knew it, but no one else believed me. And

I can't help feeling

that this is exactly how he acted that first game... and I know I said it was how he plays everytime... but something just seems different. But yes, it was vollkan I was considering putting my vote on. I believe my vote could do better on someone other than Shteven.

Anyone that has played with me before knows how much I

detest

play by "feeling". It's an unchallengable assertion. Kab, my play here is precisely the same as my play in all my other games. True, I appear protown regardless of alignment (which, as Justin notes, you have stressed on two previous occasions) but that is at most a recent to hold me to higher scrutiny - it doesn't, on its own, form a basis for suspicion. If you feel something is amiss in my play here, then go back and find out if there is any substantive basis to this 'feeling'.

[vollkan]

Sure, kab, I agree that some "words" and "turns of phrases" can be concerning. If you have found any said by me, then by all means bring them to the table of discussion and see whether there is any serious grounds for suspicion.

All you have presented so far is a declaration that you feel I am scummy. The fact that you are now 'appearing' more specific by referring to ambiguous words and phrases makes your suspicion of me no less baseless.

I was right last time.

Yeah, but back in Newbie 358 you actually had a case against me. It wasn't just "feeling".

[vollkan]

I'm just not really seeing the case, honestly.

I'll try and give a recount of the case.

Kab's first post D2 is this:

vote:Shteven

Take a look at his first line. Okay, it's the second line, but I don't count agreed as a line.

Agreed. I'd say it's most likely that he was doctor protected, and that mafia chose other targets instead of taking the chance on there being a doctor protection.

He says it's likely Jesse was doctor protected, he didn't say that the scum thought that Jesse was doctor protected. This means he was thinking about Jesse being protected. This makes me think he is scum who made what I believe is called a Freudian slip.

Then, Shteven in #150 responds:

I have a hard time seeing how this makes a case at all. I realize what you're trying to get at, but I'm capable of thinking that Jesse got doctor protection as a pro-town. It's not only scum who may have thought that. If only scum could ever think about doctor protections, everyone should be lynching Jesse now because there would be no reason for him to be alive.

Then:

My point, Shteven, is that you had no reason to be thinking about it. It's possible for a townie to think it, but why would you? It doesn't do us any good to think about, therefore why bother? However, for scum, thinking about whether the cop will be protected is high on the priority list.

Farside then makes the point that she and Phate had already made comments similar to those of Shteven and they hadn't been attacked by Kab at all. Then I also pointed out that Shteven was responding to a post by Fonz that implied a similar line of thought and, moreover, that this sort of thing is something that the town, in fact,

needs

to think about.

Then we have #156 by Kab:

I think it is good to figure it out as well. I was more concerned with the word choicing and placement. It struck me as scummy, and it is kinda hard to explain. It's a feeling more than anything, and I tried to explain it, apparently not very well.

Now it has shifting to "word choice" - but he also stresses that it is grounded in 'feeling' (there's my favourite word again ). It's basically just becoming very vague.

Then we get #169:

Okay... I think I found a better way to explain it. For instance, would a townie have to deliberate about whether or not the cop is going to be protected? No, we have no reason to, whether we think about it or not has no bearing on whether the cop survives the night.

For a scum, he has to sit and think and mull over the fact that there is probably a doctor, so should he take the chance and try to kill the doc, or should he just kill someone else.

But it was the wording that tipped me off to this fact. He doesn't say the mafia thought that he would be doctor protected, he just said, it's probable that he would have been, or something along those lines. So I took that to mean that he was deliberating about whether or not the cop was going to be protected enough, deliberating enough to post that fact.

I tore this down myself in #171 in some detail. Probably the most important point against Kab that comes from this post is that the last paragraph has Kab characterising what Shteven said as being of the type which most people would say was much less scummy (Kab, without explanation, seems to take a contrary view).

And, of course, now we have his baseless insinuations against me.

The case on Kab is not "mostly just tone" by any means. He attacked you individually for what was not only a bad reason, but was also something that other people had done also. Then he shifts and tries to justify his position on the basis of your word choices, but ends up characterising your actions as being not scummy (though, he doesn't seem aware of this).

[vollkan]

I myself have versed Vollkan as scum (he shot himself).

And, by shooting myself, I won the game

(Stargate SG1 Mafia. Endgame with me - scum but claimed mason, Oman - town busdriver, and DGB - town doc. I knew DGB would protect Oman and I figured Oman would be the type to use his power. Thus, I targeted myself, but it killed DGB)

[vollkan]

Vote: kabenon007

Newbie pouncing on the largest wagon with no explanation. Hmm...

@MelodyMan: I insist that you explain in detail why you personally think kabenon is worthy of your vote.

[vollkan]

He can't. Not without using the same data that he could just pick up from any of the other posts attacking me.

I'm not expecting him to come up with his own completely revolutionary case, but I want a decent summation of why he thinks you are scummy. If he really is casting a proper vote, that shouldn't be difficult to articulate.

[vollkan]

I knew I had to make a decision

This isn't actually correct. You don't

have

to make a decision. If nobody leaps out to you as scummy, it is not a good idea to just vote someone for the sake of voting.

[vollkan]

A question I have, is how many other times have you played with Vollkan? In your first post quoted above you mentioned that you played your first game against him. In the second quote you mention that you were right about Vollkan being scum 'last time'. Are you possibly saying that you only played 1 other game with Vollkan?

We've only played in

one

completed game together: Newbie 358. I was scum, and he was town. He suspected me throughout the game, but I managed to throw it off and the scum ended up winning.

[vollkan]

The only person who has jumped off was farside.

I'm as unconvinced by the "I was sick" explanation as you are.

[vollkan]

Nothing about my title is on my wiki article.

Also, you still haven't articulated any objective reasons (ie. non-gut reasons) as to how my play here "just seems different."

