Newbie 767 - Game Over!

[MordyS]

Hey everyone. This is simultaneously my first game on mafiascum, and my first game of Mafia ever. I just finished reading the last six pages, and I'm going to try and lay out my considerations. If I missed something (either in reading the posts, or in assumptions/misunderstandings about the game rules), please let me know.

The major narrative so far seems to go as such: The player for whom I'm taking over started a bandwagon on Wolf. He specified having secret motivations for doing so. As I don't share those motivations, I can't help and explain why he voted for Wolf. I can, however,

Unvote

.

Porkens, one of our two (illustrious, I'm sure) IC's, brought Wolf up to a L-1 vote. The best summation of his reasons for doing so appear in post 119. His central argument seems to be an attempt at stirring the pot. Though I take exception with a number of his observations for how the pot was stirred, he certainly stirred something. And voting up to an L-1 is not precisely the same thing as dropping the hammer. Especially since the only scum motivation for voting to an L-1 would be setting up a scum-partner to close the deal. As the deal wasn't closed (and looking at the votes now, Wolf is down to 0), presumably Porkens intention wasn't to setup Wolf's lynching. I cannot imagine a scum reason for voting to L-1 without closing the deal, especially this early in the game.

So, where does that leave us? I disagree that Wolf "reacted poorly to being at L-1," as Porkens suggested. It seems to me that new players will often betray emotion. The rigor of eliminating emotion in posts would presumably come with experience. Therefore I don't see his appeal to emotion as being indicative of guilt. Moreso, once the stress of votes were removed, Wolf became fairly conservative in his posting. When Porkens went after Platypus, Wolf responded with, "While I understand how you would find Platypus suspicious, the way you phrase the sentence seems to indicate that you are very sure of him being the scum. How can a town be so sure of anything, especially at this stage of the game?" The only scenario by which Wolf would need to defend Platypus is if both Wolf and Platypus were scum. The only thing they seem to have in common to me, though, is that they have both been under scrutiny by Porkens. I don't see any other indication of guilt here. Especially since if Platypus were in fact scum, he would presumably dropped the hammer on Wolf to lynch him.

(Though, now that I write it out, I can see a plausible scenario where, in fact, Wolf and Platypus are both scum. Wolf, by no fault of his own, accumulates votes reaching L-1. Platypus refrains from dropping the hammer so as not to condemn his teammate. When some momentum then began to build behind voting Platypus - Porkens and Phelan both voting for him - Wolf did not join in to apply pressure. This despite the fact that Wolf encouraged applying pressure w/r/t Ethan when he said pressuring idle players can be effective. This would also explain Wolf's attempts to defend Platypus, and possibly I'm being too generous in my reading above. He is not being cool and collected, but rather attempting to save his teammate very casually.)

I don't feel I know enough about Muzz, Delathi, Archaist, or Korlash yet to make any kind of more informed decision. As is, though, I don't feel there's a preponderance of evidence yet. I'll

Vote Platypus

though. This will put him at three votes. I also invite Wolf to bring that number to four. It will still be L-1, putting the same pressure on Platypus that was once on Wolf, and it will also give some confidence that Wolf and Platypus are not working together. Obviously if someone drops the hammer immediately afterward, that would be a good indication in-and-of itself.

P.S. I'm thrilled to be playing with you guys. One quick note: The Passover holiday starts tomorrow so I'll be a little sporadic over the next week. I will make my best effort to post at least once a day, though. But I may have to miss one because of the holiday.

[MordyS]

One more point/question; While I think that placing pressure on people is valuable (anything that produces drama, creates posts, would seem to give us an advantage in terms of analysis/discussion), I'm not sure I see the Town's advantage in demanding a claim. Scum would simply lie (though they could only claim VT, or risk contradicting an In-Play role), and we would risk giving up a power-role. Shouldn't claiming then just be used as a last-resort? Ie: Just to make sure that at WORST we're only killing a VT and not someone more valuable? I feel like this group pressure to claim random people can only benefit the scum.

(In particular, I'm asking this question at

you

, Porkens. What did you feel you had to gain from forcing Wolf to claim?)

[MordyS]

Archaist, I noticed, asked how forcing someone to claim this early in the game could possibly benefit Townies. It occurs to me that only a Townie would be interested in that kind of information. A member of the Mafia might have asked a similar question, but would likely couch it in different terms.

Compare Archaist's question:
[q]To me this sounds like Porkens is trying to get Wolf to claim some power role, which would help the mafia more than it would help the town. The town already has reduced odds on determining the orientation of a player, so any extra information, be it a true claim or not, will not help the town as much as it would the mafia. If Wolf did claim a power role, town players would not know if he was mafia making a fake claim or not, making the probability of the truth of his claim 1/3 (mafia, townie, power townie). However, the mafia would know for sure that he was town and thus have a 1/2 chance (townie, power townie). So, Porkens, unless you can explain why you think making someone claim will help the town more than the mafia, you have my vote.[/q]

By contrast, take a look at Delathi's framing of a similar question:
[q]As a question of information, why would anyone possibly claim anything other than "vanilla townie" at this point? Claiming scum gets you lynched and claiming power townie gets you night killed.[/q]

I don't understand the point of trying to force someone to claim now.

While Archaist seems most concerned with establishing a Townie win, Delathi seems to question why anyone would tell the truth. Obviously many people - like Townies - would want to tell the truth. Does Delathi's question smack of a hidden bias? I think so, though perhaps not enough to condemn him quite yet. Moreso, Delathi was one of the people to vote on the Wolf bangwagon. As I've already written, I see fair reasons for that bandwagon (stirring the pot), however, the moment Platypus pointed a finger at delathi ("You were one of the people making him claim. Is there a reason you're voting him?"), delathi immediately unvoted with barely a peep ("I left my vote there because I wanted to hear the reasons and debate... Unvote: Wolf.").

Finally, and this is the piece of evidence I believe is the strongest at the moment, delathi writes in Post: 111, "I figured I'd learn more about how the game is played by watching that conversation for a while than unvoting immediately and removing the cause of argument," fair enough so far but: "Especially since it didn't look, to me, like anyone was going to throw the final vote on Wolf." I'm a little confused here, delathi. How could you possibly know that? How did it not look to you like anyone was going to throw the final vote? If this was a scum setup, they could've been waiting a reasonable + non-suspicious period of time before throwing the hammer. Your confidence is either misplaced, or indicative of guilt. If you had inside-information, as the scum have, then you might have been better able to determine the likelihood of a final vote on Wolf. For the time being then, I'm FOS @ you, delathi. I'd like to hear my fellow townie's thoughts. Does this conjecture sound suspicious to you?

[MordyS]

You don't think that wolf is scum, but you can see me and him being scum, so we're scum?

Incorrect. I see a possible scenario where you're both scum. I am fairly sure that defending each other is generally considered suspicious, especially as there have been fairly large group moves towards each of you on this first day, that you both abstained from. But I am far from certain, or even probable, that you are both scum. The scenario I proposed was simply to air our some of my thoughts and try to ascertain what some potential situations could be. My vote was for entirely different reasons; to help promote some drama and get people talking. I'm of the opinion that anyone who has been too hesitant to "start things up," or has remaining fairly quiet, is immediately suspicious. I'd like to see you start some things up. (And if you have, and I'm forgetting the particular post at the moment, please remind me.)

