Newbie 803 - Game Over.

[Col.Cathart]

Hey there guys! I'm looking forward to playing with you all. I have a lot of work to do right now, so expect my first post with my observations tomorrow, after I'll read carefully those last 17 threads.

As the deadline is more than three days away it will not be extended and remains 6:00 PM EDT/ 3:00 PM PDT on July 7th.

Oh. I guess, I'm going back to work ASAP, so I can still contribute something before the deadline.

[Col.Cathart]

D'oh. RL issues took much more time than I expected. Currently reading all the discussion, expect another post soon (several hours at worst)

[Col.Cathart]

Allright. Sorry it took so long, but I'm the kind of a slow-reader.

Now, I think, I'll start with my standpoint at Clara's case. As I can see, though she's wasn't getting any actual votes against her, she was one of the main suspects around here. That's because of 'sheeping' and lurking mostly. Well, that second one is pretty much self-explainable, as she probably lost interest/forgot about the site. About the sheeping... Well, I cannot speak for her, because I don't know, what were her motivation, but here's my guess: no experience in forum mafia + mind, which is very vulnerable to suggestions. Look at her reactions. It's usually a 'Hey, you're right!' type of reaction. She saw a good idea, and followed it. Too bad, she didn't do any research on her own, because that put her in the lot of trouble. Of course, I can be wrong, the reason could be different, though since I have the same role as her, and I'm not a scum, I'm willing to bet, that my guess is correct.

Now, everyone else. Bit complicated situation. I'll try to do a quick summary of thoughts about every player:

Jammer - Good player so far. Though, he don't have much experience with forum mafia, he's acting no worse, than every good IC. Lot's of questions, to make the possible scum slip, decent scumhunting. Reasonable arguments. If he's the mobster - well played, sir.

Hurleys Van - Since Cartza did absolutely nothing, I think there is no sense in even remembering that HV had any predecessor in this game. At first, I thought that he's another decent pro-town player, but then we have the whole issue with changing votes from Porkens to Santos and once again to Porkens. Also, almost fanatical supporter of Porken's wagon. In my opinion, we'll have more or less clear answer about his alignment on Day 2, when depending on the lynch result.

Einlanzers - Odd situation. He was at L-1 already, managed to save himself, now he's supporting Porken's wagon, but he's still searching the other players (good thing). In my overall review, I think he's a townie, who made several mistakes at the beginning, because of his inexperience. His argument's are not bullseyes definitely, but he's trying. In my last game here (still in progress, NK1'd ) we had a similar situation, when the new player said some suspicious things, and he got lynched. He turned out to be Vanilla Townie, and his 'tells' - newbie mistakes. Of course I can be deadly wrong, and I'm not going to ignore any weird behavior on his part, but so far I don't think he's the scum...

Head Honcho - Replaced Lupo El Loco. Actually, Loco was one of my first suspicions. Almost pure active lurking, If I would be here at the beginning of the game, he would have my vote. Now we have HH. I kept an eye for his posts, mostly because of his predecessor's behavior, and I almost convinced myself, that he's crystal clear. His arguments were quite good. And the now, we have this sudden change of his vote. Sudden stroke of genius, or a plan to kill Porkens instead of Santos? I thought, that HH was pretty much sure about Santos's guilt, especially after the entire case of 'ignored' questions. Now I think, that actually, it could have been an attempt to distance themselves. I'll restrain myself from judging him right now, to the moment, I'll know Santos's alignment.

Chiarosicada - Once again, jonnydelawelsh did almost completely nothing, so I cannot compare jdw's behavior with Chi's. I like his game so far. Like Jammer, he's one of the most solid players here IMO. Good scumhunting, though not a frequent poster, the content of his posts are almost always good and helpful. So far, he's pro-town in my books (although, I noted HH's accusations)

Santos - Ah, the most interesting point. To be bluntly honest - I truly despise his play style. He seems to be blind about his own slips, writes weird not-important one liners, instead of answers. Ignores question addressed to him, for no good reason (unless you'll count 'HH didn't answer my question, to his predecessor, about someone who made 2

(!)

posts...), spams ("I'm going to bed" post etc.), and also flames lately. Spreads INCREDIBLE chaos in the thread, which is absolutely not helping. My main suspect. And to be honest, even if he'll turn out pro-town, I think we will all benefit from it, because the game will get more calm, and less ridiculous.

Porkens - I cannot believe

it's not butter

he's an IC player. Definitely he's not acting like one. Low post frequency, usually no real explanation following his decisions. His posts about lynching Ein were really confusing (Joke? Knowledge, only he has?). Right now, he's in an obvious wagon against Santos. IMO he has high probability of being a scum, and yet, still not as high, as Santos...

VP Baltar - Skilled IC player. Brings lot of good points, though I think his participation in 'Bandwagon Wars' ("Santos's wagon has strippers" etc.) was completely unnecessary. So far I think, he's pro-town.

