Mini #643: Time Capsule Mafia, Game Over

[Ythill]

@ roff: A lot of good points. FTR, the evidence for my preference of playstyles was anecdotal, based on experience playing and reading games. The only question I have is about this...

Nice to know that the data wasn't obvious

Sarcasm or sincerity?

@ Yos: You've already explained... a bunch of BS.

Nobody worth their role was going to claim in that spot.

I said that scum wouldn't vote late

and

hammer and only eluded that town wouldn't lynch someone so quickly, so you are misrepresenting my argument.

When you talk of others following onto the wagon, you state, as evidence, a hypothetical situation and completely neglect the fact that, if a wagon were to get too close to lynch that early, townies would have started unvoting.

You are looking at the idea of wagoning in a vacuum, neglecting to consider when and how it occured.

Stating that an action is anti-town because it's more likely to hurt town than help them is not an explanation. You can't give a realistic reason why that statement is true or valid. So you

are

just repeating yourself.

Your arguments lack any basis in reality yet you have opted to stick to them stubbornly. You've played some slippery tricks, like the I-never-said-you-were-scum-I-said-you-did-something-scummy tactic. You posted bombast unsupported by evidence. You held your unvote in front of me like a carrot, as if I will ignore evidence against you for fear of your non-case. And now you've fallen into the you-did-it-to-get-reactions-so-me-reacting-isn't-scummy line.

I'm not defending, I'm fishing for mafia. And it seems like I've found one.

Vote: Yosarian2

[icemanE]

If I had said, "Wash that pan so we can cook bacon," would you assume that I was saying the pan was bacon?

Um... no, but that's not the same as saying "Vote:X so we can lynch scum." Essentially your comparison implies that you didn't mean to say that the vote itself is scum, which of course you didn't, but saying "I'm voting for this person so we can lynch scum" ... no matter how you read that sentence, within the context of a mafia game (not a cooking lesson), you vote for someone to lynch them, or at least because you consider them scummy, so if your reason for voting someone is "so we can lynch scum", it is obviously going to appear as if you're voting for that person so you can lynch scum.

In a flurry of drunken cross-posting, I seem to have glazed over a couple of relevant points.

Using inebriation as an excuse for poor posting or reading... just wait until you're sober and do a good job.

Right, because someone is going to claim @ L-3 on page 1, with no cases against them. A player stupid or reactive enough to do that would be doomed anyway. Try coming up with something more realistic.

If that stupid or reactive player is a cop or a doctor or something else useful for the town, it's still totally disadvantageous to pressure them into claiming. I don't see your point.

Nobody worth their role was going to claim in that spot.

Again, regardless of whether or not they're "worth their role", forcing a protown role to claim is pointless and can only harm the town. If someone doesn't "deserve" to be the cop or tracker or any other useful role, it doesn't mean they won't be helping the town every night.

I said that scum wouldn't vote late and hammer and only eluded that town wouldn't lynch someone so quickly, so you are misrepresenting my argument.

WIFOM, and by your own logic above, roles are randomized - it's just as likely that a poor player will be scum as it is that a good player will get the role - so you can't have any idea what scum will or will not do.

When you talk of others following onto the wagon, you state, as evidence, a hypothetical situation and completely neglect the fact that, if a wagon were to get too close to lynch that early, townies would have started unvoting.

Scum can ALWAYS rush a lynch when the town isn't looking - there's no guarantee that every protown player is sitting at their computer clicking the refresh button to see what the vote count is at. Your use of the "Hypothetical situation" argument is invalid, as you earlier stated that it's not anti-town to lynch for someone we don't know is town - which is an entirely hypothetical situation.

You are looking at the idea of wagoning in a vacuum, neglecting to consider when and how it occured.

The how and when are what's scummy about the wagon - if the wagon came after Darox did something blatantly scummy, I'd be fine with it and would probably be on it.

I'm still happy with my vote on Ythill.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

[quote="clammy"Hang on, that sentence is a completely false and self-defeating interpretation, it starts with Ythill being a VI or similar ("look how cool i am...") and ends with the assumption that Ythill's action was clearly anti-town, a point that is popular right now but is sure as heck up for contention as I for one don't believe it's done anything but draw out gaugeable reactions already in who took what action in an easy jump-on-Ythill moment. You then go on to say that Ythill is being somewhat OMGUSy, but if anything he's calling what he states is a trap a trap and voting based on a ploy that got 4 suckers in early. [/quote]

VIs tend to be anti-town ("anti-town" being defined as actions that are bad for the town, not necessarily scum), so that's not really contradictory. I don't think ythill is really an idiot, I just think he's trying to be a little too clever.

