Newbie 1006 (Game Over|Scum Win)

[Wisakedjak]

I'll answer the questions before I get into the game.

How much mafia have you played?
How often are you planning to be online to play?
Who are you going to vote for?

1: This is my second time actually playing, but I've read somewhere around 30 mafia threads (although only 3 on this site) so I have an idea of how the game plays out.
2: I check the internet pretty regularly, so I'll be on at least once a day.
3: I want to agree with the IC who says fencesitting is a questionable play, and cast a vote for Rydon, but my gut doesn't tell me he's scum at this point. I agree with the analysis, but reading new players is difficult (much like playing poker against completely new players), so what are generally tells in a subtler context may just be a townie who doesn't realize he's acting suspicious. His vote is for someone he finds suspect, and he backpedals because he doesn't actually have much logical ground in the face of who he's arguing with. His inexperience betrays him, but he doesn't change his and the tone of his contributions doesn't seem scummy. Maybe this will change in the future? At the moment, he isn't my vote.

Right now, I'm going to VOTE: gaulamos for attacking wingless on some pretty flimsy reasoning. It's not hard to determine the odds on SE/IC members in the mafia. He's making a statement that it's an unlikely occurance, which seems to me to be as much to go on as anyone has on D1.

I'll also point out that it's way too early in the game for me to get any real kind of read, but that's what i'm going for for the time being.

[Wisakedjak]

EBWOP: ...doesn't change his

vote

and the tone of his...

I should really preview these before sending them out

[Wisakedjak]

UNVOTE: Gaulamos
VOTE: Paschendale

sorry, something misfired in my brain

[Wisakedjak]

In my last post, I said why I'm voting for Paschendale. I meant to vote for Paschendale. I typed out Gaulamos.

[Wisakedjak]

Boberz's claim that he had discovered the whole answer from three posts was absurd. I suspect he is just using his status and experience here to push his own view. A view that has no merit. Two people, voting for different people, and you have the answer?

I'm certain that Boberz is exagerrating a little. There's nothing in the rules that states: "BE 100% SERIOUS AT ALL TIMES OR I START KILLING PUPPIES". Read that post again without thinking he's serious and you'll see what I mean.

This brings me to Wingless. I don't actually think he's scum. I think he's trying to outthink the meta of the game, and that's a stupid position. That's the kind of playing that is weak for town. That's why I voted him.

Ok, if you actually believe that, that's a kind of near-miss of logic that will cost the towIn. He's not playing the meta of the game, he's suggesting a way to go based on how the game is structured. It's a poor way to decide who to vote for (1/12 games means there are still games where it happens), but, again, it isn't a 'be-all-end-all' strategy for playing, but something to keep in mind. Personally, I agree, but that's because I think keeping the experienced players around for a frame of reference and actual experience and insight is just a good idea. It wouldn't suprise me if the Mafia tried to kill the IC or one of the SE's first, just because that lack of experience is such a huge setback.

You have to root out the weak townies in order to get at the scum. So, I stand by my position.

I'm going to put this in bold for emphasis.

Never vote for someone you're sure is town.

That being said, regardless of whether or not you think Wingless is town, the whole notion of voting off the weak town is

really flippin' stupid

. Why?

With 9 players in the game, we have 2/7 mafia distribution. Mislynch on Day 1 makes it a 2/5 as the Mafia kills one at night. Another mislynch sets the game to 2/3.

If we had 2 "weak townies" to eliminate before we "get at the scum" you are putting the town in LyLo. That is a

very, very bad idea.

Standing by that position makes you look scummy. It's not necessarily a scumtell, but it is definitely an anti-town stance to have, and if there's a townie who actually should be lynched, it's those who take decidely anti-town stances. Do you see the difference there?

Wingless is trying to do everything except analyze what people are saying.

Or, he's waiting until some people actually make a stand to make a decision. To me, it looks like we're just getting out of RVS now.

If you want someone who really isn't taking a stand, look at him. His contributions have been bad math and an OMGUS vote.

Whereas your contributions have been to take an anti-town stance while focussing something else.