Moreover, what game are you comparing me to? Need I remind you that I was scum in that completed game.

[vollkan]

I'll quote you:

Well, my first game was with vollkan here on MS. I was town, he was scum. He did exactly what he is doing now: long posts, responding to everything thrown at him with long posts. He was scum in that game and I knew it, but no one else believed me. And I can't help feeling that this is exactly how he acted that first game... and I know I said it was how he plays everytime... but something just seems different.

I reiterate my question: In that game I was scum. Thus, I demand to know what you are referring to. If you have read other games of mine, then cite them and either justify yourself or relinquish this.

You've said my play here is "different" and that it causes a "scummy sensation in the pit of my stomach" - nothing more specific than that.

[vollkan]

@vollkan: I am composing a list of comparisons between this game and our last one, and I will search for relevant information in other finished games. Just so you don't think I am skimping out on you.

*baited breath*

[vollkan]

In the first post above you mention that you'd be okay with kabenon's lynch at some point, yet in your second it looks like you're backing off. While not much had transpired regarding kab between your 1st and 2nd posts above, what may have changed your mind?

Actually, nothing transpired at ALL between those two posts.

I would like to know why, with nothing intervening, Phate's position changes from:

I don't like kab's recent behaviour, but I wouldn't call it scummy enough for a vote.

to

This is where I would vote kab, except that it would put him at L-1

Anyway, kab is now at L-1.

I call for a claim from kab (and the ever-elusive compilation of comparisons).

[vollkan]

I'm actually having a little more trouble than I originally thought I would in coming up with a solid comparison. I thought that by perusing your games I would find some kind of difference. I've got to hand it to you, vollkan, your play in most of your games is similar all around. However, I am very much a feel player, and perhaps, in viewing it again, I had more of the same feel of the posts in this game and the first. Which, though I regard feel and tone of posts important, it is not enough for a vote.

And, though I wish I were more, I am but a simple townie. No powers at all.

So, ultimately, this was all just a wild goose chase I can't say I am surprised...My vote stands. His attack on Shteven was just dreadful and his feeling-based swipes at me were just as bad.

Given his

I should just hammer him and end this day, but strangely I believe he's a townie

Why? At this stage, any reasons you have against a lynch

need

to be considered.

Is there anything else you want to share about volkan before someone hammers you? Any other pearls of wisdom?

Yup. This is important. Kab, if you are town, the best thing you can do is to give as many thoughts as possible.

(And I won't be hammering Kab. I was the first to vote him)

[vollkan]

2) I haven't liked Vollkan's style of postings. He seems to be moderating the discussion rather than participating it. I don't know if this is a consistent play style, but most of his posts are just explaining things that have gone on between other players, sometimes including himself, but not always. He hasn't really hunted scum much. (That's some grade A hypocrisy right there!) This may seem contradictory, but I actually feel a bit of an SK vibe from him. The contradiction being that the SK has nothing to lose and much to gain from hunting mafia. Hey, I never said I was certain.

I admit that my posting has suffered somewhat this game due to the lack of stuff to analyse. The thing is that I usually play to the formula of "review" (usually with a PBPA) then "argue" (about my findings). This gets messed up when, as has happened here, D1 was so scant of anything meaningful. My ability to generate the snow-balling content I usually rely on has been castrated somewhat.

Kab has been the best firm lead I have been able to find thus far. I do think he is the scummiest thus far, and that he is a decent lynch. The global absence of readable behaviour, however, makes this somewhat concerning.

[vollkan]

Kab has been the best firm lead I have been able to find thus far. I do think he is the scummiest thus far, and that he is a decent lynch.

Is this inferring that we should lynch him and get it over with?

No.

I meant exactly what I said: Kab is the scummiest I have been able to find thus far and he is a decent lynch. By that, I mean that he is the scummiest relative to everyone else here, and that the case against him is decently lynch-worthy in a non-relative sense.

[vollkan]

Please claim now.

/second.

[vollkan]

In any case, kab, one of the problems with using the wagon for information is sheer numbers. If 8, now 9 people have voted for you - well, they're mostly town. Sorting them out is hard. There's scum on there, sure...But the scum have an automatic useful defense. There was town on there also. You can't lynch without town, so the lynch was reasonable, and so was there participation.

Yes, the lynch was reasonable. I don't for a second think that affords anybody a defense. People are judged based on their own individual play, not on the overall merit of a wagon.

Anyway, the first thing that needs to be done is to hear results from Jesse.

[vollkan]

I'm pretty sure that the claim i made answers your question. It seemed scummy to me that he would say that it was an honorable way to sacrificing himself to the town.

And acting honourably is a scumtell now? That's news to me. I suppose you meta'd him and checked whether or not this is something kab does.

[vollkan]

I don't think that a lynch is justified based on the fact Justin questioned people. First off, I ask myself "Wouldn't Justin have claimed asap if he had a guilty?" If I suspend judgment and say "Maybe not." then I encounter serious doubts about the reliability of his questioning as a scumtell for his questionees. For those that have not player with Justin before, he's as pedantic as I am about reasoning etc. and he questions very readily.

[vollkan]

First off, I ask myself "Wouldn't Justin have claimed asap if he had a guilty?"

NO! There was already a claimed cop and no guarentee of a doc. Why would ANOTHER cop claim be benefical when then likely 1 or no docs would have to protect them BOTH.

Jesus Vollkan, you're smarter than that.

That's what I was thinking in response myself, but I wasn't too sure of how correct that argument was. So, I "suspended judgment". The crux of my point was the latter part anyway - that, having played with Justin before, him questioning people doesn't suggest much to me.

[vollkan]

It does that he focused on three people like that.

But so far as I can see, he doesn't.