If it's so obviously anti-town, how come the only explanations for that theory are so full of holes? My vote was a null-tell. However, opportunism and pushing a null tell as an indicator of alignment are both scummy.

I agree that your vote was a null-tell, in the sense that its become the cool thing to do, bandwagon page 1. But acting as if you've somehow done something meaningful by getting people to say, "hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't put someone at L-3 on page 1,"

that's anti-town because its such a poor trap.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Wow, I screwed up like everything in that post. Where I say "darox wrote," what I meant was ythill.

[petroleumjelly]

Day One Vote Count #2

3 Darox (roffman, clammy, SensFan)
3 Ythill (Yosarian2, icemanE, Rotten Snitch)
2 Yosarian2 (TheSweatpantsNinja, Ythill)
1 clammy (Darox)

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch! Deadline August 18, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 3 – Battousai, melikefood, pacman281292

[pacman281292]

I'm feared of Ythill. His strategy (quoting posts from everyone and making comments that (I think) are pointless) reminds me about my first online mafia game (A large normal or theme, I don't know how to classify it), where someone was quoting everyone's posts, making pointless comments, and voting and FoSing. I got suspicious of him and (oh surprise) it was my first lynched scum!

I find Ythill's super-quoting posts extremely like those. But, that isn't enough reason for voting.

FoS: Ythill

, reasons above + placing someone at L-3 without serious reasons.

NOTE: link to the game I'm talking you about. The guy I'm talking about was lynched a lot of pages later

[Ythill]

Again, regardless of whether or not they're "worth their role",

forcing

a protown role to claim...

Laughable. My argument was that the largest percentage of players wouldn't claim in that spot with that stimuli. In the few cases where someone would be

that

bad at this game, that they'd have been revealed soon anyway. It's a solid point.

Yet you somehow twist it to where I am "forcing" a claim. There was no claim. There was no threat of a claim. Now you're fear mongering too.

Using inebriation as an excuse for poor posting or reading... just wait until you're sober and do a good job.

Now my personal habits are of concequence? I may have missed a couple of points due to posting slowly last night, but apparently I still understand what's going on here better than you are pretending to.

WIFOM, and by your own logic above, roles are randomized - it's just as likely that a poor player will be scum as it is that a good player will get the role...

Very tricky. I post a statement (only dumb scum would vote there and we'd be likely to catch them because of it) which Yos twists (to me saying that town wouldn't vote there) and I clarify (simplifying what I said about scum to illustrate the difference from town) and then you twist that simplification to mean something else entirely. Did I really find two buddies or was your misread an honest error?

Scum can ALWAYS rush a lynch when the town isn't looking...

And thereby seal their fates. You are expecting us to believe that some trio of scum and misguided townies was going to rush lynch less than halfway through page 1, without any of the four current voters unvoting, and without enough of a challenge to dissuade them, and not leave any trace of who was responsible. I suppose it is

possible

, but it's highly unlikely. A risk worth taking for the information we've gained so far? What about the information we'd have gained as a result of that speed lynch? I think so.

And even if these risks were considered serious (1) they'd be even less likely if I was scum and already on the wagon and (2) you'd have to show that I'm one of those mythical "dumb scum" to even try a move like that. So ask clam and Sens (who have both played with me as scum) or do a quick meta to find out if I'm "dumb scum."

I'll say it again: baseless fear-mongering... and now pursued to the point where it's become distracting. Everybody is aware of your poorly argued, ill-conceived stance.

...acting as if you've somehow done something meaningful by getting people to say, "hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't put someone at L-3 on page 1," that's anti-town because its such a poor trap.

How do my delusions of grandeur hurt the town? The trap did what the trap did regardless of how important I think it was. And it

did

do good for the town. We're not talking about people who said the "hey guys" line from the above quote, we're taling about people who moved quickly and decisively from random to serious voting and pursuing cases against someone for

a single null tell

.