[MordyS]

Btw, "I don't understand the point of trying to force someone to claim now," was apart of the quote and I left it out accidently (in addition to flubbing the bbcode).

[MordyS]

delathi: "I'm assuming the scum aren't stupid and that town is rational and isn't going to rush into a lynching without a good reason. Maybe that is naivety on my part"

Actually, this reminds me of a question I had. From some other threads I've read, it seems that lynching anybody is always preferable to lynching nobody on the first day. Even though it's random and likely that a Townie is lynched, the votes to lynch (and the responses to a certain extent) always reveal information. Is this accurate? Should we be looking to lynch someone today, even without a preponderance of evidence?

Archaist: "Hearing the mafia's thoughts would be useful too you know. They might trip up and reveal something or just simply add to the discussion."

Sure. They might. Or they might try to distract from my FOS by engaging in the argument poorly, or pointing to something else entirely. I trust scum to lie and obfuscate. I'm interested in getting them talking, but not as interested in hearing them "add to the discussion." If you were a member of the Mafia, though, I can see you being offended by your assumed alienation from a conversation. Moreso, as I believe I haven't said anything to make you mistrust my allegiances, it seems particularly scummy to point the finger at me for simply expressing the pro-Townie agenda. Why would a pro-Townie declaration be suspect unless you were a) trying to sow discord among Townies or, b) attempting to draw speculation from yourself by raising unsupported allegations against others? (Or, potentially, c) Just unnerved by pro-Townie declarations because they reactivate your own anti-Townie beliefs.)

[MordyS]

I suppose my question was broader. In a newbie game, I imagine the scum will give away their positions (just out of inexperience if nothing more). But in non-newbie games, wouldn't scum be proficient enough to

not

giveaway their positions on the first day?

[MordyS]

That was a pretty big reaction on your part to just a small quote of mine.

I don't see it that way. You questioned my pro-Town sentiments without justification. I think it's natural to express one's own inclinations. I think it's more suspicious to question those inclinations, or to keep one's own inclinations private. Why would someone pro-Town keep that to him/herself? Only a member of the Mafia needs to be surreptitious. The rest of us only benefit from laying our cards out on the table - with obvious caveats. (And though your point, which amounts to "thou dost protest too much," is well taken, I don't believe I was either protesting, or overstating. It was simply a mention.)

Moreso, my third point wasn't an ad hominem. I wasn't attacking you personally. I was suggesting that discomfort with pro-Town sentiments might stem from a lack of such sentiments yourself. There is nothing personal about such an argument. I suppose I'd like to treat your raising of "ad hominem" as a deflection, but I suspect you were either just unclear of the definition of ad hominem, or you misunderstood my comment. For what it's worth, I don't suspect you of being scum (though the squeaky wheel will eventually get the grease), just over-anxious to point the finger without evidence.

Though perhaps I am reading the wrong thing into your comments. So let me ask you straight out, if we are to lynch someone today, who do you believe it should be? I note that you haven't voted for anyone (briefly for Porkens, but you've since unvoted him). Why no vote? No suspicions?

(To respond to your claims a + b: a) Making unsubstantiated claims against pro-Town members sows discord since it turns people on the same faction against one another. b) Fine. I'm now speculating against you. The truth is, even if no one has speculated against you yet, they could soon. The longer that you keep the attention on someone else, the longer you keep it off yourself. Present speculations are not the only ones that need to be taken into account.)

[MordyS]

I'll admit, incidentally, that I have trouble distinguished being over-zealousness to prosecute and scum trying to draw the attention on innocent members for poor reasons. Over-zealousness to prosecute is a poor attribute, but not necessarily an indication of guilt. Do the IC's have any recommendations for how to distinguish between the two? Is it just a gut feeling?

[MordyS]

This stuck out to me in a reread. It was in regards to Wolf.

What struck you? He claimed being a Townie. We don't want him to declare a powerrole if he, indeed, has one, do we? That'll just make him a target. What do we have to gain from forcing him to say "vanilla townie" or saying otherwise?

[MordyS]

Or did it strike you that Muzzz was insisting on a full claim (which might shed some suspicion on Muzzz)?

[MordyS]

[quote=Archaist]Yes, everyone would claim townie if asked, but why would you claim something without anyone asking, especially since it's such a worthless claim?[/quote]

Your harping on this, despite explanations being provided by both myself and Korlash, is either tedious or suspicious. For the record, I was using an expression that seemed innocuous and not worthy of comment. I was merely asking for feedback from other players. I was also, to a lesser extent, attempting to rib non-town players by suggesting their feedback was less valuable (ie: I only want to hear from my friends). If you're being authentic, I'm sorry you found that simple statement suspicious. I certainly wasn't trying to provide unasked for bonafides. Your argument appears to be that only a scum would call themselves a Townie out-of-the-blue. Isn't the alternative possibility more likely, tho? That a townie with nothing to hide would naturally make mention of that fact? To return to an earlier argument I made, townies rarely have anything to hide. Why would they think twice about mentioning their allegiance in a casual manner? Which is to say it wasn't a claim, it was a rote conversational manifestation.

If you are in fact being disingenuous though, it makes sense that you would continually repeat this unessential point. Perhaps in the hope of derailing the conversation, or appearing as though you were scum-hunting when, in fact, you were making mundane arguments. This would be consistent with your claim that you "do not find anyone suspicious enough to merit a vote." If your intentions were to remain under the radar, confuse the discussion, and lead to a no-lynching (and therefore giving advantage to the Mafia), this is precisely the pattern you would pursue. As stated before, though, I suspect you are not being disingenuous. I think you're just being over-zealous about inconsequential facts.

(Though I do wonder: You find my comment suspicious, but not suspicious enough to be worthy of a vote? It seems to me that something is either suspicious, or isn't. If you find the comment suspicious, you should be putting a vote down. If you don't, and you're just being disingenuous, you would likely not vote. Ie: The suspicion isn't sincere, you just want to waste time and distract.)

[MordyS]

(Btw: I really need to figure out these tags better. Is there a tag guide I can consult?)

[MordyS]

To go back to other suspicions, and hopefully to get the ball rolling again: I feel that Platypus, who now have three votes on him, has not eluded suspicion enough yet and I'd like to hear more from him. I'm also still suspicious of delathi (for the reasons stated in post 158, as well as some subsequent posts from other players). I'd like to hear more from him.

Archaist, I'm happy we had this exchange, even if I disagreed with the presumption at the heart of it. I think it's told me a bit about both your, and Korlash's character. That really only leaves Muzzz and Phelan from whom I feel I haven't heard close to enough.

[MordyS]

EBWOP: "I feel that Playpus, who now has* three votes on him." Just a grammar correction.

[MordyS]

(Two very quick things.

a) The first is that the holiday I mentioned above starts in like 5 minutes. So my posting until Sunday is about to become very sporadic and infrequent. I apologize beforehand and hope I posted enough information beforehand to give people a good idea about me and enough content to discuss/analyze: As has been stated a couple times by myself and others, the more text, the better it is for Townies.

b) The second is a quick question: I read somewhere about how one can view all the posts from one individual in a particular thread. It was a suggestion for how to compile an effective Post-by-Post summary. I don't remember the technique though. Can someone in the know explain it here? Thanks!)

[MordyS]

Simply asking a few questions tends to work surprisingly well.