Just doing a cursory read: He questions wesaq, spacecase and Peers early on. Then he questions Jesse. Then later he questions Farside, kab, LTG and Shteven. Of course, kab, phate and farside are the first come the new day (in that order)

[vollkan]

I'm pretty sure that the claim i made answers your question. It seemed scummy to me that he would say that it was an honorable way to sacrificing himself to the town.

And acting honourably is a scumtell now? That's news to me. I suppose you meta'd him and checked whether or not this is something kab does.

SpaceCase is yet to answer this question of mine.

The important thing here is that the reason he finds for hammering is something very dodgy. Yes, he's a newbie, but that makes his apparent confidence on "acting honourably being scummy" all the more interesting to me.

[vollkan]

Phate hasn't posted since the 20th, and Fonz hasn't since the 21st. A prod is definitely in order.

[vollkan]

Listen the lynch was better then no lynch at all. And yes i did change my views 15 posts later.

Your views did a complete 180, and you made no mention of wanting to avert a No Lynch (not that that is necessarily a justification anyway). The fact that no lynch is usually better than lynch does not mean that you can backflip and jump on the largest wagon and then find yourself being held culpable unreasonable.

But the person to throw down the hammer is always going to look suspicious.

No. Each wagonee is as responsible for their vote as the hammerer. The way I see it, every time a person makes a post, if they keep their vote where it is they are reaffirming it. The mere act of hammering has no special significance - unless the vote is done too quickly, in which case it has the unique effect of severing discussion. But, aside from that, a crap hammer vote is as blameworthy as a crap first vote.

And adding to my point is (correct me if im wrong) that volkan even said he was a decent lynch.

As Fonz has already pointed out, I never said it was a bad lynch. I fail to see how my thoughts on this are relevant at all to your actions.

[vollkan]

Ok I'll bite. Spacecase is acting bizareluy and I don't like it; however, Volkan and Oman are making me nervous with this tunnelvision on Spacecase. Not necessarily scummy, but isn't that how Kab got lynched?

I'm wary of a repeat of yesterday, but spacecase is acting oddly (as you say) and I am going to question that as much as is necessary.

[vollkan]

Damn I hate to talk before the person has answered. but this actually references a previous point. I think its newbie.

What reference are you referring to?

[vollkan]

I don't want a repeat of yesterday, but the fact that Spacecase has gone into hiding seems to be strengthening the case against him.

Or he is just a newb that has given up because he is under attack (I've seen newbs do this regardless of alignment).

[vollkan]

Rigel, why do you think Spacecase is not posting?

[vollkan]

Actually, it's only been 4 days since he last posted.

[vollkan]

Welcome dahill.

Listen the lynch was better then no lynch at all.

I don't think there was an imminent deadline No-Lynch.
The lynch was, indeed, better than no-lynch.

But did you genuinely believe no-lynch was a possibility?

Your views did a complete 180, and you made no mention of wanting to avert a No Lynch (not that that is necessarily a justification anyway). The fact that no lynch is usually better than lynch does not mean that you can backflip and jump on the largest wagon and then find yourself being held culpable unreasonable.

this.

Could you clarify why you quote me here?

[vollkan]

*facepalm*

@dahill1: Explain why you think spacecase is scum.

That puts spacecase at L-2. I note with interest that the last three votes have all been justified explicitly on the basis of Spacecase's lack of posting.

[vollkan]

While there's a good chance that Spacecase is scum, giving him a chance to defend himself is probably more prudent than just lynching him for lurking.

This looks like scumbuddies to me. Alignment based FoS: MCD

Elaborate on this please, Oman. Why does it look like scumbuddies?

[vollkan]

Hmmm... I've found a couple of players on re-read that I think might be good suspects, but I'm thinking that I might keep their names to myself at this point unless someone else talks about them. My theory is that if I say their names in the thread then there's a good chance that the scum will kill one of them tonight if they're a townie, which means I get no use from my investigation.

This really boils down to a whole load of WIFOM.

Ie: If scum know you suspect someone (because you say so), and they know that you think they are likely to kill your suspect, it follows that they then have a good reason not to kill your suspect. In which case that gives you a good reason to investigate the suspect. In which case...etc.etc. round and round we go.

Short story: If you suspect someone, raise arguments and play as normal.

The other thing that I'm thinking is that we've probably got a doctor protecting me, so I won't give out innocent results in the thread any more unless the doctor dies or the player I investigated is in danger of being lynched. I figure that the less the scum know about who's confirmed town the better.

This is a good idea.

Of course, if a townie is put to L-1 and you happen to have an innocent on them, you should obviously raise that.

[vollkan]

I actually did state my purpose in why i wanted to lynch Kab. You just never really looked at it. I thought that it was scummy of what he started saying towards the end of the day. Plus i have been trying to answer all the questions you have asked such as the death threats and what not.

What I was hoping to get was a little more explanation as to exactly what about Kab's statement seemed scummy enough for you to hammer. Just saying that his statement seemed scummy doesn't explain much...

You said a couple of different things like:

- Kab was trying to be honorable, which looked scummy.
- Even Vollkan thought Kab was a good lynch candidate.

The fact that you would have Kabenon so low on your scumdar that you would caution the town against lynching him, and then shortly thereafter consider him scummy enough to hammer is of interest to me.

I'd really be interested in hearing in detail greater than 'oh, Kab's statement seemed scummy,' as to how everything played into your decision, and made you change your mind so quickly.

QFT

Space, the point here is that you were expressly against the lynch, but then you turned round based on the "honourable" thing and you seem to somehow rely on my behaviour. Moreover, you then appeal to hammer "always" being scummy

This raises the following questions:
1) Why was the honourable thing scummy? The last time you mentioned it was:

Kab, watch you said is scummy to me becasue you are trying to be "honorable", I guess you could say and just offering yourself up which I'm thinking is a last ditch effort to sway the vote away from you. vote Kabenon007

I'm pretty sure that the claim i made answers your question. It seemed scummy to me that he would say that it was an honorable way to sacrificing himself to the town.