Sure, some of them are misguided townies. Snitch, for example, doesn't seem all that suspicious to me at this point. Yos and ice on the other hand... my hardest decision is to determine which one is acting the scummiest.

To those who understood what I did and aren't caught up in the shit-storm: please post your impressions of the people who stumbled into the trap.

[Ythill]

@ pacman: Meta me (instead of some other guy who is not me). I post in this manner as either alignment.

[roffman]

unvote vote: Ythill

No offence, but your method of posting seems to be dancing around answering questions and generating suspicion on everyone else indiscriminately. You have supposedly found scum from page 1, yet you haven't focused on them, trying to make them break. Instead you have been targeting everyone who even looks at you, and tried to twist the meaning of every post.

[melikefood]

Sorry about my inactivity, my focus was heavily shifted on my other game.
Re-reading...

[Yosarian2]

(nods) Yup, and the obligatory OMGUS vote.

Never mind that lots of people think what you did was scummy, Yahill. Never mind that even a fairly minor scum tell, which your initial vote certanly was, is certanly worth a vote on page 2. Do you really think that me voting you, for an actual and logical reason, is somehow worse then a random vote would have been at that point?

My initial vote, I made pretty clear, was only slightly better then random, and, like I also made clear, was more designed to deter the anti-town behavior then because I thought it was all that likely Yahill was scum. But since he OMGUS voted me for doing what any pro-town person would have done in that situation, I'm now completly confident in my vote. Let's get the wagon rolling.

[Yosarian2]

Eh, I guess I'l actually respond to Yahill's post, even though he's scummily refusing to actually respond to any of the logical points I've carefully explained so far:

@ Yos: You've already explained... a bunch of BS.

If my arguments are "BS", then why have you refused to actually respond to the logical points I made?

Nobody worth their role was going to claim in that spot.

Not unless someone else voted for him. And I think the odds are disturbingly high that if I hadn't come in and screwed up your wagon at the moment I did, that the next person coming into the game might have done the exact same thing you did. And a lot of people have a policy of always claiming at lynch -2.

I said that scum wouldn't vote late

and

hammer and only eluded that town wouldn't lynch someone so quickly, so you are misrepresenting my argument.

Well, I was never talking primarly about what the scum would do, so your whole "argument" completly ignored the point I made in a scummy way.

When you talk of others following onto the wagon, you state, as evidence, a hypothetical situation and completely neglect the fact that, if a wagon were to get too close to lynch that early, townies would have started unvoting.

Dosn't matter. One more vote, and it's lynch -2, probably followed by a claim. It's too late to unvote at that point.

You are looking at the idea of wagoning in a vacuum, neglecting to consider when and how it occured.

Day 1. 5 posts into day 1. That IS wagoning in a vaccum. Waggoning is fine, so long as there's a reason behind it.

Look. All I've wanted you to do was to try to convince me your vote was not as anti-town as it looked. OR, failing that, at least try to convince me that there's some way YOU might have THOUGHT your vote was not anti-town. Instead, your reactions to a few votes have been INCREDIBLY OMGUSy and scummy, to the point where now I'd be perfectly happy to see you get lynched.

Stating that an action is anti-town because it's more likely to hurt town than help them is not an explanation. You can't give a realistic reason why that statement is true or valid. So you

are

just repeating yourself.

I explained 3 times!

Your arguments lack any basis in reality yet you have opted to stick to them stubbornly.

Um...my arguments are 100% based in simple, clear, mafia theory, and based on your actions.

You've played some slippery tricks, like the I-never-said-you-were-scum-I-said-you-did-something-scummy tactic.

Well, it was a minor scumtell, so no, I didn't really think you were all that likely to be scum. If a random lynch is, say, 25% likely to hit scum, then a minor scumtell like that might bump it up to, say, 35%. Worth a vote this early in the game, but not really a big deal in the big picture.

Your massive over-reaction to a perfectly logical and thought-out vote, however, is a much larger scumtell. I've now moved to the point where I'd be perfectly happy seeing you hang today.

You posted bombast unsupported by evidence. You held your unvote in front of me like a carrot, as if I will ignore evidence against you for fear of your non-case. And now you've fallen into the you-did-it-to-get-reactions-so-me-reacting-isn't-scummy line.

...

Um...wasn't that your defense?

And yes, when I attack someone

with reason

on day 1, I am always interested to see their reaction.