Now, the vote count. Looks like I'm in a tough situation. Both my main suspects are at the verge of lynch, and I can hammer Porken's or according to Chia's post, be one of the last bricks to hammering down Santos. That means, no matter what I'll do, It'll look like a tell for the opposing side. Then again:

As I said, Santos is my main suspect In my opinion, almost none of his posts (if any, actually), were actually helpful. They were much more spreading chaos, which never led us any step closer to catch a scum. So I say, lets lynch Santos. Not only it will be less chaotic, but also info about his alignment will be very valuable piece of info about several other players (HH, HV, and their possible connections with Santos, to begin with).

And so:

vote - Santos

[Col.Cathart]

About Clara, she is more then 2 years a user on the site and started as a SE. I can't see lack of experience as a reason. But there could be different reasons. I follow Bartar advice here, I am not going to question you for her actions, but for your own posts.

Fair enough. But remember that questioning is one thing, but you cannot forget about previous player. It may happen sometime, that scum slips, cannot withstand pressure, and decides to step out. His replacement may hide his scuminess really well, and it's not good, if town forgets about the previous player, because (S)HE WAS acting scummy for some reason. Just my thoughts about this case

Also, yeah, that was even faster hammer than I expected. Maybe even too fast... Oh well, we'll see the result, it will tell us more, than a hundred of our posts

[Col.Cathart]

EBWOP

Also, sorry for the terrible grammar in post 428. I was writing it at 5-6 AM in the morning without any sleep, so I couldn't force myself to check it once again for grammar mistakes

[Col.Cathart]

And seeing as CC and HH were the last 2 to vote on him make them the most suspicious in my books.

Well, duh. Please remember, that I replaced Clara just before the deadline, so I didn't have chance to vote for anyone earlier. True, my bad, I shouldn't vote at anyone in my first game post, as quickly followed hammer left me in somewhat suspicious situation. Since I truly believed, that there is no way, Santos will save himself from my suspicious via some brilliant argument (I was constantly banging my head at my desk, after majority of his posts), then I thought, that since I'll have to do it anyway, then I could as well do it right away.

Oh, and I still think, we did a good thing. Maybe now, we'll have some serious scumhunting instead of pointless trash-talk, he was invoking.

HH: I still quite don't get your gambit here. Even if you were sure about Chi's scummy alignment, you also knew that there was no way to lynch Chi during day 1. So why so sudden back and forth? If he accused you, you could respond, share your suspicions, but wouldn't it be a better idea to hold off for a while and prepare a case for Day 2? Not only your actions are now backfiring at you, but also, I'm seriously considering it as a try to pull some more false suspicions in my direction (as if I haven't have enough of them in heritage from Clara). I'm not going to vote right now, as I want to see the case crystal clear before doing that.

[Col.Cathart]

@ Col- You brought up the fact that Santos posted in "useless one liners" and was making the game chaotic, so thus even if he was town you would be happy with his lynch. So my question is has Porkens been more beneficial in this game then Santos was? What about my witty one liners?

Porkens - I cannot believe

it's not butter

he's an IC player. Definitely he's not acting like one. Low post frequency, usually no real explanation following his decisions. His posts about lynching Ein were really confusing (Joke? Knowledge, only he has?). Right now, he's in an obvious wagon against Santos. IMO he has high probability of being a scum, and yet, still not as high, as Santos...

Here's your answer. Actually, his last post, while truth, still brings nothing to the discussion, so once again he's not helping himself.

And about you. Well, I assumed that Santos was the ignition spark of the 'Bandwagon Wars" stupidity, so I tried to Ignore yours and Baltars *khem* 'witty one liners'. The next few threads will show, if I was right or wrong.

And BTW HV: I assume, that Porkens is still your main suspect, and I know your reasons to think so. Anyone else looks suspicious to you?

[Col.Cathart]

I'm actually more interesting why Chia, Ein, HV and Col.(I think, could be wrong about him). Are voting or leaning towards voting you.

You're right. I mean, you are wrong about me

Though I don't like any single bit of HH sudden hammer and his weird vote-switching on day 1, it's still definitely not enough to even lay FoS on him, not to mention any vote.

In fact...

You realize that I didn't bring it up yesterday, right? The meta was what gave me doubt in the first place, but I didn't think it was a good point to argue his towniness. I wasn't even necessarily convinced he was a townie at that point, I just thought he was less scummy than Chia since his play had been pretty consistent under pressure. I brought up the meta in retrospect because I was being told there was no way I could have called him as a townie unless I had extra knowledge, so I provided the meta as part of my process towards that, which it was.

This sounds really round-about and evasive to me. vote; head honcho

fine with this lynch.

Oh come on. That wast extremely weak. Following your logic, everyone who defends himself against accusation is evasive and round-about.