You haven't explained how it is scummy. You've given an interpretation of his behaviour...and that swings your whole opinion round?!? Don't get me wrong, the honourable stuff is relevant and you should have brought it up, but it is hardly damning.

2) Reference to me. Explain the relevance of my behaviour to yours.

3) Hammer
I am talking about this post:

Listen the lynch was better then no lynch at all. And yes i did change my views 15 posts later. But the person to throw down the hammer is always going to look suspicious.

The first on the wagon is no less responsible than the hammerer. The fact you hammered is not the problem here - it's the fact that your hammer involved a last minute reversal (smacks of opportunism) and that your subsequent explanations have been scummy.

[vollkan]

Alright think about it, Kab starts refuting the claim that he isn't scummy and then he kinda turns around and says lynch me now. That didn't sit right with me when i heard it.

"Didn't sit right" with you? Does that make it strong enough to prompt your 180?

Also, sorry for quoting you volkan.

No offense taken ...

Now, explain why you did it.

[vollkan]

Alright maybe I try to explain better why I voted to kill Kab. When the first post happened I thought that the wagon was a scum driven wagon. I didn't think that he was scum at all. But, what Kab said 15 posts later changed my opinion. You can't tell me that you have never changed your opinion 10 to 20 posts later.

I hope that this gives you a better understanding of my thought process.

We're building up a picture of space's mind...slowly

1) Why did you think it was a scum wagon?
2) Who did you think were scum on the wagon?
3) Why was Kab's post enough to change you from not thinking he "was scum at all" to being lynch-worthy? I've changed my opinion many-a-time as well, but I can't recall ever not explaining why. I want you to explain to me what was

so scummy

about Kab's posts that it was enough to prompt a complete turnabout for you.

[vollkan]

Mafia can roleblock in this setup?

Nothing about mafia RB on page 1.

[vollkan]

@MCD: I know I'm not around as much, but I did state the following that still hasn't been answered or commented on. <snip>

@ farside

Here's a quote where you mention that most of the time, lurkers are scum. As we've got several of them in this game, do you stand by your comment that most lurkers are scum?

P.S. Didn't like the case on melody man day 2, still don't. Seems to basically be "he's lurking". Probably right on that, doesn't sell me as him being scum though.

It was also his lack of reasoning when he voted. Lurkers can sometimes be scum (most times). Depends on the person and if they know how to bluff well in these games.

Pointless comments, wishy washy and contraditory or also how I evaluate scum. Lurkers go on there because it's easy not to say much and vote out town as scum then trying to be involved in the conversation.

Pointless, wishy washy and contradictory are all valid scumtells in most cirumcstances...but lurking? It is easy to lurk and it can help scum, but lurking is not itself

scummy

. Anti-town, sure, but not scummy.

[vollkan]

@MCD: I know I'm not around as much, but I did state the following that still hasn't been answered or commented on. <snip>

@ farside

Here's a quote where you mention that most of the time, lurkers are scum. As we've got several of them in this game, do you stand by your comment that most lurkers are scum?

P.S. Didn't like the case on melody man day 2, still don't. Seems to basically be "he's lurking". Probably right on that, doesn't sell me as him being scum though.

It was also his lack of reasoning when he voted. Lurkers can sometimes be scum (most times). Depends on the person and if they know how to bluff well in these games.

Pointless comments, wishy washy and contraditory or also how I evaluate scum. Lurkers go on there because it's easy not to say much and vote out town as scum then trying to be involved in the conversation.

Pointless, wishy washy and contradictory are all valid scumtells in most cirumcstances...but lurking? It is easy to lurk and it can help scum, but lurking is not itself

scummy

. Anti-town, sure, but not scummy.

but wouldn't you agree that anyone that is anti-town should lynched?
i say either let them participate or lynch them

Absolutely not.

Town wins by lynching scum, not by lynching the anti-town. Now, I don't mean that lynching anti-town is always stupid. The classic "We don't want the active lurker in WIFOM" is a good example of where it can be a very good idea to lynch a lurker. But just lynching players who are anti-town as a matter of policy is doomed to fail - because town can easily be anti-town.

[vollkan]

@Spacecase:

You do realise how ridiculously hypocritical you are being?

You accuse the wagon of being scum-driven, despite the fact that you yourself probably cast the scummiest vote of all. Your justifications have been sliding all over the place and now it comes down to "gut" (word of advice, never use

that

word in a game with me. Ever.)

I'm mildly curious as to why no-one's answered my question about what they think SC's motive to act like that as scum could have been.

Which post?

[vollkan]

I'm not sold on SC being scum, but I wouldn't put the stupidity you have raised past SC.

[vollkan]

but how about pressure L-1?

I am none too keen on the way you are trying to build up this wagon by calling for a "pressure L-1". No significant increase in pressure will result from L-1 as opposed to L-2.

Spacecase has begun lurking, which suggests avoidance. That in itself may or may not be scummy, but the fact that things are moving so slowly adds further cause for concern.

[vollkan]

Im not trying to lurk and avoid trust me that makes for a boring game and somewhat pointless for me. I'm really lost on the whole claim thing thoguh.

So what exactly are you trying to do?

After dropping off in activity, you return and make a post saying that you aren't trying to lurk.

Don't you have

anything

meaningful to add?

You've gone from craplogic -> gut -> lurking. This really doesn't look good.

If you are town, your motivation should be to help. So, here are my suggestions:
1)

CLAIM

- See Fonz's explanation of the process above. Tell us your role, dammit.
2)

OPINIONS

- Tell us who you think is scum (preferably with something more helpful than 'gut'.)

Vote: Spacecase

Claim now, please.