I don't honestly understand how me, putting the FIRST vote on you, with good reason, is supposed to be more scummy then you putting the FOURTH vote on someone else, with ZERO reason.

Also, when I first voted for you, you started with the "Yos looks town" stance; when I then logically answered your question and explained why your vote was scummy and anti-town, you suddenly turned and started calling me scum. Why? Because, from my point of view, it looks like you're attacking me in order to try to defend yourself, and that's usually a sign of a scum in trouble.

I'm not defending, I'm fishing for mafia. And it seems like I've found one.
Vote: Yosarian2

(nods) And this, my friend, is by far the scummiest thing you, or anyone else, have done this game. You have completly failed to explain how any of my attacks against you have been scummy; or why my vote for you is any worse then any of the other votes for you; or why it's scummy that I don't like your vote when clearly lots of other people also don't like your vote. Because from where I'm sitting, considering the 180 degree turn you've made over the last two pages, it looks like you're attacking me simply because you are desperatly trying to undermine my case against you. Which is odd, since my initial case against you wasn't that strong, and I always SAID it wasn't that strong; this kind of desperate, OMGUSy over-reaction from your part looks like a pretty clear scum tell to me.

[Battousai]

I think Ythill should be the lynch for today as well. Even if he is town, we will have a lot of information to go on D2 based on his "trap." But I don't like a page 2 lynch, therefore I'm holding my vote on him until later.

[melikefood]

I'm a bit reluctant to vote as well.
It's a no-reveal game, so I'd like the scumtells to be a bit more solid.
(Lulz get it? it sounds like I'm talking about food.)

I'm leaning more towards a vote towards Ythill than a vote on Yos though.

[Battousai]

Dang, forgot it was a no reveal game. My last post was assuming that it was like a regular game.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Well, it was a minor scumtell, so no, I didn't really think you were all that likely to be scum. If a random lynch is, say, 25% likely to hit scum, then a minor scumtell like that might bump it up to, say, 35%. Worth a vote this early in the game, but not really a big deal in the big picture.

Your massive over-reaction to a perfectly logical and thought-out vote, however, is a much larger scumtell. I've now moved to the point where I'd be perfectly happy seeing you hang today.

I. . .

support yosarian2's views.

[Darox]

I stand by what I said before.

Yos(s)arians arguments look sound, and it looks like Ythill's initially good reasons are crumbling.

[Ythill]

@ Yos:

I set a trap, questioned each of the people who fell into it, and voted for the one that dropped the most scumtells. That isn't OMGUS. That's me trying to make a good decision.

My "massive overreaction" was not in response to your vote alone, but to your inclusion among the four voters and MAINLY the way you've acted since then.

I explained all of my reasons for voting you, and you even quoted some of them. Now we can add to that list: claiming that something is true because a number of people believe it (scum can falsely inflate a majority); citing a supposed trend (a lot of people have a policy of claiming at L-2) out of context (do those people claim @ L-2 half way down page 1? please link to "a lot" of evidence); etc.

I feel these things are scummy because you made that reasoned vote for a single null-tell and, when I pointed that out, you went to great lengths, stretching logic, to argue your point. To your credit, it may just be that you can't stand losing an argument, but I'm keeping that in mind before I push you too hard.

Also, when I first voted for you, you started with the "Yos looks town" stance; when I then logically answered your question and explained why your vote was scummy and anti-town, you suddenly turned and started calling me scum. Why?

I thought you were too experienced to fall into that trap as scum, which is a problematic argument but could have been a valid one. Since then, your stance has proven that one of two things is true: (1) you've not had extensive experience with the tactic I used [null-tell, but cancels my initial argument for finding you more pro-town]; (2) you are scum who felt that you could argue your way through the trap and turn the tables on me; or (3) you are town/neutral motivated by ego, and have trouble admitting when you are wrong [something to consider before lynch, but not before putting pressure on you].

Seriously Yos, I know you've been playing this game a long time. Take a deep breath and look at the situation. My vote was a null-tell. I questioned the people that attacked me for it. You took a very questionable stance to prove that you were right. I voted you for that stance. Does that really indicate my alignment, regardless of your own?

[Yosarian2]

@ Yos:

I set a trap, questioned each of the people who fell into it, and voted for the one that dropped the most scumtells. That isn't OMGUS. That's me trying to make a good decision.