Not to mention, that actually YOU are the person who avoids answering accusations thrown by the others. HH's answers are more or lest consistent, but we can at least get his point, whether we are accepting it, or not. You on the other hand? Someone points you're lurking (as we know, scummy thing). Your response? 'There's no other scumtells on my part'. Well, duh. That's pretty obvious, since you are lurking so much, that no one can actually tell anything about you, except from the fact, you're lurking. Maybe we don't have any non-lurker related tells, but your lurker-related are IMO big enough to place a vote on you. And now this sudden L-1 vote on HH. Are you hoping, that someone will drop random hammer, so you're safe for day 3 (impossible now, as Ein changed his vote, but how could you know that)?

Heavy FoS - Porkens

If you're a townie, then defend yourself. Explain properly your vote on HH. Analyze other people plays. ANYTHING. Just play this goddamn game. If you're a scum, then we're lucky, because that would mean, you're playing scum really crappy.

I'm giving you 48 hours. Defend yourself (and I expect something more, than just another one-liner). Otherwise, my FoS will change into vote.

[Col.Cathart]

All right... 48 hours passed, and just as I thought, Porkens failed to make any good defense (You don't want to be night-killed? Sorry, that's just another scum tell in my book. a) I don't think anyone will believe in it b) And even if, then bravo, because you are making things even worse for town this way).

I think, I will hammer him, guys. If you think, there's still not enough evidence, or you want to discuss something first (like HH vs Chi case), then tell me. Otherwise, let's finish this...

[Col.Cathart]

Wait, we are believing him just like that? It really works like that? 'I'm a cop, don't kill me', and everyone goes 'oh, sorry we accused you, you're crystal clear now'? I dunno, I'm still a newbie here, but I'm definitely not buying it, to be honest...

And if somehow this is true... You have an innocence report, you say. So who is it? Mafia already knows who's good, and who's bad. We don't, so now if your cover is blown, why don't reveal the innocent? If you are really a cop, then you're gonna be NKed anyway, and we will know at least one innocent for day 3.

[Col.Cathart]

Because if you're a cop, that means, letting you live means another guilty/innocent report. I wouldn't take that risk if I would be scum...

[Col.Cathart]

EBWOP. Dang, I forgot the possible roleblocker. But that would mean we have a doctor too. That means day 3 will be either big day of role revealing, or huge mafia shenanigan (One claiming cop, and one claiming doc)

[Col.Cathart]

Also, in a fit of unprofessional modding, Happy Birthday Col.Cathart. Do be sure to post so that I don't have to prod you.

Yup, sorry, I was partying yesterday, so there was no post. And thanks

Now, to the point:

Porkens - Still not buying your claim. If you were acting scummy to not get NKed, then why you are acting exactly the same, as when your role is revealed? Still you're posting very rarely, those are still one liners, hardly explaining anything. And you are jumping from person to person with your votes. How do you suppose, you will convince me that you are cop, if you're going to behave exactly the same, as before (as you admitted - behave scummy)? I humbly suggest to change your playstyle, or else my patience will finally end, and I WILL hammer you. Also, I don't think Jammer's vote is really a scumtell. He has reasons to not believe your claim, and since he thinks you are lying (me too BTW) - he voted.

HH and Chi - Maybe that's just me, but I think, that all of your arguments against yourself are rather weak. It almost seems, that you are trying

too much

to accuse each other. Of course, maybe some slip will come up from this discussion, but I would personally either stop this for now, and eventually bring this up, when someone will actually say something really fishy, or try to change the subject of the discussion (though, I'm not really sure to what, because as I said, I don't see around here any serious tell...)

[Col.Cathart]

HH - Jammer actually beat me to say it - This is exactly the opposite to 'Too Townie Fallacy', ergo it's just stupid. Someone who's acting scummy, either makes stupid mistakes, or really is a scum. His excuse with claim could be believable, if he would actually change his playstyle to convince me, he's the cop. I asked him for it. TWICE. No reaction. If he wants to keep acting this way, then fine, but he's digging his own grave. He can claim Cop, Doc, even Queen Elizabeth, but if he'll keep acting scummy, he's still a scum in my eyes.

I'm going to be rereading Jammer's play. I've kind of been casting a blind eye towards him because he seemed to be leaning my way when I was butting heads with Chia, and I thought Chia was scum. If Jammer is scum, I think that was exactly what he wanted. I am vocal and apparently completely misguided, and if Chia had been lynched and turned up town, that could have easily been turned around on me in lylo. Or, if I had been lynched Chia probably could have been lynched in lylo, with Jammer looking good for thinking I was town. That is logical scum behavior.

For now,

vote: Jammer

Maybe you should reread Jammer before actual voting? So far you have only very shaky 'He's helping me, to frame me or Chia' argument, and suspicions of the most scummy acting player around. You really think it's enough to place a vote?