Then here are two questions before I go:

1) You feel that lying low is generally a bad idea at L-1, and I'm inclined to agree that it is a bad idea for the player at L-1 (he's about to be lynched after all). But is it a bad idea for the Town? If he gives away a powerrole, we're at a disadvantage, and the only other alternative is to call himself a Vanilla Townie. What could we possibly gain from him claiming explicitly? And, relatedly, why would you ask him to claim after he already called himself a Townie? Isn't his only other possible claim to out himself as a powerrole?

2) You wrote that "Yes, I do. I'll agree that the reasons he stated weren't necessarily bad. But nothing in that post confirms that he had those reasons up front," about the fact that you're still registering a vote for Porkens. Isn't this a bit of a logical fallacy? It is just as likely that his reasons are authentic than that they are not authentic. That he didn't state them upfront seems a poor reason for suspecting him. After all, he could have made them up beforehand just as easily as making them up afterward. If both possibilities seem equally valid, your vote is either capricious or poorly thought out. No?

[MordyS]

Porkens, do you think it would make sense if me or PlatypusDude now voted for you, asked you to claim, and justified it the same way you have been doing?

Me, Phelan, and Archaist hadn’t posted since the L-1 vote. I don't feel like he should have guessed how we would react. I think newbie townies generally would unvote in that situation. I also feel there's been a general lack of scumhunting considering the amount of posts he has.

Two considerations for Phelan:

1. I'm actually not sure exactly how suspicious it is. My gut says it is suspicious that you both reached for each other when making rhetorical arguments, but that could be a coincidence and not a tell. (Pretty lazy Mafia if that indeed is a tell.)

2. More interesting, I think, is that - after knowing that Platypus considered Platypus' statement evidence against you (regardless of the validity of that evidence) - you provided him with more of the same kind of evidence! And then instead of attempting to argue away that evidence, you simply asked if it makes you seem suspicious.

2a. If you are a Townie, there is now a paradox. No Townie would bring scum-related evidence against a fellow Townie. In general, that is mitigated by the fact that you don't have certainty about who you are bringing evidence against. So even if they're actually a Townie, you don't know that. But in this case, you know precisely whether the person is a Townie or not - as you're bringing evidence against yourself. If you are a Townie, then you're bringing evidence against an innocent Townie -- which a Townie would never do (that's the paradox). The only possible solutions here are 1) You brought up the evidence without explanation for some unspoken reason, or 2) You are Mafia trying to seed confusion. So...

2b. I suggest you give us your explanation to exonerate self for that evidence, and, now, your reason for not giving that explanation immediately upon bringing the quote up.

2c. (You may suggest that you brought it up to show that you're willing to 'call one on yourself' so-to-speak, for the benefit of the team. That if you were Mafia, you would want to hide that evidence and not mention it yourself. Before you do make that argument, I'd like to say that I find it utterly unconvincing, as there is WIFOM territory there. Ie: A member of the Mafia trying to pass would make the exact same argument.)

[MordyS]

Sorry, in the last post that should have read: "after knowing that Porkens considered Platypus' statement evidence against you..."

[MordyS]

MordyS then turns his attention to the other person with a vote still on him, Me, with an argument that basically boils down to; "I don't like your grammar." and "You made a correct assumption, how could that possibly happen?"

As far as I know I made neither of those arguments. If you'd like to include quotes indicating where I did, I'd be happy to hear you out, but this seems to simply be a lie. (Or, more charitably, a misunderstanding.)

There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance [sic] saying this was his first ever game of mafia.

I'm only responding to this charge because it attempts to impugn my general honesty about something metagame related. The reason I seem informed is because I read a number of Mafia threads in addition to the theory wiki before jumping into a game. ie: I lurked and studied. I highly recommend this process for both Mafia & life.

Moreso, it seems that you're attacking me here as:
a) OMGUS (I suspected you, therefore you find that scummy) and
b) I "leapt in with a full on good post, properly using esoteric game terms, acronyms and theory."

There's only one group who would try to shed suspicion on someone writing good posts, using game terms, acronyms and theory. That would be scum, as Town members always benefit from well considered arguments and ideas. Why exactly would you want a chilling effect among the Townies? That kind of argument can only dissuade other people from writing well-reasoned posts, and will culminate in the Town losing one of their advantages (reason + logic).

Furthermore, and I cannot resist this as a literature student, you write, "There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance [sic]." What you should have written is "I also feel he was less than truthful..." What you wrote was in a passive voice, suggesting that other people feel as you do (There is the feeling -- among more than yourself?), which suggests a covert attempt to manufacture consent for something I haven't seen raised elsewhere. Ie: It's a fairly insidious and dishonest type of argument.

[MordyS]

As far as I know I made neither of those arguments. If you'd like to include quotes indicating where I did, I'd be happy to hear you out, but this seems to simply be a lie. (Or, more charitably, a misunderstanding.)

I went back to take a look at the post you were referring to. I can understand where you were coming from, though I think you misunderstood my criticisms.

1. I was not suspicious because "I don't like your grammar," as you put it. I was merely analyzing the language you use for a hidden agenda. On the first day, especially, this would seem to be one of the few tools we have to rout the Mafia. If you felt I was unfairly characterizing your post, you could have protested (or, if you had simply spoken loosely, you could have attempted to venture that as an explanation). I don't think - like I said in my previous post - we should be putting people off analysis.

2. I was not attacking you for "[making] correct assumption, how could that possibly happen?" That might be an alternative explanation for what happened, (a narrative you may be trying to forward), but that was not my argument. I attacked you for

assuming

information that you could only have if you were Mafia. You would rather pose that as making a "correct assumption," but you cannot pretend that was my argument.

Which is to say:
a. You argue that you make an assumption that panned out.
b. I argue that you relied on inside information.
c. You claim that I'm skeptical you could make a "correct assumption," saying that I asked, incredulously, "how could that possibly happen?"
d. But point (c) only makes sense if someone makes points (a). If someone makes point (b), point (c) is non-applicable.
side-point. This, along with your passive voice quote previously, suggests to me that you're very talented in assuming your narrative position and then pretending like everyone already agrees with you.

[MordyS]

Although I will note that this is another attempt to belittle and reduce my arguments through an ad hominem attack on my perceived writing abilities.

You keep writing that I'm attacking your writing, as though I have a personal problem with your ability to articulate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am taking your writing very seriously and looking for what biases it can give away. My attacks are premised on the suggestion that instead of being a poor writer, you are in fact an intentional writer and that your words are worth parsing. Ie: I am not the one belittling you or making ad hominem attacks. You are doing that to yourself as a defense. Since I've now been accused of making ad hominem attacks twice, let's bring the definition of the ad hominem into the thread.

Argumentum ad Hominem (or "Attack against the Man") is a attack on the person, rather than on their arguments. It brings in irrelevant personal information or arguments about the opponent, in an attempt to distract either the opponent or the audience. This often happens in mafia games. Instead of attacking an accuser's arguments, someone will attack the accuser instead. Note that while sometimes the player's personality/playstyle does come into account during a game, this logical fallacy is more about attacking features that may not have anything directly to do with game performance. Thus, lurking is an assailable behavior; being European is likely not.

A phrase applied to an argument or appeal founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency.