Sigh...it's possible you are actually being honest here, since I've seen newbies try this before, so let me lay it out for you.

If you act scummy, then pro-town people will vote for you. It's that simple. Trying to get people to vote for you and then attacking them when they do is not a "trap" that makes any sense. You seem to think that your move somehow magically would only get scum to attack you and not get town to attack you, but that dosn't make any sense at all; townies are usually the agreesive, scum-hunting ones; scum are more likely to sit back and wait. Your claim of a "trap" makes even less sense in a no-reveal game, where we won't even find out your alignment after we lynch you.


"How I've acted since then" was to logically explain my actions.

Again, if most of the rest of the people in the game agree with what I'm saying, then I'm pretty clearly making good logical sense, even if it dosn't feel like it to you (which it wouldn't, since you're the one being wagoned here.)

I explained all of my reasons for voting you, and you even quoted some of them. Now we can add to that list: claiming that something is true because a number of people believe it (scum can falsely inflate a majority); citing a supposed trend (a lot of people have a policy of claiming at L-2) out of context (do those people claim @ L-2 half way down page 1? please link to "a lot" of evidence); etc.

The fact that most of the people in the town agree with me, and that the clearly can't ALL be scum, shows that I am making sense here to basically everyone except for you. If you don't think I'm making sense, it might mean that you're a scum who's delibrartly refusing to understand logical arguments, or it might mean that you're just not seeing it clearly since you're the person being wagoned here. In this case, "a number of people believe it" don't make what I'm saying

true

, but the fact that basically everyone agrees with me does indicate that I am making logical sense, and making logical sense is not a scumtell.

And nice try with that "please link to a lot of evidence" line, considering that you created a situation day 1 that basically almost never happens. It really dosn't happen that someone gets wagoned so fast on day 1 for absolutly no reason without even posting. So, no, I can't link to "a lot of evidence" that they would claim, and you can't link to any evidence that they wouldn't claim, because the situation just dosn't come up; I've played a lot of games, and I can't think of any analagous situations.

I feel these things are scummy because you made that reasoned vote for a single null-tell

You can't just declare your action a "null tell" and expect everyone to believe it, you know.

and, when I pointed that out, you went to great lengths, stretching logic, to argue your point. To your credit, it may just be that you can't stand losing an argument, but I'm keeping that in mind before I push you too hard.

Well, I'm not going to stop arguing when I'm right, and I clearly am here. If you keep asking and trying to attack me for it, I'll keep explaining. Your action was completly worthy of my day 1, post 6 vote, and I would do the exact same thing in basically any situation on that stage of day 1 when I was town. How do you not understand that?

Did you really not think that your action there would cause pro-town people to vote you?

I thought you were too experienced to fall into that trap as scum, which is a problematic argument but could have been a valid one. Since then, your stance has proven that one of two things is true: (1) you've not had extensive experience with the tactic I used [null-tell, but cancels my initial argument for finding you more pro-town]; (2) you are scum who felt that you could argue your way through the trap and turn the tables on me; or (3) you are town/neutral motivated by ego, and have trouble admitting when you are wrong [something to consider before lynch, but not before putting pressure on you].

Lol...that's funny, becuase I'm trying to figure out if you are scum who's trying to fight his way out of a paper bag here, or if you're town you are motivated by ego and are having trouble admitting when you're wrong. I'm leaning towards the first, but the second is certanly possible.

I really hate the whole "I acted scummy on purpose because then people would vote for me and that would mean they were scum" defense you're trying to make here in any case.

Seriously Yos, I know you've been playing this game a long time. Take a deep breath and look at the situation. My vote was a null-tell. I questioned the people that attacked me for it. You took a very questionable stance to prove that you were right. I voted you for that stance. Does that really indicate my alignment, regardless of your own?