Claiming means to say what your role is.

Do you think that putting an under-pressure who is looking disgruntled at L-1 prior to a claim is really a good idea? He's in the "critically at risk" category for self-hammers.

[vollkan]

Only scum have a reason to self-hammer. And you should know my position on self-voting town players by now.

Exactly. Only scum have a reasonable excuse to self-hammer. But unreasonable newb town also do it.

[vollkan]

I believe Spacecase's claim. So sue me.

I really dont know what else to do here. I'm gonna vote phate as it's the only scum like thing I have going here. I got a lot of gut feelings and question marks, but nothing else concrete. Maybe voting him will bring him back, though I'm doubting it. I know SC has been lurking too, but at least he bothers to show up. vote: phate

I remain skeptical. I will look into Phate nonetheless and see if he is viable scum.

my reasons for suspecting you is because you switched quickly from saying Kab is town to heavily suspecting him, just like Spacecase.

Okay, this applies to them both.

also, as i pointed out before, you hadn't realized cipher had claimed which is scummy in my book. scum don't always have to read through the thread. they can just look for when they are mentioned and defend themselves to slip by. i'm not saying scum always do that, but it is more likely for scum than town to do that.

Bullshit.

You've made an assertion about what is more likely. You haven't given evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I will do better than just ignore this, I will prove it wrong with my own assertion.

Ahem: Scum have more to lose by being caught out making mistakes or missing power roles. Thus, it is more likely that scum will pay closer attention to the thread.

furthermore, the fact that the confirmed townie and cop suspect you does somewhat contribute to my suspicion. . i think that even though he might not have investigated you, Cipher's opinion should be the most highly valued because of his pro-town power role. LaptopGun also should have a valued opinion because he is confirmed town. there is a chance he could be the GF, but i believe him to be town.

This sort of thinking is viciously anti-town. Not scummy per se. But anti-town. See House Mafia for why I think this.

The fact they are confirmed (at least as likely confirmed as antithesis is) has no bearing on whether or not they are right or wrong.

[vollkan]

i unvoted because it appeared no one else was going to vote him. in fact, i think some people unvoted him.

How exactly does that affect you justifiably unvoting?

This is basically the (old) Battle Mage defence. I know it harms the town, but I always do it, so it's ok.

And the problem with the old BM defence is that it legitimises scummy play providing you are consistent, making it globally anti-town.

That said, I believe Cipher and, thus, I believe LTG. It's just a pain that this has happened.

[vollkan]

i unvoted because it appeared no one else was going to vote him. in fact, i think some people unvoted him.

How exactly does that affect you justifiably unvoting?

it didn't appear to me that SC was going to be lynched, so I voted Phate and made a case against him because he was the next most suspicious.

The purpose of lynching is to lynch scum? Yes or No.

If yes: The best player to push a lynch of is the scummiest player? Yes or No.

If yes: Why then are you voting your second most suspect?

[vollkan]

To try and understand this:

You are saying that the difference in scumminess is made up for by the fact that SC's lynch seemed less likely to go ahead?

If so, why? I also don't accept "lack of participation" as a reason. That may have as much to do with people just being bored as with lack of enthusiasm about SC.

[vollkan]

@Vollkan: I do think you're skewing the situation slightly. Lynches tend to happen (in theory) in two steps. First, people make accusations/cases on other players, and vote for who they think is scummy. Then, the town as a whole has to analyze the various targets and collectively pick one. One player cannot lynch anyone alone. Now I'm not a fan of dahill's recent play either, but after expressing your choice there does come a time when in order to lynch someone the town must start agreeing. I would have mentioned that this is what I was doing and repeated that player A is still my first choice but that I'd be willing to lynch player B before moving the vote, but every day in mafia there's someone who isn't getting their first choice lynched.

As Fonz said, he was at L-1. It doesn't exactly meet the scenario of an untenable lynch.

But, even if it was unpopular, if you think someone is scum and there is no imminent peril of deadline, it doesn't make sense to go after somebody else, unless you are insincere in your scumhunting.

Now what really intrigues me about the 2nd more recent post above, is that when you switched to dahill, that you mentioned you were suspicious of Melody Man, seemingly implying that you've been suspicious of dahill (and his predecessors) all along.... If you were really so suspicious, why did you forget about them completely on Day 3, until now?

:goodposting:

So why the need to remind everyone that you previously mentioned Melody Man as scum?

There is considerable "comfort" (for want of a better word) in relying on past suspicions as a crutch. It makes one

look

like one is more consistent. Usually this works, but farside didn't return to dahill, which begs the question as to why.

[vollkan]

Okay, well then, did you read the part where I said that whether or not Spacecase is scum, he

should

be lynched today regardless? I don't think that going out on a limb and casting a single vote on Farside is very pro-town at this point.

I take 'should' as meaning - works towards win condition. If you disagree with me, substitute your own meaning.

Now, this is pretty simple: Town wins when all scum are snorting cocaine with Heath Ledger. (BEST WIN CONDITION EVER! )

Thus, explain to me how lynching SC regardless helps the town's win condition.

You previously stated:

In the end, I guess what I basically want to say is that we should, and likely need to lynch Spacecase today. Regardless of whether or not you believe he is scum. Spacecase's lynch will do two things. It will reveal his alignment, allowing us to further study his lynch in terms of that, and will progress us to Night, where Cypher can investigate someone else. Yes, it will also allow scum and the possible SK to act, but we've still got a lot of townies out there. I think we can make a potentially dangerous strategic play for one night.

Funnily enough, you can substitute anybody's name in that paragraph for SC and it makes just as much sense.