I didn't attack you personally. I attacked the implications I thought were inherent in your posts. You suggesting I did attack you personally, and then calling it an ad hominem attack is yet another example of you assuming a narrative ("My words didn't give anything away, they were just poorly chosen") and then attacking me based on your own narrative. I don't think you were just using poor grammar. I think you had hidden bias that your choice of words exhumed. My posts are absolutely NOT ad hominem though in either case.

[MordyS]

Not specifically, I thought it scummy that 2 of your first 3 targets were the people who had votes on you and the other one was already under scrutiny by others. Had you done so and I was not one of them, I'd have still found it suspicious.

Ethan/MordyS : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz, Archaist, Porkins

Now that's an internal contradiction.

[MordyS]

Not specifically, I thought it scummy that 2 of your first 3 targets were the people who had votes on you and the other one was already under scrutiny by others. Had you done so and I was not one of them, I'd have still found it suspicious.

Ethan/MordyS : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz, Archaist, Porkins

Now that's an internal contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction, although if you will specify it, I'll respond.

In one post you write that I've been hostile towards four people (Wolf, Phelan, Platypus and Delathi) and questioning towards three (Muzzz, Archaist, Porkins). That leaves one person in the game that, so far, I haven't been hostile or aggressive towards. So to write that I've only gone after three targets is a mischaracterization of your own analysis.

[MordyS]

Muzzz's schemata inspired me to calculate one myself. It's the number of posts, the number of words (loosely, but consistently calculated - ie: includes signatures + quotes + webpage text, but does so for everyone), and the avg words per post # (the higher the #, obv, the more verbose the posts). If Mafia stand to gain from lying low, it will indicate those who have contributed the least. Moreso, at least for me, it will help weigh my votes -- both to encourage the quiet to come forward and because a non-contributing player is a better lynch target for the first day, it seems to me, than a highly contributing one.

Korlash 34 Posts - 7690 words (226 wpp)
Wolf 31 posts - 2598 words (84 wpp)
Delathi 30 Posts - 4963 words (165 wpp)
Muzzz 28 Posts - 4189 words (149 wpp)
Porkens 25 posts - 4839 words (194 wpp)
Mordy 24 Posts - 5651 words (235 wpp)
Platypus 21 posts - 2511 words (119 wpp)
Archaist 11 posts - 1678 words (153 wpp)
Phelan 10 posts - 1512 words (151 wpp)

While it's clear that Archaist and Phelan have fallen way behind the other players (in both # of posts and words written), I think it's notable that Wolf has a tremendously low words-per-post number compared to everyone else. (Platypus has the second lowest.) If a Mafia member were trying to post frequently to assuage suspicion, but still didn't want to give too much away, posting very little over a large period might suffice to give the illusion of activity, but without accidently giving away tells.

[MordyS]

Just got prodded. I'm still here. Just got distracted during the holidays. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to post before Sunday, but I'll say this: I feel comfortable lynching the person I'm currently voting for. I don't know that he's Mafia, but I think I'm as suspicious as him as I can be on the first day.

[MordyS]

Platypus, I believe I've given explanations earlier. When I get a proper chance, though, I'll go back through my posts and highlight the pertinent details. Most tellingly, I think, and something I haven't brought up yet: You've had 3 votes on you for the majority of the game time so far, and there's been nary a peep or protest from you. It's as though you're hoping that by lying low long enough, people will just get bored on move on. The longer we go with votes on you, and you being under-responsive, the more I'm ready to lynch you.

[MordyS]

(Some grammar issues in that post, which I think indicate my own distraction at the moment. "people will just get bored and* move on," and "and you remain* under-responsive."

[MordyS]

Mickey77 hammered that vote, so he gets the first one today,

Vote Mickey77

, though I'm so strongly FOS on Platypus that I wrote a post just now explaining why I was voting for him before deciding that Mickey77 was a tad more suspicious. Time to weed out the scum.

[MordyS]

It seems to me like we've got a lot of data about scum from last night's vote. Assuming both scum voted for Muzz (and that seems like a safe assumption to me), and since one of the voters is now dead, we now have a good array of choices for who may be scum. Let's start hearing some explanations from Mickey77, Archaist, Korlash and Platypus. I'm not hearing any explanations for their votes. And at least two of those people were already on my FOS list.

[MordyS]

You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

Are you kidding me, delathi? I don't want to be cruel, but you're either obtuse or disingenuous. I'm suspicious of people who voted for the innocent towner for reasons I thought were poor. Therefore, because I did not vote for him, I am the suspicious one? Dude, you've got flawed logic. I don't think anyone, ever, could make an argument that asinine.

[MordyS]

My suspicion is simply that among those who lynched the townie on a bandwagon (one that formed quickly, without much conversation, and with little proof), we'd likely find a scum or two. I explained why I was suspicious of Wolf (now Mikey) yesterday, as well as Platypus. I'm not really sure what stuff directed at me I tried to avoid. Basically any accusation against me has come down to a Too Townie argument.

But I'm willing to entertain any questions. I've got nothing to hide. Ask away, I'll try to answer anything I may have inadvertently missed. (Why I was missing for a few days -- it was the end of the Passover holiday and then the restart of University. I thought I actually poked in once or twice before the day ended and then I was silent for obvious reasons.)

[MordyS]

Tell me if I'm wrong, Korlash, but your entire case against Muzz seemed to be that he found Porkens suspicious, but didn't press on those suspicions. You seem to reiterate that argument at least three different times (Most succinctly quoted here: "And that's it... 10 days of almost totally ignoring your top suspect. That makes no sense. You're talking about wanting to lynch him yet you aren't doing anything to help find evidence in order to do it.").

Forgive me, but I didn't find Muzz's suspicion of Porkens without enough evidence to back it up - on the first day no less - suspicious enough to lynch him. There was plenty of speculation and finger-pointing on the first day, and plenty of accusations that still haven't been backed up to any satisfactory degree. Yet Muzz was the person singled out and then lynched. I don't see what needs to be spelled out here: There was no evidence used in the lynching of Muzz. At best there was conjecture, and at worst there was a bandwagon with very little consideration at all. If you feel you had more compelling evidence, please provide it.

W/r/t: "Stop calling my caseon Muzz bad without actually bothering to comment on it. i'm not giving you another newbie pass on this, either back these accusations up or be prepared to take serious heat for it."

I've never asked for a newbie pass for anything I wrote here, nor have, I believe, I been given one. I'm fully aware of my words on this thread. Your case was bad. I didn't comment immediately because; a) I was busy and b) I didn't realize someone would hammer Muzz so quickly. We had already seen someone at -1 votes yesterday (Wolf), and so it didn't seem like such a precipice. Maybe I should have spoken up sooner. Not doing so was a miscalculation. But bring on the heat. I have nothing to hide. Meanwhile I'll be going after the people who lynched a townie and try to weed out the scum.

(And boohoo, that criteria doesn't implicate me as a potential scum. Guess what? I didn't screw up and lynch a guy on a makeshift case. Do you want the best argument that the case was weak? It turned out to be wrong.)

[MordyS]

Re: Posts 375 + 376, both of those are essentially Too Townie arguments.

Relatedly, can we get a vote count?

[MordyS]

It seems like a lot of copy/pasting for self-evident things, but here goes:

[qupte='delathi']You seem to be assuming another narrative that paints you in the best possible light. If both scum were on the wagon, then you can't possibly be scum, right? If scum low word counts per post, then you can't possibly be scum, right?