[Wisakedjak]

sigh... previews.

As a small addition - Paschendale, you aren't making your case look any better right now. Making arguments without points and getting angry aren't really doing you any favours.

[Wisakedjak]

EBWOP part III

voting for someone you think is town is a bad idea unless it's a policy lynch for someone playing in an anti-town way.

[Wisakedjak]

Oh dear lord I hope you guys (the SEs) are just joking around. And if you are, I would appreciate it if you would start actually playing, thanks.

My points, in short.

1. I didn't want to vote right away. I wanted to at least wait until everyone had posted once, just so I knew who was in the game. That's not scummy, that's just taking things a little slowly.

That's not at all something I was using against you, but thanks for being defensive anyways.

2. I voted Wingless because the only other major arguments going on weren't leading anywhere and I wanted to try another direction. I actually did think his point was foolish, even if it is mathematically true. If you keep those numbers in your head, you tunnel your vision and you ignore things that don't fit it. That's a bad position to play from. So, I killed two birds with one stone. I started a discussion, and I called out some bad play.

Let's both be frank: Wingless' point was garbage. But you voted for him on based on his bad logic with more bad logic of your own. When I pointed out your bad logic, you used terrible logic to defend it. I'm calling out your bad play. Especially your anti-town attitude. I'm not sure if you're just new, dumb or scum.

3. There is nothing anti-town about what I've done.

Yes, there is. You're talking about lynching town and saying it's perfectly ok. It's not. That's anti-town, because you're lynching town. Understand?

I called "bull" on some bad arguments, and put forth an argument of my own. At this point, I'm not sure enough of anyone's status to make a claim of town or scum. I'll put out a few thoughts, and maybe try to put pressure on someone. My pressure of Wingless is done, so I'll move on.

I'm putting pressure on you now. You're L-2 and you're squirming, being defensive, ignoring arguments and showing anti-town attitudes. I'm not certain you're scum, but you're not helping your case.

That's all the points against me.

Including ones you made up yourself.

Waiting until my second post to vote, and calling out Wingless on a bad idea. I firmly stand that Boberz is just trying to hammer someone, and doesn't care who. That's been his position from the start. It is essential to kill someone on day 1, but doing it in such a haphazard way isn't the correct one, nor is retracting each accusation and throwing yourself at a new one, as he has done. Overzealous attacks like this are a great cover for one dominant scum who wants to keep his partner in the shadows. He's not scum hunting, he's blowing hot air.

I'm pretty sure that Boberz is just testing the waters at this point, sounding people so he can see what they're reactions are. With that in mind, I'm not labelling Boberz obvtown.

You're also not making much of an argument. You're accusing Bobby boy here of wanting to hammer, but where do you get that idea from? He's already said he doesn't want anyone at L-1. While his methods might be aggressive, he's not actually cementing any kills or calling for a quicklynch. What he is doing is taking questionable stances and means and pushing the players who make/take them to respond. This is what scum hunting is. You're getting defensive and OMGUS in retaliation instead of making a logical post in return. Stop blowing hot air and make a real point.

I'm certain that Boberz is exagerrating a little. There's nothing in the rules that states: "BE 100% SERIOUS AT ALL TIMES OR I START KILLING PUPPIES". Read that post again without thinking he's serious and you'll see what I mean.

I don't just speak of his first post.

Thank you, I was trying to demonstrate this by doing rather than saying.

Do as I do and all that.

On that point what do you make of the game so far Zach

Any thoughts Zach?

Twice he refuses to put his money where his mouth is and asks for support of his decisions. Boberz doesn't even believe in his positions enough to find support himself, so he tries to link himself to someone else and rely on them to prove for him.

I'm pretty sure you've misinterpreted him. He's asking the IC what his opinion is of the game so far, not necessarily as backup for the arguments. Also, you've taken two quotes of his completely out of conext. What's he demonstrating? Why, as a scum, would he need the IC's approval or input? Why, as a townie, the same? This is just fluff.

And then he threatens me for noticing what he's doing. Again, not putting his money where his mouth is. If he really thought I was scum, he'd move in the for kill. Instead he's trying to get someone else to do it to try and foster the idea that people should listen to him.