The next sentence should be considered only half-serious

BTW, look at Porken's record in the signature. He was mafia twice, and he lost twice. I didn't read those games, but I can see why would that happen

[Col.Cathart]

Oh, and I can add another question. I asked you about this already several threads ago, but you decided to ignore it. Your point on Jammer is more or less clear (typical, almost OMGUS retaliation IMO, but let's leave that for now), but earlier, you put HH at L-1 and said you are 'fine with this lynch'. Reason? On of his post sound evasive. Oh wow. Just like... I don't know, 4/5 of your posts. So, care to elaborate, why you were 'fine with HH lynch'? Come on, there must some more serious reason.

[Col.Cathart]

Ill get you a pbpa this weekend.

This sounds fair. in fact,

note to mod: I'm going away for 2 days, starting tomorrow morning (GMT +2, so middle of the night in America), so I'll be back around Monday, maybe earlier.

So here's the deal: When I'll be back, I'll read your PBPA. If it's fine, and you'll start play like pro-town guy, I'm backing off. If not, I'll hammer you (of course if someone won't unvote, or hammer you during the weekend).

[Col.Cathart]

All right, I'm back, as I can see, there's still no word from Porkens. I'll wait till midnight, Eastern Time (maybe few hours more, because It will be 6AM in Poland). If there will be still nothing... then it's Hammer Time. My patience is shrinking very quickly...

[Col.Cathart]

Why are you so anxious to end discussion?

Which one? I think we just entered the point 'Everything is said, now we can only speculate' in this case 'If Porkens is/isn't scum. So I want to check it, especially when Porkens is now ignoring my 3rd request to stop acting scummy, if he's really a cop.

If you think, THERE IS something left to discuss here, let me now, and I'll hold my hammer.

[Col.Cathart]

I just don't like when someone's is ignoring me like that. Maybe I'm acting too impulsively, but I really think, I gave him enough chances to prove me wrong, and he didn't take any of them. It almost looks like HE WANTS to be lynched, which makes no sense whatsoever no matter if he's Vanilla/Cop/Scum.

About others: While yes, the more we discuss, the better, but as you can see, there's almost no flow in here. HV disappeared, Jammer and Ein also went silent. Porkens don't want to defend himself properly. It's really troubling, because we are in the same place, we were right after Porkens claim.I support more talk, but if people don't want to talk any longer (as you know, Ein's and HV's last posts were 'My point stands' and they went silent again), then I don't see the point in dragging this day to the deadline, if we cannot bring anything new to the table.

So ok, I won't hammer him yet, but if things will be going the same way for the next few days... Then I really think we'll need that hammer.

[Col.Cathart]

annnd this is why i dont post content.

You know... Questioning someones line of thinking is the core of the game, so you shouldn't be surprised really. Or say the quoted sentence. If you went into mafia game, then accept the rules, and do the same. Actually, you're an IC so you should know it better than me ~^

But never mind. I don't have a problem with your analysis in the place, where Ein called you out. I have other complain: As you said, this is analysis up to page 6. That's 1/4 of the entire thread. And you are already placing a vote. Isn't it too early for it? Read everything, analyze everything, and then vote, because so far you are (for example) judging me with Clara's posts only. You don't have entire clear point of view.

I'm waiting for the rest. And if it will come in episodes ('Previously on

LOST

Porkens PbPA'), then don't vote after each part. It only makes things more confusing.

[Col.Cathart]

See? That was exactly what I was talking about. There's almost no discussion here...

In desperate attempt to make game alive again:

Porkens - Are you gonna finish your analysis? It might be your last chance to redeem yourself (at least in my eyes)

HV - 'Now for the...' Huh? Your last post seems to be cut. You had something more to say?

HH - What do you think about Porkens accusation against Ein?

Ein - You went silent, even when Porkens answered and accused you back. Why?

Jammer - What's your latest opinion about the game?

Chia - Your last post was written 2 days ago. What is your point of the view about things that happened later?

Everyone - Some more action please.

[Col.Cathart]

Ein: You didn't answer HH's question about Santos wagon, and I'm actually very curious about your answer... In my opinion, there's absolutely no solid evidence, that both scum were hiding in this wagon, especially considering Santos behavior...

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think, maybe we should give Porkens a chance with his claim. But before it'll happen, I would like to see rest of his analysis.

Also, I'm more and more suspicious of Hurleys Van. Apart from things HH pointed out, he posts rarely, usually only after prod, or after someone will call him out. And those answers are usually 'My point stands' + one or two extra thoughts. Looks like active lurking in my opinion.

[Col.Cathart]

3 days already? D'oh! Sorry for this guys. Hectic time at work. I was online, but I was only reading short posts, because I didn't have time to read everything

I have a thoughts about latest stuff, but give me an hour or something, so I can wrap all things up.

Once again sorry. I really thought I still have some time before the prod. Post coming...