What's next to obliquely assume your innocence? Scum has to have a name starting with a vowel, then you can't possibly be scum, right?[/quote]

The argument: Because my arguments (you don't contribute enough, you voted for an innocent Townie) exclude myself, therefore I must be suspicious. Ie: You don't draw enough guilt upon yourself, therefore you're guilty.

[quote='Archaist']Good point. Going along with my previous argument about MordyS trying to paint himself as town by saying "my fellow townies" I think we can see that he is trying very hard to put himself in the best light.[/quote]

A similar argument. Because I referred to myself in a pro-Townie manner, therefore I'm suspicious. A re-iteration of the previous argument: Because you don't act guilty, therefore you're guilty. Perhaps not precisely Too Townie, but a certainly a corollary to it.

And here are a few of your quotes so that you no longer feel I'm simply characterizing you unfairly with one quote.

You wrote Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 3:10 AM, "I have no one tied for anything. Due to my falling behind I can't honestly say I find anyone above anyone else in suspicions level." So, since you admit having fallen behind there, can I safely start there in this analysis?

[quote='Korlash']For one you feel the need to explain yourself before anyone calls you out on it. I have felt this before as town so it's not a purely scummy trend, but it is a little odd for a town to think something he has posted needs to be defended before anyone even read it.

The second thing that is wrong with it is the 'creating discussion' thing. saying "I did it to create discusssion/judge his reaction' are crap. They are lame excuses used by anyone and everyone all the time. They mean shit, and are worth even less. There isn't a single post made in this game that isn't in some way helping to create or add to the discussion. Also, this line of questioning isn't really specifically designed for discussion. It's leaning more towards information gathering, as in you get a list of who feels what way, which I suppose you can use to create or help discussion at some point but in reality it doesn't necessarily spawn any talk itself. [/quote]

Argument A: You defended yourself before you were challenged. Ipso Facto: Suspicious.
Rebuttal A: That's ridiculous. He wanted to explain his actions to make sure that no one was confused by his motivations.
Argument B: Creating discussion is a meaningless argument.
Rebuttal B: At worst, it's a null tell. At best, it's a tell, but a tell that numerous people (including Porkens, off-hand), made this game.

Then, forgive me for not quoting it, but you seemed to quibble with Muzz's use of the word "victim" instead of "lynch target." An ironic sentiment in hindsight as Muzz turned out to be quite the victim of a lynching. Nonetheless, I'm happy to spell out the absurdity here too: His use of the word "victim" didn't indicate much of anything. You wrote during that mini-tiff, "...slips in word usage is a practical scum hunting device I have used efficently in the past." Maybe it's time to find a new device. You seem to be rusty.

On Apr 14, at 4:31AM you wrote, "Why... Well I could go back and quote the back and forths but it seems pretty supid. And you know most of my issues with you..." to Muzz, indicating that he was your number one suspect. As the only arguments since the Apr 13, 3:10 comment were the ones I listed above, I'd say you had a pretty spurious case. But let's keep going on. Maybe you make some valid arguments AFTER this post.

Finally, the argument I believed you were actually making (and listed in my post above) begins to take form Apr 15th, at 1:52PM: You write: "However,... Saying "Porkens is higher up on my suspicion list" and "I may change votes if his lynch seems inevitable" is not alright. Do a little search by author on yourself and tell me when the last time you actually said anything remotely close to questioning him and helping his lynch? I'll help you out," and in the same post, "And that's it... 10 days of almost totally ignoring your top suspect. That makes no sense. You're talking about wanting to lynch him yet you aren't doing anything to help find evidence in order to do it. "

Then at 7:14PM: "You stopped pushing Porkens yet still find him the top suspect... that right there is a ead giveaway your full of BS. And I can know what you did to find evidence because it's all in the thread. Unless you want to say you've been doing some scum hunting outside the game. You can't find evidence to use against Porkens nor can you find any reasons to back up your suspicions on him unless you make comments on his posts and direct questions towards him or his cases."

On the 16th at 1:14PM: "And not convincing other by not saying anything at all is also a logical fallacy. it contradicts the fact you find him so suspicious and want him lynched when you do nothing about it," and in the same post, "How is it you have ignored someone you thought to be scum for a little less then two whole weeks? What, now that you found him you don't need to attack him or comment on his posts anymore? And the way things are going I will lynch you for it, this is a completely logical lynchable offense and you'rre not doing anything remotely close to explain it."

At 11:52PM: "Where did you say his responce didn't change your mind? and is that all you said or did you actually attempt to get new responces from him? Did you say why they didn't change your mind?

Rubbing him in my face doesn't do anything for your case on him, and calling him out along with other people kinda disproves you find him any special sort of suspicious."

(Sidenote for people keeping track; At 12:12AM on the 18th, Korlash tries to justify a misquoting with: "It would be pretty stupid of me to intentionally misquote him in the same post I literally quoted what he said no?" Yes, Korlash. Pretty stupid, or pretty scummy.)

Most problematic, you wrote, immediately after the lynching and nightkill, "Sorry... I just want to fit in... T_T" Was this a reference to your position on the bandwagon? You're projecting loads of confidence now that you had plenty of justifiable arguments. What was the fitting in? It's particularly noteworthy in light of you're ballyhooing about the fact that I called your case bad. Seems like you knew it yourself.

There, plenty of quotes. Hopefully that'll force you to contend with what's actually going on instead of demanding proof for things that seem evident in the log history.

[MordyS]

And that's why I don't use quote tags. I always mess them up. C'est la vie.

[MordyS]

Forgive me, delathi, but that's

not

the argument you're making. When I wrote that we should be concentrating on those who lynched Muzz, I wasn't "ingratiatingly proclaiming [my] township." And when I casually mentioned my Townie affiliations on Day One, that wasn't ingratiatingly either. It was fairly by-the-way.

My real problem with this argument, though, is that we now have some actual evidence to analyze. Let's pretend that I do ingratiatingly proclaim my township and then arrogantly attack anyone who dares to question it. How exactly is this more suspicious than someone who lynches a Townie? I can see making this argument on Day One, when there is little else to go on. But why concentrate on it now? Maybe I've played this game arrogantly. I don't see what that has to do with my allegiance.

[MordyS]

You can keep asking for analysis where none is required, but I can't imagine you're convincing anyway. I summarized your argument against Muzz, you asked for evidence that you made such an argument, and I gave you about 4-7 quotes where you made that argument repeatedly. I don't know what more analysis you need. You relied heavily upon that argument and I think it's a bad argument. Period.

[MordyS]

I'll put this as plain as I can, slip in tounge is a valid and legitimate scum tell.

I don't disagree at all. I just believe that you see slips in tongue and scum-reads where they don't exist. My emphasis on hunting those who lynched Muzz is a legitimate attempt to weed out scum. That you read that itself as scummy suggests to me that you aren't actually savvy at scum tells. And the fact that after a lynching, we're spending almost two pages on someone who wasn't even involved in the lynching strikes me as odd. Like I've said repeatedly, I have nothing to hide. But I do wonder why there are two votes on me, both, perhaps not incidentally, from people who lynched Muzz. If you lynched him accidently (because you acted on evidence you thought was accurate), then you can admit that and still go after the other lynchers. It seems to me, and here I'll admit I have limited Mafia play experience, that going after someone else is either a) a waste of time or b) deflection.

[MordyS]

I'm willing to try one more time, Korlash.