He's already said he doesn't want anyone at L-1 in case the Mafia want to quickhammer someone before the day is done. Prrreeeetttyyy sure that he's not going to do that himself right after he warns the town not to.

What is your case?

[Wisakedjak]

no saying that you got both scum on the 4th post is NOT testing the waters. that is not scumhunting, imagine how a newb would react- he also said he didnt want to vote me so i could cry OMGUS. what kind of a shit excuse is that- so i wont vote confrimed scum cos he has a vote on me?

i like how you completely ignored my post

It really depends if you're serious or not. I assumed you weren't being serious with your post because it sounded like you were playing along with Boberz. If it was serious, I am very sorry for you.

Yes, calling scum like that on the 4th post is meaningless (also just a touch scummy), no, it is not scum hunting, yes, it gets us out of RVS, yes, it's confusing for a new player. Does that mean he's scum? You voted for him "because he's the only person I know". His choice of voting was just as arbitrary and random as yours, except he pretended to be serious about it. How is

anyone

missing the fact that a statement like that at a time like that isn't serious?

I don't know what kind of reading comprehension you have, but Zach suggested that, if he were in Boberz' shoes, he would've voted for you. Boberz said that, if he did, it would look like an OMGUS vote, which, tbh, it pretty pointless at that point of the game anyways.

So, like I said, I ignored your post because, frankly, it's so ridiculous that I can't take it seriously.

Also keep in mind his snarky little comments inside his quotes, calling people fools and "idiot who can't play mafia". He's flipping out, losing his cool, and relying on insults rather than arguments.

He's not flipping out. He's making himself seem better by insulting or praising people with quote names to make himself look like a reputable source. But let's look at the two quotes you're using as proof that he's using AtE instead of logical argument.

someone who cant play mafia wrote: Twice he refuses to put his money where his mouth is and asks for support of his decisions.

While it may be marginally uncalled for, it is justified. Why? Because you were 100% wrong with that read. It only showed material that's only incriminating if you pull it out of context and put your own meaning on it. Easily the dumbest thing I read all thread before Andrew came along and opened his mouth.

Andrew you are a fool

Justified. Why? Because if andrew is serious, he's an idiot.

That, my friend, is anti-town. Playing on emotions rather than thinking through the issue. He's not gonna find scum this way, but he'll sure as hell get someone lynched for challenging him. That kind of play doesn't help town, it only helps him survive and dominate. He'll sacrifice townies who disagree with him in order to make himself feel stronger.

He's not really using AtE, though. He's making fun of people who take dumb stances. That gets you all pissed off, and it should, but he does it because pissed off people make mistakes.

You wanted to know what my case was, Wisa? I've told you twice already. I've shown you what Boberz is going to do for the rest of the game, and how it's incredibly beneficial to him, and hinders town. Beating up on people doesn't flush out scum. Scum know not to engage so hard. Townies who disagree are the ones who'll fight back, as I am right now. Boberz is trying to kill the competition, not the scum. His position is geared towards ensuring that he lives longer and isn't lynched himself. Isn't that exactly what scum try to do?

Look, Boberz is not the caricature that you're making him out to be. If he were, or if you had better material to go with, I might agree with you. But he isn't acting that way, and you don't. You're building a strawman argument without addressing reasons why I shouldn't be voting for you.

[Wisakedjak]

one away from a lynch

[Wisakedjak]

I'm curious, Wisa, other than stating that I'm wrong and Boberz is right (which is an opinion, not a fact), what exactly is your argument against me?

gaulamos made a really good post that points out some of your inconsistencies that I find to be scummy. A basic recount is:

Hypocrisy in stances, twisting arguments outside of context to make cases, and having an anti-town attitude that you say is pro-town.

So.

Hypocrisy in stances is in the last post. I'll quote the text for ease of reference, even though it's literally right above this one.

Paschendale wrote:Let's here what other people have to say, and maybe we'll actually find a scum instead of a noob.