Your vote was anti-town (which, btw, is somewhat distint from scummy; scummy means that scum are more likely to do it then town; anti-town just means it hurts the town). You asked me why I voted you, and I explained that you did an anti-town action day 1, so I voted for you, because this early in the game I'll certanly vote someone who does an anti-town action; at that point in the game, anything that's better then a random vote is good (unlike your vote, which was significantly worse then a random vote, IMHO), and because it would deter other people from doing the same thing. At which point you completly flipped out, accused me of "fear-mongering", tried to strawman me and make it sound like I said things I never said, and started desperatly and illogically trying to attack me from that point on. I don't understand why a pro-town person would react like that to my simple, and logical, explination; I do understand why a scum might try to undermine the person who was leading a wagon against him. So, your reaction to my vote is the main reason I think you're scum here.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I don't understand why a pro-town person would react like that to my simple, and logical, explination; I do understand why a scum might try to undermine the person who was leading a wagon against him. So, your reaction to my vote is the main reason I think you're scum here.

Exactly. I was sort of rolling my eyes at the "trap," but all this OMGUSy persistence is really tripping my scumdar.

[icemanE]

please post your impressions of the people who stumbled into the trap.

Please pull your head out of your arse and realize that what you did was not a trap, as Yos has explained several times. Putting a 4th vote on someone for no reason and then not expecting people to vote for you for it (and then going even further and calling those who voted for you scummy) is idiocy.

Additionally, accusing Yos and I of being scum buddies because we agree (along with most of the rest of the town) that you are worthy of the votes put on you is ridiculous, as is the "fear-mongering" concept.

we're taling about people who moved quickly and decisively from random to serious voting and pursuing cases against someone for a single null tell.

According to you, your vote was the first to remove us from the RV stage:

Feel free to confirm that I do not random vote.

The "single null tell" which wasn't null in the first place may have started the wagon, but what you've said and done since then is what has fueled it.

Everything I've said in addition to what Yos has brought up and your OMGUS style of play makes me happy with my vote still.

[Rotten Snitch]

I'm siding with everyone else. Ythill had gone after me for my FoS and badgered me into voting him. Attacked me for it and then he states I am town?

Sure, some of them are misguided townies. Snitch, for example, doesn't seem all that suspicious to me at this point. Yos and ice on the other hand... my hardest decision is to determine which one is acting the scummiest.

I hate when players try to claim a trap. It is the easiest out when someone finds a scummy post. The classic "I meant to do that to weed out scum" it's BS. I have not seen any traps actually work so far. I think Ythill's 1st post of the game is a little too early to lay a trap. Usually most traps take time to set up and spring. All Ythill did was bring the attention on himself and his reactions to the towns actions is IMO making him look scummier. My vote is already on Ythill and until something happens it will stay there.

[Ythill]

If you act scummy, then pro-town people will vote for you.

Still repeating nonsense. For my action to be "scummy," you have to demonstrate, with evidence, how it serves the purposes of scum. None of you have yet to explain, reasonably, how it would do so. All you've done is made up highly improbable situations (like forcing a claim).

You seem to think that your move somehow magically would only get scum to attack you and not get town to attack you...

Quote where I said anything like that, liar. I knew it would get a mix, and I've explained that fact, and acted on it. Hence my questions, and then my attacks.

And nice try with that "please link to a lot of evidence" line, considering that you created a situation day 1 that basically almost never happens.

Way to turn it around. It was you who pretended to have knowledge about what "a lot" of players would have done there, and that was your main argument for the red herring about forcing a claim. Now that I call on you to share evidence of what you said to be true, you make it look like it's my fault the evidence doesn't exist.

The fact that you can't link to a single example doesn't prove that I am right, but it proves, definatively, that you are full of shit.

The fact that most of the people in the town agree with me, and that the clearly can't ALL be scum, shows that I am making sense here to basically everyone except for you.

Which only demonstrates that you are good at mafia, a fact that most of us already know. Convincing others makes you neither correct nor honest. Claiming that it does is another of your subtle lies.

I really hate the whole "I acted scummy on purpose because then people would vote for me and that would mean they were scum" defense...

What defense? You haven't posted a single scumtell. You've even said, explicitly, that you believe scum are most likely to sit back on D1. So you've posted a towntell on me. As I've said 6783151823875123 times, I'm on offense against you right now.

Post a reasonable case and I'll defend myself. Like I did in response to questions/accusations from Batt, Darox, and pacman.

At which point you completly flipped out, accused me of "fear-mongering", tried to strawman me and make it sound like I said things I never said, and started desperatly and illogically trying to attack me from that point on. I don't understand why a pro-town person would react like that to my simple, and logical, explination; I do understand why a scum might try to undermine the person who was leading a wagon against him.