For one you feel the need to explain yourself before anyone calls you out on it. I have felt this before as town so it's not a purely scummy trend, but it is a little odd for a town to think something he has posted needs to be defended before anyone even read it.

Your first problem with Muzz, one that you admit yourself isn't suspicious in the argument.

The second thing that is wrong with it is the 'creating discussion' thing. saying "I did it to create discusssion/judge his reaction' are crap. They are lame excuses used by anyone and everyone all the time. They mean shit, and are worth even less. There isn't a single post made in this game that isn't in some way helping to create or add to the discussion. Also, this line of questioning isn't really specifically designed for discussion. It's leaning more towards information gathering, as in you get a list of who feels what way, which I suppose you can use to create or help discussion at some point but in reality it doesn't necessarily spawn any talk itself.

A null tell at best, as you yourself admitted.

How is it you have ignored someone you thought to be scum for a little less then two whole weeks? What, now that you found him you don't need to attack him or comment on his posts anymore? And the way things are going I will lynch you for it, this is a completely logical lynchable offense and you'rre not doing anything remotely close to explain it.

Your central argument. And as I wrote above, "Forgive me, but I didn't find Muzz's suspicion of Porkens without enough evidence to back it up - on the first day no less - suspicious enough to lynch him. There was plenty of speculation and finger-pointing on the first day, and plenty of accusations that still haven't been backed up to any satisfactory degree. Yet Muzz was the person singled out and then lynched." I wrote this many posts ago. This is my argument. Attacking Muzz for not pursuing Porkens hard enough, on the fast day, is a poor justification. There is very little evidence on a first day, and so there is very little to push for.

I have now said that twice. As far as: "I don't read you trying to weed out scum as scummy, i read you NOT DOING it as scummy. You keep saying you are trying to find scum yet at every turn seem to be trying to avoid actual scum hunting." This seems furthest from the truth. I've pursued Wolf, now Mickey, and Platypus over and over again. I've challenged the amount they've posted, the quality of their posts, and now, they were both in on the Muzz lynching. I'm sorry that you disagree with my scum-hunting, but to say I'm not doing it is ridiculous. I'm one of the only people with a vote registered for today, and I had a vote registered for most of yesterday. I find Platypus and Mickey suspicious, and have continued to do so. Mickey has somewhat attempted to mitigate his hammer by acting sheepish about his "mistake." Platypus hasn't even bothered to show up since last night. Meanwhile, if it weren't for trying to not sound OMGUS, I'd have my finger on the trigger on you, Korlash.

So here are two questions for you (including one I mentioned earlier but you failed to answer):

1. Please explain the content of Post 363 in which you write, immediately after the nightkill, "Sorry... I just want to fit in... T_T"
2. Please explain why you aren't going after anyone involved in the lynching of Muzz.

Hopefully this post is specific enough for you. If it isn't, I'll have to hope that other players recognize you are being disingenuous, and, potentially, scummy. This is as laid-out as I can imagine it.

[MordyS]

On the first day, that should read.

[MordyS]

You have not been scumhunting today you have been throwing around accusations willy nily without a hint of rationality to back them up.

So... Mikey put forth no effort at all into the wagon except to end it? You find nothing wrong with this at all?

I mean how is it the two msot active people on a wagon are taking more heat for it then the guy who never said anything and hammered the guy?

I'm going to now repost my FIRST comment after the nightkill.

Mickey77 hammered that vote, so he gets the first one today, Vote Mickey77, though I'm so strongly FOS on Platypus that I wrote a post just now explaining why I was voting for him before deciding that Mickey77 was a tad more suspicious. Time to weed out the scum.

So not only did I attack with the FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY, but I provided a reason for doing so -- a reason that you yourself agree with in the post above! How exactly do you consider this NOT hunting scum but merely throwing around baseless accusations?

(Since you like think spelled out over and over, here goes: You said, "You have no been scumhunting today." My very first post today was a scum-hunt with a vote and a justification. It turns out that not only did I vote with a justification, but it was a justification that you agree with. Please explain that.)

If I were to 'guess' I'd say not cop... That's as close as I can get right now.

Please explain: a) Why you feel this way and b) Why you're trying to ascertain possible speciality roles when AFAIK, that is known as a huge scum-tell.

Also, w/r/t, "1. It was a joke post where I continued the trend of "bah, go someone" that muzz and Porkens had set-up," those two were just lynched. It's appropriate for someone whose been killed to leave a final cute post. It's not appropriate for a player still here mostly because of Tarhalindur's "Well That Sucks" Tell.

And to be afraid of looking OMGUS instead of attacking a person you think is scum is a scum trait not a town trait. A town does what he thinks is best for the town regardless of himself, a scum does what is best for himself regardless of the town. You just now admitted to thinking it more important to protect yourself then to find scum.

You misunderstood, though it's more my fault here than yours. I didn't mean that I didn't want to appear OMGUS. I meant that I was concerned myself about being suspicious for that very reason. I suspect my own inclinations here because it seems natural to want to go after the person who is attacking you. That said, I'd like a better explanation for your apparent "Well That Sucks" remark besides just, *it was a joke,* and I'd like to know why you're speculating about whether Platypus is a cop or not. As far as I could tell, Phelan wanted to know if you thought he was Mafia or Town, not if he had a special role.

[quote="Korlash]I mean how is it the two msot active people on a wagon are taking more heat for it then the guy who never said anything and hammered the guy?[/quote]

This is just wrong. I have the most votes on me and I wasn't active on the wagon at all, and then Mikey is the ONLY OTHER person with a vote. You're either trying to mislead people, or not paying attention.

[MordyS]

They are a manner of speaking. Everyone seemed annoyed that my tone was too arrogant. I was trying to tone it down.

[MordyS]

How do you feel about Platypus now?

I think I mentioned this earlier, but I may not have. He's my number two suspect after Mikey. I think his role in the lynching was suspect (poor arguments, leaving his vote on, claiming today that he was surprised anyone voted with him), and I don't think there's been any mitigating information to make him less suspicious to me than he was yesterday.

[MordyS]

Where did he claim that?

Playpus writes in Post 141: "No. Did I think people would vote for Muzzz based off what I said? No."

Are you understanding that differently than I am?

Did I miss something? Did I get something wrong? Let me know.
I'd like to hear some more details on your Platypus case. What were you going to post before deciding to vote for Mikey? What were the pertinent details mentioned above?

First of all, I don't think six posts attacking someone is a light amount, particularly as one of those posts contained a vote (which, I know, Korlash doesn't see as particularly meaningful, but to which I disagree). My post linking Wolf to Platypus wasn't merely a speculation, but, if you read it, an attempt to explain what I felt was suspicious behavior in the light of a greater relationship. I wasn't randomly picking two people and saying they might be a scum pair. (If you disagree, please post it and specify what is bothering you there.)

185: You say Platypus has not eluded suspicion enough for someone who has 3 votes. However, you were the one to place the third vote on him. I might be wrong, but this seems like the kind of circular logic Porkens was criticized for using in his "vote. Please claim" post and explanations.