To be honest i saw nothing wrong with this at first, however you followed this up with this:

Paschendale wrote:Bad meta at its finest. Trying to guess what the mod was thinking, especially when roles are assigned randomly, leads to bad choices.
Vote: Wingless


So let me see, you were willing to wait for people to come in on your 1st post, them people pointed out you were fence sitting and you just decided to vote Wingless 2 hours later. You attacked Wingless for trying to guess what the mod was thinking, i agree with you that that might lead to bad choices but that also shows that Wingless is just probably a noob townie.

Hypocrisy like this is really scummy behaviour. That's a mark against you.

Taking quotations out of context:

Wisakedjak wrote:I'm certain that Boberz is exagerrating a little. There's nothing in the rules that states: "BE 100% SERIOUS AT ALL TIMES OR I START KILLING PUPPIES". Read that post again without thinking he's serious and you'll see what I mean.

Paschendale wrote: I don't just speak of his first post.

boberz wrote:
Thank you, I was trying to demonstrate this by doing rather than saying.

Do as I do and all that.

On that point what do you make of the game so far Zach

boberz wrote:Any thoughts Zach?

Paschendale wrote: Twice he refuses to put his money where his mouth is and asks for support of his decisions. Boberz doesn't even believe in his positions enough to find support himself, so he tries to link himself to someone else and rely on them to prove for him.

Taking something that's clearly not serious and using it as evidence against a player is a pretty stupid thing to do. You take a couple lines, twist them out of context and build a case on it. When this doesn't work, you just switch to the next thing to tunnel Boberz with. Boberz is a target because he's aggressive and vocal, but he's not stupid and he calls you out for this.

The last part is having a clearly anti-town attitude:

On top of this, you actually

voted for someone who you thought was town

and said that, and I quote:

I don't actually think he's scum. I think he's trying to outthink the meta of the game, and that's a stupid position. That's the kind of playing that is weak for town. That's why I voted him... ...You have to root out the weak townies in order to get at the scum.

WHO VOTES FOR SOMEONE THEY KNOW IS TOWN?

SCUM.

However, the notion that mafia will be more active than town doesn't often ring true, either. Getting town to fight each other is a good scum stance, as is

leading witch hunts on townies.

That's one of those second guesses that seldom pan out.

The bolded part is what I'm going to point out here. It's one of the fun things about language, really. What's the difference between a 'witch hunt' on townies and a bandwagon on scum? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

What I see you doing here is taking pro-town activities, denouncing them and saying that anyone who steps up to a leadership position and makes a case against someone (which, ironically enough, you yourself are doing), that it's a scummy thing to do. This confusion of motives is yet another mark of your scummy behavious, or at the very least huge anti-town tendencies.

Laying grounds to control the votes, while theoretically pro-town, is only so if the person is a) actually town and b) correct in his accusations. His unwillingness and inability to actually back up his claims and lay votes himself does not show real belief in his stances, nor genuine scum hunting. His actions are inherently self-centered, rather than group-centered. Scum's objective is to protect themselves. Town's objective is to kill the right people. His goal is just to kill the people he chooses, whether they be innocent or guilty. That's scummy.

For the record, you haven't backed up your claims except by using poor logic. You don't bother to address the holes in your arguments that I point out to you (admittedly, I didn't ask a direct question, so perhaps the fault is mine), the stances you do hold belief in are inherently anti-town and far more self-centered than this made up case you have around boberz. You project motives into his actions that aren't actually there for anyone else looking at what he posts. This is much scummier than what Boberz is doing.

tl;dr version

Paschendale, at this point I'm convinced that it doesn't matter whether or not you're town or scum. You need to be policy lynched because you have hypocritical stances, you make horrible arguments with terrible logic on the weakest premises and you have a proven anti-town attitude. This kind of play is detrimental to the town no matter who's side you're on. Everyone should vote you today for this reason.


edit based on reading the new post:

Pasch: Why have you not commented on flip-flopping like gaulamos pointed out?

On a side note, I am not protecting Boberz. I am pointing out your bad logic and arguments and explaining why they are bad. If you have a problem with that,

stop making bad arguments

.