Here's one I prepared earlier:

"In the end, I guess what I basically want to say is that we should, and likely need to lynch Rigel today. Regardless of whether or not you believe he is scum. Rigel's lynch will do two things. It will reveal his alignment, allowing us to further study his lynch in terms of that, and will progress us to Night, where Cypher can investigate someone else. Yes, it will also allow scum and the possible SK to act, but we've still got a lot of townies out there. I think we can make a potentially dangerous strategic play for one night."

Would you agree with the above example? If not, why not?

(And you better have a good explanation, or you had better get your coke-spoon and cowboy hat ready)

[vollkan]

Now, this is pretty simple: Town wins when all scum are snorting cocaine with Heath Ledger. (BEST WIN CONDITION EVER! )

...Whoa? Too Soon?

Not for me. I was ridiculing Steve Irwin on the very afternoon of his death (...and nearly got beaten up for doing so)

I have a problem with people being all upset and grieving over celebrities dropping off whilst many people die every day in absolutely deplorable circumstances (poverty, starvation, etc.)

[vollkan]

So my first post implied I read it. I later explicitly stated I didn't give it the attention it deserved. That seems pretty clear that I'm claiming I didn't give it enough thought. You should be suspicious of me because I posted too quickly without considering it. But you can't say that because of the initial post that I clearly read the post carefully when I've flat out stated that I didn't.

Now, the problem I have with this is that I cannot envisage any reasonable townie posting "How can people read Rigel's last post and not be voting Spacecase? It's about that time..." (Which is seriously strong language) without having actually read the argument.

It suggests very strongly that you are simply being driven by a desire to lynch, rather than a desire to lynch well (ie. to lynch scum).

@MadCrawdad: I don't feel that you're taking the post that you are quoting in the context of my argument. I'm not saying that we should lynch any player regardless of alignment. I'm saying that we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole.

This is immensely slippery.

Let's go back to your initial thoughts shall we:

In the end, I guess what I basically want to say is that we should, and likely need to lynch Spacecase today. Regardless of whether or not you believe he is scum. Spacecase's lynch will do two things. It will reveal his alignment, allowing us to further study his lynch in terms of that, and will progress us to Night, where Cypher can investigate someone else. Yes, it will also allow scum and the possible SK to act, but we've still got a lot of townies out there. I think we can make a potentially dangerous strategic play for one night.

In other words, you are calling on people to lynch SC even if they don't suspect him due to information and progressing the game. As I have already shown, this logic applies to absolute anybody.

Now, in your latest explanation (the quote above which begins with "@madcrawdad") you alter that to say "we should lynch a scummy player who isn't contributing to the game for the sake of the town as a whole". That wasn't your initial position, which was to lynch SC no matter what just for info and progress. You slip in the adjective "scummy" now, to make it seem less ridiculous, but that just amounts to a sneaky adjustment of the position you initially advocated, despite you attempting to appear consistent.

@Vollkan: I agree with your post, except for two things. One is that I know that I am not scum, which none of you will believe but I know to be true. The second is that I am only being called out for this one particular 'mistake', whereas Spacecase has had an entire case leveled against him.

So your defence amounts to:
1) I'm town
2) SC is worse

That said, shouldn't we be voting a player who has:

1. FoSed someone, then in the next post claimed they were a bad lynch, then in the next post hammered them?
2. FoSed a player because using 'feelings' is apparently a weak argument, then justified a subsequent vote by
3. Done little-to-no scumhunting throughout.
4. Used craplogic (because you [vollkan] agreed with the lynch, my flip-flop can't be scummy).
5. Hasn't answered half the questions directly posed to him.
6. Claimed to be 'not trying to lurk' and didn't add anything else, therefore active lurking.
7. Has claimed townie.

We really should be, but we are pretty much spoiled for choice right now

[vollkan]

That first quote in your post appears to be mis-attributed to Spacecase.... actually it was Shteven who said it...

oops..

They both begin with "S"

[vollkan]

THis is looking really weird. Frankly, it looks like Volkan is acting by himself and wants Rigel lynched, Fonz and MCD really want people to vote Shteven, Fonz really wants SC dead already before we do anything else, and dahil is like "dont forget about phate" then shteven doesnt look good. I am not liking that we are suddenly all divided (granted I think the previous consenus is a townie).

Actually, it's not true that I am exclusively in favour of Rigel. I can see the sense in any of Rigel, Shteven or SC. The difficulty at the moment is deciding which.

[vollkan]

@MCD: Good posting. I eagerly await his responses.

I'm not entirely convinced by Phate's claim, but I am not about to lynch him now.

[vollkan]

You really seemed to be very wishy-washy with regard to taking a stance on Kabenon. If your real point was, as you claim, that you weren't sure what to think, then why post that? Seriously. How many people post just to say 'I'm not sure what to think...' How does that help the town?

It doesn't. Being non-committal and confused gives you an out to take whatever convenient pathway comes along. Had he said "I don't want to lynch kab because...." then he would have lacked an effective out.

Deadline looms large, so my thoughts:
I do not like the way Rigel and Shteven have handled the SC wagon. Rigel seems worse overall, however, as my posts criticising him ought to have made apparent. Thus,

Vote: Rigel

[vollkan]

Gah. I'm dead tonight, so I might as well claim my innocent result. Any objections?

There is a small chance of a second doc, but I wouldn't risk the loss of information. Go ahead.

I will reread behaviour yesterday (and the days before if anything new crops up) and comment.

[vollkan]

I'll wait a little longer to give my result, but I'll definitely call it before nightfall.

For the record, I believe that Justin's Night 1 investigation was an innocent on vollkan. This theory largely revolves around this post, in which Justin seems to be basing his case against kabenon on the presumption that vollkan is town.

Since you bring it up, I guessed precisely the same thing from that same post. Justin and I have played in a few games together and we both think of each other as rather formidable. Usually Justin analyses me with a toothcomb, which made me guess that he had gotten an innocent on me - since he didn't challenge me at all in relation to kabenon

[vollkan]

As username mentioned, he and his predecessors have been wrong on each of the three lynches. Wesaq was voting for Spacecase at the end of day 1, which I consider possible distancing.