That would only be circular logic if I said, "I voted for you because you have had 3 votes on you." I didn't. I said that his response to having 3 votes on him was underwhelming, and I continue to feel that way. I've been led to understand that the M.O. of scum is keeping a low profile and remaining as subtle and unhelpful as possible, and that's what I'm pointing to here. When Korlash and Archaist voted for me, I tried to address their concerns as often as possible and in long defenses. I've attempted to answer every question posed at me. (Which reminds me, Archaist and Korlash both still have votes on me - which of your questions have I not answered to your satisfaction?) When Platypus was under attack, he completely ignored the circumstances and barely responded. This argument was confirmed when I did a post analysis and saw how little of content Platypus had posted overall.

264: You are comfortable lynching Platypus, because he's the most suspicious for you. No other reasons given.

What's your question here? Of course I'm comfortable lynching the most suspicious person. Isn't that how this game works?

You vote Mikey because of the hammer. You apparently still feel strongly about Platypus, almost to the point of voting, but again post no reasons.

The reasons were basically a combination of the amount Platypus had participated in the lynch and my previous suspicions (his low post rate, his attempts to stay off-the-radar). Moreso, something like "No. Did I think people would vote for Muzzz based off what I said? No." is very suspicious to me. You don't vote for someone unless you want others to vote with you. And my final reason was that Porkens had led the 3-vote assault on Platypus on the First Day. It makes sense, in that context, that he'd be the one nightkilled.

[MordyS]

So is Mickey MIA?

[MordyS]

[quote='Archaist']Mafia will not necessarily act with a low profile and try to be subtle. This is yet another example of how you claim some trait is scummy, and then show how you act in the opposite manner.[/quote]

Feel free to explain this argument at any time. From the games I've read (admittedly only a dozen), it is assumed that those who remain the most quiet are the most suspicious. If you've seen otherwise, please explain. It makes logical sense that the mafia would not want to say a whole lot (and therefore give a lot away). It does not make logical sense that they would. Me pointing this out isn't "yet another example" of anything. It's common sense.

[MordyS]

I just reread your 430 but still don't see a question in there. What exactly do you want me to respond to?

[MordyS]

Is it fair to make assumptions about roles in a game based on the players coming and going?

Ie: Pretend for an instant that I could make an assumption that Vanilla Town players are more likely to give up on a game and need a replacement than Mafia players. (Maybe Vanilla players would be more bored, while Mafia players would be more engaged.) I then looked at the 'bit' that first Wolf and then Mikey filled and abandoned. Would it be fair to conclude that the 'bit' is a Vanilla Mafia bit, or is it not in the spirit of the game to try and deduce role by meta-information?

(I'm not saying the argument I'm making above is a valid one -- I'm just trying to illustrate my question.)

[MordyS]

See a contradiction here? Scum should keep a low profile, yet they should at the same time be more engaged? I realize you're just speculating on theories, but they should at least be consistent theories.

You aren't reading carefully enough. Producing lots of text and being emotionally/socially engaged are not synonymous. Someone can be very intense and very quiet. There's no contradiction here.

[MordyS]

I think it has been said before, probably in regard to that post, that trying to find associations without a scum body is not helpful. In that regard, it's speculation. It can generate theories, but is not conclusive. I also didn't like that in that post you also wanted Wolf to "disprove" your theory by putting Platypus at L-1. It looks like you are trying to trick or threaten him into it.

Yeah, in hindsight it might have been a bad tact. I was hoping that Wolf would go ahead about vote Platypus, therefore putting some pressure on the person I suspected. I also assumed that one member of the Mafia wouldn't vote for another member out of fear that the other member would be hammered. Wolf ended up not voting, and that 'bit' ended up doing a hammer later to someone else. So... I don't know. Maybe it wasn't the best strategy but I was trying to sift through their allegiances there.

[MordyS]

So you were trying to manipulate a possible townie?

This is a totally bizarre statement, Phelan. So it's not cool to try to trick anyone into giving anything away because everyone is a possible townie? Everyone here is also a possible scum.

By the way, I'm not sure that I understood the bolded part. What do you mean by "that bit"?

It's a colloquialism. Like, "that's his bit," or in old MUD games, you would say that an admin has a bit. It's like --- their role, as opposed to the person. It distinguishes the person from the office.

[MordyS]

Not terribly shocking that Cojin's first move is to put me at L-1, especially being that I currently have the only vote on him. (Despite the fact that his predecessor hammered yesterday.)

Well, I didn't want to do this, and it's a terrible, terrible waste that I have to, but I guess that's how the cookie crumbles. I'm the doctor. Hopefully someone will unvote me before Cojin's partner in crime decides to hammer me.

[MordyS]

As do you. Keep in mind, Cojin, that between the two of us, you're the only one who has hammered a Townie. And you were just about to try to lynch another one. Maybe it's time you try to explain your predecessor's positions and not just beg out because it'll make you look suspicious. You already look as suspicious as you possibly could.

[MordyS]

Ok, here's the situation. I don't know how this will go down, so I'm going to lay it out there and you can all take it as you will. (I waited a bit to explain this explicitly because I needed to confirm it with the mod.) I targeted Porkens for protection last night. I read that outspoken Townie players tend to get targeted with nightkills, and he was quite outspoken and - I felt - Townie. The nightkill did not go through, Porkens was successfully protected. And yet, Porkens is clearly dead, and hopefully at some later point, the exact reason why will come out. At the moment I've been told the mod cannot confirm or deny my story in the thread, so you'll have to take what I'm saying as is.

Now to take some other things:

Secondly, am I to assume then that you feel everyone on your wagon aside from Cojin is town then?

I'm suspicious of other people, but for various reasons, they haven't triggered enough of a suspicious to set things aside. It seems to me that Cojin/Wolf/Mikey are the most suspicious. Moreso, it seems to me that Mikey didn't get enough pressure after he hammered a townie with little explanation, and that Cojin isn't getting enough pressure now. I could envision a possibility that they are a collective group of poorly performing newbies, but it's certainly not at the top of the list of possibilities.

And on the other hand, how do we prove that he isn't? There is a 50% chance that, if he is lying, there is no one to counter claim.

This is poorly thought out. The reason claims are powerful is not because it could be true I'm the doctor. It's because if I were lying, I'd be taking a 50% chance that there WAS a doctor who would contradict me. Ie: It's 50% there's a doctor in the game, not 50% that I'm being honest. Most mafia wouldn't roll that die. Presumably someone making a claim with a 50% chance of being called out actually has a much higher than 50% chance of telling the truth. (Am I explaining this articulately enough? I'm kinda stumbling trying to explain the logic here...)

You assume that Vanilla Town is more likely to get bored and dump the game, yet you yourself are a replacement for someone you are now claiming was not a Vanilla Townie?

I didn't assume, and in fact explicitly said that I didn't trust the validity of my own argument "(I'm not saying the argument I'm making above is a valid one -- I'm just trying to illustrate my question.)" I was asking a question about whether that kind of meta information is fair play. I wasn't making an argument that Cojin is vanilla, and the proof is that I kept my vote on him. I still think he's the most suspicious person here, no matter how many times he's switched out.

I'm sure my first explanation here will raise more questions than it'll answer, and I'm sorry about that. I wish it were more straight-forward, but I'll try to answer anything you ask as honestly and as openly as I am able.

[MordyS]

[quote=delathi]MordyS, you seem to have a trend toward saying that scum/townies/newbies have strong tendencies to act consistently with their roles. But on the other hand, you have been very up front and not at all remaining under the radar as a now-claimed doctor.