Seriously, guys, ISO Pasch's posting and explain to me how I'm wrong.

[Wisakedjak]

For the purposes of bandwagon analysis it matters. A policy lynch allows people to hop onto the wagon with your policy reason, making analysis and review a lot harder in subsequent days. Policy lynches get a big frowny face.

I hadn't considered that. I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[Wisakedjak]

I am really surprised that so many people are making such a big deal about the phrase "cop out".

Where is everyone from, for the record?

I'm from Toronto, Canada.

I ask because this will help limit communication failures from figures of speech in the future.

[Wisakedjak]

uh... *facepalm*

doc: protect the most likely target of the mafia
cop: investigate the scummiest looking person, or whoever looks most suspicious to them.

[Wisakedjak]

hard to tell if it's a scum move, or a bad play from a new player

[Wisakedjak]

it's actually really, really bad.

The scum will recognize the scum names being listed and will know who the cop is well before the town does. They can also tailor their results to confuse people who might think the cop was right. So many things just aren't pro-town about it.

[Wisakedjak]

Setting up any game so it is reliant on PRs does not work (if it does it is a bad setup).

It can be fun! I'm running a bastard mod on another site right now with a closed set up. It's three groups of mafia and a serial killer. It relies on the Godfathers and Serial Killer being NK-immune to work, but nobody suspects a thing about the set up.

[Wisakedjak]

As a sideline, I would like to know where Rydon is and why he didn't comment on the Paschendale Inquisition. Also, what are your scumreads sitting at so far?

Re: Wingless

I'm not going to switch my vote yet. I'm still not sure if Paschendale is town, but while Wingless seems like he's rolefishing, I think he's just inexperienced.

Right now my suspicion is on Rydon and andrew, but I haven't formulated a case yet.

[Wisakedjak]

Right now my suspicion is on Rydon and andrew, but I haven't formulated a case yet.

Why are you no longer suspicious of Paschendale?

Who says I'm not? There's more than one scum out there, and I'm looking for the other.

[Wisakedjak]

Right now my suspicion is on Rydon and andrew, but I haven't formulated a case yet.

Why are you no longer suspicious of Paschendale?

Who says I'm not? There's more than one scum out there, and I'm looking for the other.

What is your case on Rydon?

As soon as we started putting pressure on him, he disappeared. I'm still not sure that he's scum, but he must have been lurking. His last post was a "oh, I'm not scum! What you see is what you get, har har har!" and then... nothing. I think this is suspicious.

Still not taking my vote off Paschendale, though. I don't think he's good for the town at all.

[Wisakedjak]

someone pls condense all the arguments (summarise) and use only quotes that matter not the whole thing.

...

lynch all liers

...

Okay so andrew thinks that a 'random' vote coincidentally for the person he knows is random. So for clearly trying to misrepresent in the random vote stage, having his vote tactically on a player he obviously wants to mislynch me immediately.

Also the fact Zdenek is clearly trying to buddy Zach makes me very suspicious. There is no reason to apologise for a random vote so it is clearly a fear of someone striking in their first post.

vote zdenek

Cos he is clearly scum with andrew (I am not joking this is serious and I have so caught the scum already. Someone join me on this wagon it is looking hot.

A few questions:

How much mafia have you played?
How often are you planning to be online to play?
Who are you going to vote for?

u caught a scum in 3 posts- i notice you dont do this in last game

for now i'm holding my vote, waiting for everyone to speak up.

Cop out.

ultimate role fishing, then states that cop out means not voting

I mean you copped out, meaning you wimped out of voting. An expression not referring to any kind of inspector!!!

Stop talking about the cop. And whether right or wrong you should join me on the wagon, or wagon me.

then you said 'O GOSH I MEANT NOT VOTING
nice word choice

then you said stop talking about the cop. its funny how YOU started it

Okay so andrew thinks that a 'random' vote coincidentally for the person he knows is random. So for clearly trying to misrepresent in the random vote stage, having his vote tactically on a player he obviously wants to mislynch me immediately.