[Col.Cathart]

Right. I caught up. First things first, hey there Vito!

Now. Maybe I'm blind, but I didn't notice anywhere Ein's answer to HH's post 590

I know you never stated you knew Santos was town, my problem is you never stated you thought he was town. Also, apparently you're trying to use what you didn't like about the Santos wagon to.. Further the Porkens wagon? You're basically saying 'these were worthless points against Santos, but DING they apply to Porkens too!'. Additionally, they weren't really the points against Santos, nobody wanted to lynch him for being sarcastic. And I don't know if anybody's accusing Porkens of tunneling... If anything it's more that he's bandwagoning.

Though, I don't know why I'm banging my head against the wall here. What it comes down to is that you're lying. You basically called me scum yesterday when I was saying I was uneasy about lynching Santos. You open today with this post:

The Santos wagon looks awfully scummy now:
Porkens (15), VP Baltar (18), jammer (25), Col.Cathart (30), Head_Honcho (31)
And with VP out of the picture that just leaves:
Porkens, jammer, Col. Cathart, and Head_Honcho.

I assume at least one of those is scum (if not 2). And seeing as CC and HH were the last 2 to vote on him make them the most suspicious in my books. The last thing we need right now is another mislynch. I'm glad that I was correct in my assumptions of Santos being town, but saddened that he was mislynched :/.

Which seems to contrast slightly with one of your last posts of day one:

New list:
1) Porkens
2) jammer
3) Santos

It worries me that you refuse to answer for this inconsistency.

Actually it worried me as well, and since you didn't answer this one, you're getting another minus in my book, Ein.

In Porkens case, really nothing changed in my opinion. We are in dead end here, and only way to know the truth is to lynch Porkens. And I want to wait with this especially because, of HV.

Yes, I know, I will sound like a hypocrite here. Really sorry for this once again.

HV was called for active lurking. In response he gave us a one liner, which helped nothing and solved nothing. He went silent once again (isn't that 3 prod for him already?), and that's about it. If Porkens is ignoring call on him for playing scummy, then HV is doing it in spades.

So my current list of suspects right now:

1) Hurleys Van
2) Einlanzers
3) Porkens

Unfortunately, lynching the first one seems impossible now, but I'm gonna try anyway. I wanted to hammer Porkens several times already, but HH's and Vito's explanations made me change my mind. It's actually a bit weird, that two other players did it, instead of Porkens himself ~^

vote: Hurley's Van

[Col.Cathart]

*Looks at his list of suspects*

HV... Check. Porkens... Check, but it's not a good news.

So that leaves Ein. I didn't have time to reread everything, so for now I can only point out, that in previous days, they were both voting at the same person. More observations to come.

Also Ein, I hope that Honcho an Vino both explained, what inconsistence we see in you post, so maybe now, you'll give us a proper answer.

[Col.Cathart]

I was looking for some connections between HV and several other people (mainly Ein as a main suspect), and I didn't found much. This however is interesting:

Well I'm not much of the wall of quotes type of guy so I'll just give it simply.

Firstly, was the fact that he jumped on the wagon for Ein's and put him at L2 with just a single reason, (something about knowing so much about someone), which was a weak accusation, and he didn't even comment on anyone elses reason for voting for him.

Shortly thereafter precedes to say he will keep his vote on Ein's as "pressure" till Ein's post again.

refuses to comment on anyone else, besides Ein

Goes back to pushing for an Ein lynch

Switches gears over to Santos, without a mention as to why Ein was cleared, simply that he believed the claim

Goes quite

This is about Porkens and vote for him, if I recall correctly. As you can see, the main reason to lynch Porkens was because Porkens was attacking Ein.

Apart from that we have lots of Off-topic posts, active lurking, and no real connections with anyone, except maybe Santos.

Running away from uneasy questions, inconsistence, the same voting pattern as HV. Maybe Porkens was really right about you.

vote: Einlanzers

Because of above, and lack of any other suspects. Vino is confirmed townie. HH is playing very well, and aside from sudden D1 hammer, and Lupo's behavior, I have no suspicions ATM. Jammer was trying to lynch Porkens, but so do me for a long time, because I didn't believe him as well. Apart from that, he played really well. The only thing that bugs me was that strange unvote, when HV reached 3rd vote. Possible bussing? Maybe...

Anyway, I hope Ein will post soon with some defense.

[Col.Cathart]

Well I didn't reply Ein's post, because I saw no need. His response is that kind of thing, that cannot clear him from suspicions, even if it's honest. As long as Jammer or HH won't say anything scummy, I have no reason to change my vote.

I'm interested in Jammer's answer though...

[Col.Cathart]

Vanilla as well.

[Col.Cathart]

*Headdesk*

You can't be serious... You want to lynch, only because once she agreed with a scum, and once the scum agreed with her? Come on, that would be the lamest scum action, I ever heard...