Do you still hold the assumptions that "Scum would act like this" when you yourself are not acting like the stereotypical Doctor?[/quote]

Yes. I intentionally acted out of character. One, because I read that it was very in character for doctors to keep a low profile and so I was trying to subvert that -- hide in plain sight so to speak. It's my first game, so forgive me that it didn't work out as expected. Instead I drew fire and had to claim, and I imagine I'll be the NK tonight. I was hoping that I'd be able to explain away the votes on me before I got to L-1. I didn't count on Wolf/Cojin/Mikey shooting for another quick lynch.

Two, because it's not my style naturally. I imagine if I'm doctor in a future game that'll be something I'll have to subvert. I naturally like to participate and write long posts and be involved. I'm not good at hiding out and remaining under the radar. I imagine this is possibly why a lot of suspicion has been directed my way, because of how outspoken I've been. This is, by the way, the crux behind my argument that the most quiet people are the most suspicious. There ISN'T a lot of evidence against Platypus because honestly he doesn't participate that much. Mikey had the most actually suspicious action in this game to date, but there's barely been a murmur against him because he apologized profusely and remained under the radar. This is, by the way, why I'm not pointing the finger against Korlash. Though he's made numerous arguments against me that I felt were weak, he was also prolific in making them and put himself out there. I don't believe that people who write a lot above suspicion because I write a lot. I believe it because it makes logical sense to me.

As far as your question, delathi, just because I act out of character doesn't mean I believe everyone acts out of character. I still believe a Mafia player will hammer a Townie if he has the chance. It serves his winning condition. I think a Mafia player will obfuscate and generally try to obscure arguments, I think he'll try to keep himself below suspicion. These will all help him win. I don't see any reason to believe the opposite just because I didn't act like doctors are supposed to act.

[MordyS]

[quote=Archaist] In my opinion, a doctor shouldn't claim anything but vanilla unless we're at lynch or lose, or they're counter-claiming.[/quote]

It seems to me that a doctor that lies and claims vanilla town, and then later tries to claim doctor, is doing more detriment to the town than one that claims doctor right off. Clearly you disagree with this, though. Why?

[MordyS]

That only makes sense if claiming vanilla townie would protect oneself from being lynched, but it seems to me that claim is basically worthless. So the Doctor would be protecting themselves from a NK by exposing themselves to a lynch, no?

[MordyS]

A townie who strongly suspects MordyS could fake claim doctor to get him lynched

This sounds like another terrible idea to me.

[MordyS]

As for your question: Depends on the situation. If you can find a way to trick scum that won't also make a townie more suspicious, then yes, it's cool. I don't think I can do this yet, however. Can you?

I think I can try. I don't think I shouldn't try to uncover Mafia out of fear that it'll make a Townie look suspicious. We have to lynch the Mafia. All of the Town wins if we accomplish that, so that's our primary goal.

[MordyS]

Can the people who aren't suspicious of Wolf/Mikey/Cojin explain to me why? Not only does that bit seem the most suspicious to me, but all three players have been immediately suspicious. (Wolf dodging questions, giving vague claims. Mikey quickly hammering a Townie without any explanation and then begging for forgiveness afterward. Cojin making his first move putting someone at L-1, again with barely any explanation.) There must be some reason why he isn't triggering any of your scum radars. Can you please tell me why? Does it just seem too obvious to be true?

[MordyS]

You think that just because a wagon hasn't formed the rest of us don't find him suspicious? He has done a lot to get suspicion on him, that doesn't mean we are somehow forced to quickly wagon him.

I'm just curious why not. It seems to me that I was wagon'd on far less suspicious grounds.

[MordyS]

Were you trying to manipulate a possible townie into voting for the same person as you?

I don't really understand what you're asking. EVERYONE is a possible townie at the moment. So yes, I suppose that's what I was trying to do, for the reasons I outlined earlier. But he is also a possible scum. So I don't really understand what you're trying to get at.

(And your insistence on phrasing the question this way is a lot like asking, "When did you stop hitting your wife?" There's an assumption in the way you ask the question and every time I try to address that assumption, you accuse me of dodging the question.)

[MordyS]

Hopefully this'll encourage you to post/vote, Platypus. I just read the game you mentioned, NG 700, and noticed a few things that made me more suspicious of you. In particular, it was the fact that you said here that some people have a more lurky play-style that is not necessarily indicative of scummyness. And yet, over in NG 700, you were far more active and probing in your posts. This could obviously mean that you're simply distracted, or carrying on in too many games. But I'd like to see some ideas from you about where this game is currently at, who you suspect, and who you are voting for. Not simply defenses of yourself. I know you lodged something of an attack on Muzz, but I really haven't seen a lot of hunting or probing from you.

I also have a question for Phelan. You've been probing about a few players (in particular me, Cojin, Platypus) but, as I remember it, fairly quiet on some others. I notice you ask some incisive questions (even if I disagree with a few of them). What do you think about Korlash, delathi and Archaist? Archaist has posted almost as little as Platypus today. Do you find anything suspicious about any of those three? Or are they above your suspicions at the moment?

[MordyS]

well i am a bit unsettled on how you place me at L1 knowing platy wants to vote thus hammering me indiscreatly. but all i can hope is that this time a townie lynch can help with discovering scum.

Vote: delathi

If I wasn't already voting for you, this would've been enough to get my vote all over again.

[MordyS]

So, Platypus, Archaist, are you going to do anything before the deadline?

[MordyS]

2 and a half hours to a No Lynch.

[MordyS]

EBWOP (Sorry, 3 and a half hours. I'm on EST, so I got slightly confused.)

[MordyS]

Korlash, remind me again why you're voting for Archaist? (I'm not challenging you, I just don't remember the particulars of the argument...)

[MordyS]

The situation I currently find myself in is probably why it's essential to attack people for not posting enough (despite how some people here have protested this strategy earlier on). I feel like there are two-three people I don't have nearly a good enough read on. If it turned out that Archaist and Platypus were the scum pair, they will have essentially remained under the radar the entire game, escaping any serious pressure by simply not showing up. So I'm not sure what to do but try to force Archaist to try to show up - albeit a bit late in the game.

[bold]Vote: Archaist[/bold]

[MordyS]

Vote: Archaist

[MordyS]

Yes. I think a lot of people are flying under the radar. In fact, everyone but Korlash and Phelan has been practically MIA since day one. Which doesn't just mean that scum are hiding out. It means townies are hiding out too. I don't really understand why.

[MordyS]

That's four, which is a lynch, right?

[MordyS]

Definitely the mod error made things a bit more difficult. I'm really glad Korlash wasn't the scum tho. After Porkens died (and I failed to save him), I was really concerned that now the only IC left would be scum, and as it was my first game, it seemed like that would be it. It seems more fair somehow that Korlash was Town like the rest of us.

Also, congratz to Phelan and Delathi, though I have to say: This is going to strengthen my inclination to attack early and often people who fly under the radar. If Archaist had been vocal sooner, I think we could have avoided a mislynch on him (and if everyone who took over Wolf's bit didn't do something suspicious, we could have done the same). I gotta reread the game now, knowing what I know. I suspect Phelan might turn some hints up, but Delathi - you really did not post much!

[MordyS]

Thanks Phelan. Now I've gotta figure out how to obscure my power role and keep the Town from L-1'ng me on the second day

[MordyS]

I also chuckled at some of the arguments Mordy got into pre-claim.

Because I was dealing with them poorly?