Also the fact Zdenek is clearly trying to buddy Zach makes me very suspicious. There is no reason to apologise for a random vote so it is clearly a fear of someone striking in their first post.

...

im serious about the cop out comment.
why the phrase'cop out' just say fucking WHY NOT VOTING

instead he say cop out which is often related more likely to the cop
and then he says ' o it means not voting'

i say whatever

...

like i said, i was mostly fooling around at the start around the rvs vote on u

So you say you were fooling around at the start with the rvs vote. The first one I can believe. But you didn't let off with the whole cop out thing even though saying that you were serious about the cop out comment, then saying, "Oh, I was mostly fooling around." I don't buy it.

I don't buy your claim either. You are careless with your life:

i clearly said that if wingless flips town, lynch me tommorrow

But you're a town power role that stays quiet and doesn't get caught? There's so much looseness to your play I have a hard time believing anything you say. You've compromised your own integrity.

And now I hammer.

UNVOTE: Paschendale Don't think you're off the hook, Pasch
VOTE: andrew94

in retrospect, this got sent out a bit late.

Paaaaaaasch!!! wtf are you doing!!

[Wisakedjak]

for the record, anyone who genuinely claims doctor is a dumbass

you're gonna get shot, boy.

[Wisakedjak]

For the record, I still don't see Pasch as town.

Pasch is smart enough to bus andrew for townie points, and counterclaiming a pr that's suicide to actually claim is a clever way of going about it.

[Wisakedjak]

it's pasch's timing on this vote that also says something about his alignment.

still, not much we can do until we know the flip

Wingless: WIFOM is just useless thinking. It's like saying, "Well I know that he knows that I'm probably going to do X. But does he really know that, or am I just saying he does? If he does know, then I will go Y and if he doesn't then I'll go X."

The whole thing revolves around saying what you think someone else is thinking while having no way at all to actually calculate everything. It's avoided in mafia because it's terrible evidence for anything (innocence, guilt) because it doesn't prove anything. You may as well just be videotaping and posting your farts.

[Wisakedjak]

The timing of my vote was that I had to catch a train and go to school. Up until the role claim from Andrew, I thought he was just stupid. Then he lied. I am the only person with actual proof that he's lying, and everyone who had made arguments against Andrew had already voted. Considering how hyper focused on me Wisa has been, I wasn't really expecting such a quick turnaround from him.

As to my own survival, I guess the scum could weigh the odds as to whether or not I will protect myself tonight. But since I'm such an obvious target, it's probably what I'm going to do.

I focused on you because you were acting scummy. I laid out exactly why I thought you were scummy. This claim doesn't negate my suspicions. I switched my vote to andrew because he's looking scummier than you, and I laid out why I switched my vote to him as well.

When you stop being scummy, i'll stop focussing you. Fair?

[Wisakedjak]

ps - when I said the timing of your vote, I mean you come in to hammer.

If bussing is what's going on (too much WIFOM to go down that road, but it can't be ignored), you have very convenient timing to bus your scumbuddy and a good claim with which to do so.

I can't imagine any real doctor claiming on Day 1.

[Wisakedjak]

So most of the connections I was making have been shot out of the water.

the yellowbounder/rydonmower slot has seemed off since the beginning of the game. While I initially wrote it off as just being new, the slot never participated at all once the serious voting and arguing began. I'm suggesting pressure to see what comes out.

VOTE: yellowbounder

[Wisakedjak]

I'm still waiting for yellowbounder to actually contribute and zach to put up something more substantial. I like what zach says, but he's only really posted ITT about 3 times.

[Wisakedjak]

wingless it is.

VOTE: Wingless

[Wisakedjak]

Wisa: "Wingless it is" bad bad post. I think you are town WIsa which is why I have been trying to work with you a little bit. But this is a bad bad post.