Ok, look at the situation this way: Yes, it's a possibility that the other scum bussed HV. But do you seriously think, it's really gonna be a person who started talking about him? I think everyone saw his low activity, but everyone was ignoring it, or at least they didn't mention it too much. After his 'I don't think, we're going anywhere' post, only HH reacted in ANY way. If I didn't voted him, he would probably slip away only slightly noticed, and instead we would have lynched the cop.

Speaking of the cop... I had a multiple chances to hammer him, and I don't think anyone would point at me for this, because we all know, how Porkens was playing. Instead I decided to point at a scum who didn't have any heat on him. Does this make any sense?

[Col.Cathart]

EBWOP: By the lamest action, I two scum partners agreeing with each other, of course...

[Col.Cathart]

Holy Triple Post Batman!

By the lamest action, I

MEANT

two scum partners agreeing with each other, of course...

I hate typos...

[Col.Cathart]

Especially considering how he was lurking about while deadline approached to claim our beloved porkens.

Well, bugger. I knew, it will bite me in the ass at some point. I already explained it, and it's up to you to believe me or not.

About Porkens: Yes I wanted to lynch him. I still think he acted incredibly scummy, even now, when we all now, he was in fact a cop. (similar deal with Santos. In my opinion, Pro-town guy SHOULD NOT act like that). If I would be a cop, I would never play like that. We are really lucky, you and Vino made that job for him. Otherwise I would really hammer him at some point.

Let's face it: Porkens WAS acting scummy, you have to admit it, whether you were attacking him, or not. What's so bad in wanting to hammer a scummy acting guy? Yes, I know, he claimed, but you can claim Queen Elizabeth if you like, and I'm still not going to believe you, if you won't provide me any proofs.

About bussing: As I stated previously, throwing your scum partner under the bus is possible. However, if I would really be a scum, that wouldn't be throwing HV under the bus. No, that would be constructing the bus, telling people to get in, driving it, slamming into the wall of HV's house and smashing him, while he was having spaghetti for a dinner.

Can't you guys see, that this idea is just ridiculous? I had a multiple chance to kill a COP, and yet I decided to let him be (despite he did nothing to defend him, except the claim, which could be just as fake, as vanilla claim of one of us gathered here) and instead I went on someone who turned out to be scum. A scum who had a minimum amount of heat on him, on the top of that. Would a mobster act like that? If yes, then he must be batshit insane.

Not to mention, that bussing argument sounds weird in the mouth of someone, who followed my vote with a lightning speed...

Jammer: At the time, I made a terrible mistake: The tunnel vision. I was concentrating on Porkens and his scummy behavior, and therefore I missed both HV's and Ein's behavior. After I calmed down, I re-checked the older posts, and I noticed few more thing, I missed earlier.

So in short: I didn't vote Ein earlier, simply because I didn't suspect him earlier.

[Col.Cathart]

Because Ein still didn't answer properly, for the question HH was giving him for a long time. I'm usually waiting for the proper defense to place a vote or not (vide Porkens), so I decided to wait till he'll finally answer. HV on the other hand, when called for active lurking replied with a one liner, which was in fact, yet another scummy post. That meant to me, that HV said everything he wanted in his defense. That's why HV got my vote and not Ein.

Also,

unvote

. I'll re-check all thread again, after I'll be back from work.

[Col.Cathart]

Sorry guys, but my re-check will have to wait. My Father died last night, and I'm not really in a mood to play any mafia game ATM. I'll try to get to get together with this, and be back in the next few days.

I wish you good scumhunting for now.

[Col.Cathart]

Well not really. The biggest blow is already behind me, and I'm back. Well not with my full concentration, but definitely enough to finish things off.

I read all those 28 pages and my thoughts:

Jammer played extremely well on day 1, for some reason not so well on day 2. Almost non-existent on day 3. If Ein is not a mafia, then probably he is.

Lupo El Loco was acting incredibly scummy, but HH is playing fine. Since I just got voted for behavior of my predecessor, and I considered it a bullshit, therefore I cannot really consider it as a serious tell.

Ein played weird on day 1 (No Lynch, constant appeal to emotions), likewise on day 2 (mangled to death topic about inconsistency), and now day 3 and yet another appeal to emotions.

And so

vote: Einlanzers

Hopefully, this is the end.

[Col.Cathart]

Well, that NK was pretty obvious.

*Sigh* I really thought, it was Ein... Oh well, back to re-reading the thread.

[Col.Cathart]

Whoa, you sound almost like you are a confirmed innocent, beyond any suspicions. I missed something?

[Col.Cathart]

Ugh... Don't tell me, I'm digging this thread for interesting things to ask Jammer, only to have another replacement, who cannot answer them... -_-

[Col.Cathart]

How was I ¨bussing¨ HV if I did not even vote him?

You unvoted Porkens. According to the rules, HV would be lynched anyway at the deadline, even if no one would hammer him, because he had 3 votes, while Porkens had 2.