I wasn't aware of this fact. I don't think it is voteworthy in and of itself, but you've just given me an impetus to conduct a pbp on him. I should get round to it soon.

[vollkan]

I don't think it makes sense for me to wait any longer, now that I seem to have been confirmed by assumption anyway. I am the remaining mason.

The reason I am claiming now is because MCD left me with a wealth of information, that I think we should use.

I can't quote the PMs from him, according to the rules, but the most important thing is that his main suspect on N3 was Fonz.

Reasons were as follows:
1) Wishy-washy stance on the Kab wagon
2) Posts 397, 415, 499 (where he agrees that MCD could be SC"s buddy), 522, 582, and 591 where Fonz defends SC.
3) By 593, Fonz seems to be shifting his position and in 604 he calls SC 'likely scum'
5) In 614 he threatens SC with a vote, despite making no case

[vollkan]

Picking up prod; lost track of this game. Oman seems to be the direct this day is heading towards at this point in time. Usual caveats regarding respect for his replacement ought to apply: it's obviously better that we let whoever it is speak before coming under pressure etc.

I can't say that Oman has stuck out as overtly scummy to me thus far, but that may simply indicate that I have let him slip by up until this point. Thus, a review of Oman is in order.

[vollkan]

If I claim an anti-town role, I get lynched anyways.

Why did you mention this possibility?

I'm not trying to deflect, I'm just trying to point out your overly aggressive stance.

If dropping hints isn't enough, I'll just come right out and say it. I'm NOT mafia. I'm a townie. Lynching me isn't going to end the game.

Hmm...I have my doubts as to whether you are not mafia, but you don't affirm whether or not you are SK. Dcorbe, if you are SK it is of crucial importance for your own sake that you claim right now. I don't want to reveal why at this point in time, because it will play right into the mafia's hands, but the way this game has panned out, in this particular setup, means that if you are SK, you can only win at this point in time by claiming.

I know this may sound highly counterintuitive but, if you think hard enough, it should be obvious why you need to claim.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

@Dcorbe: Just to clear something up, in case it is not obvious to you, the reason why I am giving you as SK advice is that the numbers indicate that the mafia is the most tremendous threat to both you and us (the town). Consequently, it is in our mutual interest to defeat the mafia. Again, I can't be specific with numbers because it will play into the mafia's hands, but you ought to be smart enough to see why claiming can only benefit you.

[vollkan]

Yes, it is. My assumption is that the SK will have the brains to work out what I mean, without requiring me to spell it out and alert the mafia. The longer the mafia is in the dark, the better. Am I right?

[vollkan]

I may have over stated my point a bit. There's a difference though between blatantly defending and really aiding me right now in my time of need.

From the point of view of the mob right now, the odds are bad with 2, but worse with 1. If I were personally in that position (which I am not) I would come to the defense of another in this particular situation, hope that the serial killer gets a townie, lynch a townie, and nightkilll a townie. Now game balance is in the mob's favor.

I really REALLY hate the use of "I am not scum because people aren't coming to my defence" as a defence.

Dcorbe, there is a very very good reason for scum to blend in with the town. Ultimately, no single player can hope to derail a wagon without launching a powerful case on another person. That's hard to do. Consequently, rational scum will very often bus their partners no matter what the odds - it avoids being caught defending poorly and, if done properly, will make them seem pro-town.

[vollkan]

Actually, the SK would still have a slim chance of victory if he claimed now (see my earlier post). dcorbe should get a chance to claim SK if that's what he is, otherwise I'm thinking this wagon is probably going to end in his lynch. To be clear: the town categorically does not want to lynch the SK today.

I think that the makeup of the wagon may have something to with activity, though that doesn't completely explain it.

I've already claimed. If I go back on my word and claim "SK" all that does is provide even more ammunition for my aggressors to sit back and say "that's a scummy move" and lynch me.

I'm walking on egg shells with spiked shoes here

You're inexperienced at this game, which would explain the gross error in your post here.

First off, if you are town you absolutely should not claim SK under any circumstances. Let me stress that firmly. The reasons for this are related to my other 'reasons' that, as before, I would prefer not to have to reveal in thread.

That said, if you are SK then claiming SK most definitely will

not

result in your lynch. Maybe it's because you lack experience, but the reason for this should be

pretty obvious

. To give you some idea as to why I am advocating this: SK claiming will cause both the SK's chances of success to elevate, the town's chances to elevant, and the mafia's chances to plummet.

[vollkan]

Claim: SK

Dcorbe, you may be interested (and probably very pissed off) to know that everything I have been saying about it being good for the SK to claim was complete and utter bullshit. I laid a trap, and you fell right into it.

I am sure that you are not town now, since I expressly told you not to claim SK as town. Which means that you are either town, or mafia. Either way, I want you dead. NOW.

With my might hammer, I smite thee:

Vote: dcorbe

[vollkan]

Here are the numbers quickly:
10 alive.
7 : 2 : 1
MafLynch = 7:1:1
-MafNK town = 6:1:1
--SKNK town = 5:1:1
--SK NK mafia = 6:0:1
SKLynch = 7:2
-MafNK town = 6:2

If we lynch mafia (and, dcorbe may very well be mafia, remember) then we are most likely at 5:1:1. If we lynch SK, we are (assuming no Power effects) at 6:2. I think 6:2 is much more preferable. All it takes is a single mislynch in 5:1:1 to place us in some very messy situations.

[vollkan]

Alright, so our situation is now 5:1:1. That's a reasonable position, especially given the level of information we now have.

On another note, I think the events of yesterday thoroughly refute any justification for Lynch-all-Liars. I lied and it scored us a mafia scalp.