I am aware of this. I'm sheeping because I don't see anything happening the yellowbounder wagon. It is intensely frustrating when that playerslot has been inactive for almost the entire game. Yellowbounder's only contribution to the thread was a wagonvote on D1 and to say, twice, that he's going to read the thread. How can I get a read on them if they aren't even attempting to contribute?

tbh, I feel like a lot of life has gone out of this game. After the Paschendale arguments (which were interesting, although what poor play on both his and andrew's part), nobody was really contributing much. Because of this, we don't have much to go off and no one's really saying anything. My answer is to cast votes to get a flip and see what connections can be made from there. I don't mind voting wingless because I can easily see his play as being scummy, but not enough to make me focus on him. I'd rather have everyone participating than focussing on the few active scumhunters in town.

Also, even though this is purely anecdotal evidence, Zach pointed out this post:

I would like to get information from yellowbounder, but I do not want to make him L-1. Becouse if I do that, a goon can hammer it, and we will have 1/3 odds.

It really does just feel so scummy. I was scum in my first game and I ended up saying something very, very similar to make myself seem town. All of this is WIFOM, I know, but it still tells me that wingless isn't necessarily innocent.

[Wisakedjak]

Where is yellowbounder? What is the deal with that slot?

[Wisakedjak]

I didn't say we should be lynching yellowbounder. But I dislike the idea of a position that can go through 2 days and 2 night

[Wisakedjak]

s without contributing in the slightest and have nobody say a thing about it.

sorry for the double post, but apparently my fat fingers on a laptop = pushing random buttons that submit messages on forums?

[Wisakedjak]

How is yellowbounder cleared?

[Wisakedjak]

Yeah, the mod's defence of that slot is a null tell. All it has said is that the slot has informed the mod of technical problems, but this doesn't hint at alignment at all.

[Wisakedjak]

I'm shamelessly sheeping, but I have to admit gaul is looking pretty terrible at this point. He's all over the place with his accusations and is looking pretty hypocritical when he accuses zdenek of just trying to get a lynch right now.

UNVOTE

VOTE: gaulamos

[Wisakedjak]

Not to sound sassy, but what is there to say? I was waiting for yellowbounder to contribute, and he just left the game. Now we're waiting for gaul to come and claim.

[Wisakedjak]

If Zachrulez is the cop, then the only person to lynch is Wingless. I realize that my bandwagons on D1 were pretty terrible, but I was genuinely trying to scumhunt, then was totally lost on D2, partially from a waning interest from everyone in the game.

The way I see it, the only possiblities left for scum are the blank slot (i still don't know why we'd cancel that out, except maybe that people are less interested in investing in a game as a vt?), wingless and myself. I'm ruling myself out and will have to

vote: Wingless

. It's not as though he has a pristine record.

[Wisakedjak]

wingless are you just claiming scum or what

[Wisakedjak]

mod, i voted wingless in #376

[Wisakedjak]

wingless comes from a poker site, he wants to know strategies, calls to make in situations, he wants to have a gameplan of what to do before he commits to something.

His first post votes for Gaul. (ISO 1) Assuming my profiling is correct, he's going for a strategic play right off the bat to give him some kind of credibility, which is to vote for his partner to distance himself from his partner. Not really a tell - circumstantial evidence.

on Day 1 he engages in rolefishing when he suggests an easy-to-break system for the cop to out himself. ISO 12

He defends it at first, saying it's a good system (ISO 12, 14, 15), but then distances himself by saying he didn't create it. WIFOM for it (begging the question) "I thought it would help the town. If I were scum, why would I do that?" ISO 20. After going on and on about how he's inexperienced and cannot offer anything to the town, he attributes the system to inexperienced players, distancing himself from it.

Somewhat interested in scumhunting, but only for the powerroles. ISO 11

Frequently comments on how inexperienced he is (see: boberz about andrew winning as scum with a similar strategy) (ISO 7, 20, 23) and frequently uses WIFOM logic. ISO 20

Names two town roles as not scum. Since he knows who is town, it's like brownie points for pointing out town roles. He comments on his own inexperience, has never scumhunted or pointed out obvtown before, but names zdenek and boberz as likely to be town (don't think they're mafia iso 23) he never vets for anybody afterwards. Circumstantial.