Still not sure what to make out of it. Maybe trying to let Porkens lynched by other players, and vote a partner to look more clean by not being on the Porkens wagon and preparing a HV-bus for the day after.

Overly complicated plan, and completely unnecessary, because neither me or HV was in danger of lynch. Why pull that kind of gambit, if we could enter the lylo stage with full power, and little to none heat over our heads? IMO this theory doesn't make any sense. If you don't know what to make of it, then don't make anything, because the truth is simple - HV was IMO scummy, so I voted. I'm still quite amazed, how quickly this wagon went ahead, though...

You sound more sure he was scum after he flipped town.

Weird word catching. Because of no other good candidates, I was almost sure, he was a scum. Hence the sentence right at the beginning of D4.

Also, why did you feel like mentioning me before, if you where pretty sure about Ein?

This is mafia. If you're not a cop with a report, you cannot be 100% sure. Never. If you don't have a backup suspect, then you're playing this game wrong IMO.

And btw, this is from the day 1:

Yes, jammer (which is why I voted for him)

He seems to want to take the lead of the investigation a bit too much, and really actively questions other players to shift the attention away from himself.

I like 'leading'. I like playing the game.
(I have a strange habit of push a lynch on players who ask, why are you leading, who cleared you?) Feels like the chainsaw attack, link I had to check myself whatever it meant.
Chainsaw attack

Everything was fine during D1. K, I can understand, you told us about limited Internet access during later part of D3 and early D4. But what happened during D2 and early D3? You had a short argument with Porkens, but that's it in terms of your major thread activity. What happened? You don't like 'leading' anymore?

[Col.Cathart]

I did not vote him, nor did I put a case on him. Bussing? You need some other argument. I could put a vote straight back at porkens at any time.

So what, you could have put back this vote at Porkens? Every vote can be changed every second, depending on someone's humor. It doesn't matter what you could do, but what you DID. And you just changed the deadline lynch target, 1 day before the deadline. That's far more bussy behavior, than my vote on HV IMO.

Yea, that was the point a little, the speed. I can see you wouldn´t think you bring him into lynch danger with it. And see you voting the partner and call in later situations back I voted him back then.

Why take any risk, if you can not risk anything at all? Especially considering, I had a far better target for scum vote right under my nose. I could lynch a COP, and probably go away with it, as my accusation was more or less the same as 3 other players, including you. I said it once, and I'll say it again - scum must've been nuts, to do something like that.

I do not know why talking about next suspect while you just hammered the earlier one, makes sense. If you suspect me enough to put me as imidiate next day lynch. I would have liked it if you brought up a case against me Day 3.

What immediate? Do you know what 'probably' means?

...

*Sigh* let's try from another angle - my scum suspicions at the end of day 3: Ein - 90% Jammer - 7% HH - 3%. Conclusion - I'm ALMOST sure, Ein is a mobster. If not (because there's still a possibility), then I think Jammer might be the one. Ein still had almost 13 times more percent than you, so I hammered him. Clear and visible enough?

Yep, that's my mistake, I should have question you more before I dropped a hammer, but so what? You where my backup suspect then so I was reading over and over your posts, and now, you're my main suspect, and that's why I'm questioning you right now. More experience for me, I should not tunnel vision, so be assured, I'll question HH as well, because there are still some weird plays on his part.

SO in short - I should put a case on you then. I didn't - time to repair the mistake.

Need to check dates for what part of D3 I had limited access. For D2? How was my posting a lack a activity? I did not lead enough?

Well, I was not prodded, that is one thing.

Can you post what lacked D2, then I can respond on that.

bolded part: cheap trick, and completely missing the point.

What lacked? Just look at your day 1. You were creating, and leading almost every discussion, asking lots of questions etc.

Day 2. Yep, you're still out there, but now you're only doing 1-2 line posts with a single question, that rarely pushed any situation anywhere. That's leading? More like a keeping the flame, rather than starting it. Not a leader thing at all, more like a puppet master attempt, and my previous experience tells me, that's a thing, the scum just LOVES to do, because you're staying out of trouble AND keeping a heat on innocent person at the same time.

Then we have Porkens claim. Kay, sure it's a normal thing not to believe it, I questioned it as well, but where I just kept asking Porkens for some arguments to backup his claim (I didn't get them, so I tried to threat him for them, but it didn't work as well...), you just went in and voted immediately. Weird at best, very scummy at worst. Your argument with Porkens was the only part, when you went back for a while to your former self from Day 1. And then you once again went into the shadows.

And to stop you from going away from the topic once again - I'm not suspecting you, for the fact, you kept low profile during D2. Everyone have a different playstyle. See imkingdavid from my previous game (newbie 802) for an example of talkative person who asks lots and lots of question, and see me. I cannot stand talking all the time, so I'm observer, who gets active, when something catches his attention.