Speak of the devil... See... this is reasonable, and I do argue pretty fiercely when I'm applying pressure, so I understand the "flipped out" part. But I never straw-manned you, and I didn't misrepresent you that I know of. My attack against you has been neither desperate nor illogical, and I challenge you to quote where it has.

You have made up very unlikley situations and claimed they were likley. You have claimed (and repeated) that an action was suspicious and/or anti-town without being able to prove how it would be likley to hurt the town. You have misrepresented what I said. And you have done a lot of other subtle little tricks to try and discredit me, which makes me respect your level of play but also further demonstrates your alignment to me.

So, your reaction to my vote is the main reason I think you're scum here.

My

only

reaction to your vote was, "@ Yos & Batt: Your votes jump to a conclusion. Please explain why my vote L-3 would have been more likely to come from scum." You answered this with a far-fetched explanation about how I was endangering the town, and have yet to prove why you would actually believe such a fantasy. And

that

is when I started attacking you.

Additionally, accusing Yos and I of being scum buddies because we agree...

Haha. First, I "accused" you of being scum buddies because you seem smart but, like Yos, you are using slippery arguments and improbable hypothetical situations to make me seem anti-town.

Second, you missed the sarcasm. I don't really think I'm smart or lucky enough to have caught two scum D1. What I believe is that at least one of you is scum so I'm keeping my eye on both.

Ythill had gone after me for my FoS and badgered me into voting him. Attacked me for it and then he states I am town?

I asked you questions (not "badgered"). In the course of answering them, you droped a couple of towntells. I pushed a little to make sure, but the read remained. I don't understand what's suspicious about that.

FTR: I also find Batt and TSN reasonably townie though, to be honest, it's too early for

any

read to be 100% and I've still not read back to do any deep analysis.

[roffman]

Still repeating nonsense. For my action to be "scummy," you have to demonstrate, with evidence, how it serves the purposes of scum. None of you have yet to explain, reasonably, how it would do so. All you've done is made up highly improbable situations (like forcing a claim).

Which is a benefit for scum. Irrespective of whether it is probably or not, the fact remains that the possibility is there, and the benefits that you say helped you to vote have not magically appeared yet.

And nice try with that "please link to a lot of evidence" line, considering that you created a situation day 1 that basically almost never happens.

Way to turn it around. It was you who pretended to have knowledge about what "a lot" of players would have done there, and that was your main argument for the red herring about forcing a claim. Now that I call on you to share evidence of what you said to be true, you make it look like it's my fault the evidence doesn't exist.

The fact that you can't link to a single example doesn't prove that I am right, but it proves, definatively, that you are full of shit.

It is common knowledge that some people who get to L-2, irrespective of other circumstances, will always claim. They do this to prevent meta reads. I know that I personally claim at L-1, even if it occured on page 1.

The fact that most of the people in the town agree with me, and that the clearly can't ALL be scum, shows that I am making sense here to basically everyone except for you.

Which only demonstrates that you are good at mafia, a fact that most of us already know. Convincing others makes you neither correct nor honest. Claiming that it does is another of your subtle lies.

Claiming that skill at mafia effectively blinds most of the players in this game is just wrong. Skill enables someone to make a case out of minimal information, and misdirect attention. It does not make people believe false reasoning, and also doesn't make people jump onto a wagon with no actual evidence.

Post a reasonable case and I'll defend myself. Like I did in response to questions/accusations from Batt, Darox, and pacman.

Are you actually reading this game?

You have made up very unlikley situations and claimed they were likley. You have claimed (and repeated) that an action was suspicious and/or anti-town without being able to prove how it would be likley to hurt the town. You have misrepresented what I said. And you have done a lot of other subtle little tricks to try and discredit me, which makes me respect your level of play but also further demonstrates your alignment to me.

When did Yos say they were likely? As far as I can recall, the point was that despite being unlikely, the action was still anti-town.

Oh, and for his little tricks, a couple of examples would be nice.

TLDR: Ythill is still scummy

[petroleumjelly]

Day One Vote Count #3

4 Ythill (Yosarian2, icemanE, Rotten Snitch, roffman)
2 Darox (clammy, SensFan)
2 Yosarian2 (TheSweatpantsNinja, Ythill)
1 clammy (Darox)

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch! Deadline August 18, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 3 – Battousai, melikefood, pacman281292