[vollkan]

As far as armix goes, I dont think the mafia or the sk would really push for the lynch of a suspect like he did. Also a mafia/sk would not have put up with. No disrespect ot you iamausername, but I feel he was the one who really pushed the lynch of dcorbe. He was in early enough where it doesn't look like bussing a partner.

In this game, the SK can safely scum-hunt well, because there are confirmed and semi-confirmed townies whom are much bigger targets for the mafia. Consequently, I think a SK would push a strong lynch of a suspect, if only to free up their NK choice.

As far as armlx being mafia, I certainly haven't ruled it out. I don't think it would help for me to explain why at this particular point in time, but he is not cleared.

[vollkan]

I can't really think of much to add at this point, I've gone over each player. I still think Fonz is the best lynch choice, let me know if you guys agree or disagree.

Given the arguments you make, and MCD's suspicion of Fonz, I am inclined to agree with you here. I'll reread Fonz myself to be sure, but the evidence for SK-Fonz is certainly there.

[vollkan]

It's very interesting that dahill assumes that Fonz is the SK...

[vollkan]

Duh! If we go after mafia, then dahill dies.

Amirite dahill?

[vollkan]

Means nothing. I voted 6A with my first post after the JG claim. Voting players with claimed guilties on them really is a matter of opportunity rather than position. Are you honestly claiming it matters how early or late you vote in that scenario? Are people who quickly vote in response to a claimed guilty more likely town?

I think it less likely generally that scum will be on their partner's wagon but, once a scumclaim occurs or things otherwise look inevitable, scum want to get on asap.

Keeping his vote record to a minimum? What does that even mean? And how would an anti-town player benefit from it? You're attacking me for not votehopping? I'll give you one thing, at least it's original.

Agreed. The number of times somebody votes is irrelevant to their alignment. What's important is the extent to which they are clear about their opinion. I can't recall whether or not that was the case with you, Fonz, but I don't think your lack of voting is, of itself, anything more than a nullity.

Fonz, i'm not voting you because you have a bigger wagon, but it is between either you or armlx right now, for me. and armlx currently has no votes, so i voted for you because you did have more votes

This is bullshit. So you have a choice between Fonz and armlx - rather than reasoning your way through, you hop on the biggest wagon. Simply choosing on that basis is indefensible.

[vollkan]

Ugh! This situation is dreadful.

Right now the situation is 3:1:1.

In a mislynch, best case scenario is cross-kills; worst-case is we end up in 1:1:1.

Now, I am in a rather difficult position here. As a single confirmed among 4 potential scum, my words are going to carry considerable clout. That makes me concerned. I would prefer it if I could function as an inquisitorial judge than as the centre of everybody's attention.

Of course, I will make my views known, but I don't think there is any help in me doing so immediately

[vollkan]

Something going on here? Waiting for some responses. Obviously Vollkan's response is probably the most crucial, but I'd like to see some posts here Wink

Been about 50 hours since the last non-me post Wink

Mod: Prod Vollkan please.

I'm here. I'm in the middle of my exam block at the moment, so I can't get round to doing any enormous super-reviews at this point in time. I will comment on what has been said thus far though:

Shteven- 7 points (3 from armlx, 3 from Fonz, 1 from username)
Fonz- 7 Points (3 from Shteven, 3 from username, 1 from armlx)
Armlx- 5 points (2 from Fonz, 2 from username, 1 from Shteven)
Username- 5 points (2 from Armlx, 2 from Shteven, 1 from Fonz)

We clearly have 2 tiers among the unconfirmeds, the very scummy, and the moderately scummy.

I'm interested in Vollkan's comments or additions to this.

I don't know how keen I am on you characterising there as being two clear tiers. Fine, two people were higher than two other people, but I frankly don't see it as creating some magical cleavage.

At the moment, my thoughts are scattered and I can quite readily conceive of any of you being scum, so I think it frankly misleading of you to describe the results of your lists in this manner. Moreover, let's bear in mind that two of the unconfirmeds are scum - so half of the rankings are basically just created by self-interested parties. That's hardly a reliable guide for separating out the scummy from the less scummy, is it?

How does this indicate scumminess? Basically, I agreed with Rigel's anti-spacecase post quickly because it's end goal was the same as mine: lynching spacecase. I had only skimmed the post and rushed my endorsement of it, so later I had to retract agreement with some of the individual claims (most of them not about spacecase). If anything, it shows a overzealous desire to lynch spacecase - which is much, much more likely a town behavior than an SK concerned about his survival. There was no reason I had to push the spacecase wagon that forcefully except for my own belief that it would benefit the town.

So, basically you claim that you were proceeding on an "ends justifies the means" basis. I frankly can't see that sort of thing coming from a player who genuinely has the town's best interests at heart. For you to be town and hold that approach, you would have to be proceeding on the wholly arrogant basis that you were absolutely 100% certain in your suspicions, to the point of disregarding what anybody else said.

3. The moving off of spacecase's wagon, which indicates to me an indifference to who gets lynched, and a desire to force claims from multiple people (plus the obvious benefit of leaving a player much scummier looking than himself alive to swing in future days).

Erm...what?

How does changing wagon suggest indifference and a desire for multiple claims? That's like claiming that voting evinces a desire for a quick-lynch.

4. Frequently preaching caution, ie trying to look like the wise and rational voice of town- a cheap way to buy trust.

And also a cheap thing to attack.

Right now, in light of what I read above, my inclination is to see armlx as likely mafia and Shteven/Fonz as SK.

[vollkan]

And two people (the scum) gave their rankings entirely out of self-interest.

[vollkan]

Damn. Good game. This game reached its end at the worst possible time for me - right in the middle of exams. It prevented me from making a proper review but, going by what I suspected and what the result was, it seems I was on the wrong track anyway.