So playstyle is different matter for every player. But it gets really suspicious when someone is changing his playstyle during the game. You were a talkative person, who even admitted, that it IS your playstyle, and yet you slowly transformed into an observer during day 2 and following. Why the change? You stopped liking being a leader?

It's late already, so answers for your questions in next post, and questions to HH will have to wait for tomorrow.

[Col.Cathart]

When you posted the vote, it did not really seem like you thought HV would be lynched, how is it now that of a big risk?

IMO every vote on your scum partner is some kind of risk, because... well, there's a chance to lose your scum partner. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

How is it cheap to point that out? You even admitted with the prod you thought you had another day? Reaks to tactical lurking.

I had a hectic time with my work, as I posted earlier. That's why I didn't notice it was my 3rd day of not voting, because I didn't have time to read everything, post time marks especially.

And that's a cheap trick because that was a 'Hey look, he got prodded - he's MAFIA!' and probable attempt to piss me off. At least, that's how I interpret it.

And to stop you from going away from the topic once again - I'm not suspecting you, for the fact, you kept low profile during D2. Everyone have a different playstyle. See imkingdavid from my previous game (newbie 802) for an example of talkative person who asks lots and lots of question, and see me. I cannot stand talking all the time, so I'm observer, who gets active, when something catches his attention.

=lurker
It might be handy to read that game for me.

Uhm... No. Posting something, without anything important to say is more (active) lurking than not posting anything.

I talk whenever I like to talk. Once there is ´fire´, why start a new one.

Because the first fire might be the false one? If I didn't brought HV active lurkiness, he would probably be still alive. And remember, I did that when Porkens was the main topic of discussion.

Also, I followed the lynch on Santos D1, I did not come close leading that. -.-

Missing the point once again. You know exactly what I meant by 'leading' the day 1, because you even answered positively, when you were discussing it with Lupo on day 1. Do not try to deny it, because you're contradicting your previous words.

1) Changing playstyle in game is not scummy.

Yes it is. If you are town, you don't need to change your tactic, because your goal is still the same - find a scum. When you are a scum, you have to change tactic, depending on situation you are faced with - your scum partner as a lynch target, heat on a random innocent player, attempt to fish out the power roles, etc. etc.

Not to mention, that fighter who prefers weaker but quicker punches, don't change his fighting style, to slow powerful punches JUST BECAUSE.

2) I don´t think I changed my playstyle. :S

Yes, you did. I already posted, why I think that, and if you want me to stop thinking that way - prove it.

HH - What do you think so far about our discussion?

[Col.Cathart]

And...

That's it for now, because we just hit the point where everything I could write after Jammers last post is a typical case of 'Your Mileage May Vary'.

Honcho, your move?

[Col.Cathart]

In all honesty - simple blindness. I went for Porkens and forgot about others, which was a mistake. When you and Vino convinced me, he may be innocent, I looked for another suspect, and HV with his active lurking was a perfect candidate. Since I didn't want to make that mistake again, from that point I'm always looking for at least 2 suspects.

Pretty much this game is one big trial and error for me.

[Col.Cathart]

Honcho - This question was already asked during D3, and I already answered it.

In short: when my vote happened, Ein was still yet to answer questions about inconsistence. I don't like to vote someone, before he'll say everything, that might defend him. HV on the other hand, after accusation about active lurking gave us one liner, which wasn't even an answer = he don't want to answer = he don't have anything more to say = I can vote already.

And you know what? This is getting ridiculous. It's obvious from this point of view, that Jammer will vote for me, and I'll vote for him. If Honcho is a scum, then our discussion is pointless anyway, and if he isn't, then none of our votes is dangerous.

So be it...

vote: Jammer

Honcho, if you're a scum, Good Game, and coup de grace this game please. If you're not, and if Jammer will vote back, please don't vote immediately. This way I'll know at least, I'm correct with my point.

[Col.Cathart]

When I entered the watched topics, and saw 'game over', my thought was 'DAMN IT! So Honcho IS a scum after all!'

So this win is pretty shocking, but I cannot say, I'm not happy, because, God damn it, I am

I told you guys - Scum must've been crazy to do such a stunt on his scumpartner in that circumstances, and I am not crazy

Awesome game, I'm glad I joined it. Thanks everyone, you are awesome, especially Zorblag

[Col.Cathart]

as for our kill today, I was thinking Col.Cathart. Even though he had a neutral read on us, he is really good and I wouldn't mind in the least bit to see him dead.

God, I would be so pissed off, if I would be Night 1 Killed in my first two games on this site...

On the other hand, people think I'm good and dangerous. Yay me

[Col.Cathart]

Vino: Hammer on D1 + Following immediately my vote on HV + several other things, I don't remember ATM. It was a small chance, but still...

Santos: Honcho hammered you, not me. I get your point, but just for clarity sake...