WIFOM "I would seriously think about lynching my scum mate. But, it could make me a perfect town image." ISO 30

ISO 36 is ridiculously similar to a post i made in the first mafia game i played where i was scum. (http://www.casualdiscourse.com/forums/s ... tcount=107) I already mentioned this, but here's the link in question.

point in his favour: he votes for gaulamos immediately after boberz makes his argument against him. ISO 37

point against him: he flipflops to zach with some horribly reasoned argument about zach not scumhunting, ISO 39

He also names his voters, all of whom are town. Zdenek, who is now confirmed town, me, who is town, and zach, who claims cop. He votes for Zach, ultimately.

but later returns to the gaulamos vote to cement his public image with some terrible posting ISO 43, 44

These are the main things in my case against Wingless. This is why I'm voting for Wingless, although I hadn't actually formatted and gone through the thread to do an ISO post earlier.

[Wisakedjak]

in response to Wingless' accusations about me, the first was merely a slip - i got paschendale and gaulamos names confused because i'd just learned them that day. My previous post was an argument against pasch.

For the second, I'm not sure how I can respond to that without using WIFOM. The whole basis of the argument is that I can't bear to lose my scum partner, so i vote for him reluctantly and back off.

Since the argument is based completely on my playstyle and I have no real meta to offer (this is the second game i've signed up for), what can I say except, "if it were me..." and we all know how well that worked for OJ.

[Wisakedjak]

Do you frequently employ the use of crack cocaine to scumhunt, or is it just recently?

[Wisakedjak]

Do you know why I made a stupid answer? It's because you have such a stupid argument.

But Paschendale and I appeared after the last post of gaulamos. Gaulamos couldn't speak with me or with Pasch before your vote. Gaulamos didn't even post on that page where you voted him while reasoning against Pasch! They hadn't done anything similar. You couldn't have swapped them without thinking intensely about gaul, your mate. There is nothing that could cause this but your scumminess.

You're saying that Gaulamos not being present on the page, then my confusing of Paschendale for Gaulamos is because I was still thinking intently about my theoretical scumpartner. How do I answer this without saying "This is how I would've done it:"? If I do say that, the entire argument is pointless and unprovable because it's just theorizing what I would have done in another situation.

You making an assumption like that about my play depends on you having an understanding of how I think and operate. How have you learned this? What do you have to go off of for it?

On top of this, what makes you think that:

a) this situation could

not

have happened with me being town?
b) (this is a bad argument) if I was mafia and thinking about my scum partner, wouldn't I scrupulously avoid using his name to distance myself from them?
c) you have never been in a situation where you've accidentally used someone else's name because you're unfamiliar with theirs?

There are so many holes in this one event that supposedly proves I'm scum.

To return the favour, why haven't you defended yourself against the points I made against you?

[Wisakedjak]

For the record, mafia claiming cop is a strong, winning move at this point of the game.

[Wisakedjak]

You do know that Freud has been ruthlessly debunked, yes?

Kerry Bo Berry: I'm not scum. Does that help? I am paranoid, though.

[Wisakedjak]

do i really need to argue this terrible point?

[Wisakedjak]

You're accusing me of making a Freudian slip and not accounting for any other reasonable explanation. Should I get on a high-horse about Occam's Razor, while we're throwing names around? Your accusation requires so much unlikely support that, in itself, it is not a strong argument.

[Wisakedjak]

That's lovely. The point with gaul's lynch is the only real point you have against me. Unfortunately, it's just bad timing for when I joined the wagon. Truth is, I didn't really know or think gaul was scum, but I sheeped people who knew what they were doing.

What about your own flip-flopping on that same lynch? leaping on, backing off when it gets hot to OMGUS people, then jumping on again at the last minute?

[Wisakedjak]

We're used to it by now

[Wisakedjak]

If you guys need to lynch me for clarity on the last day's lynch, then do it. At that point it's between Wingless and SK, the latter of whom enjoys the advantage of having no record with the town where Wingless has a spotty record.

[Wisakedjak]

we know it's one of those 2, so choose wisely

[Wisakedjak]

Because I don't really think he's mafia. But it is a possibility.

[Wisakedjak]

Again, standstill, again, same slot.

What else is there to say?

[Wisakedjak]

We should get something from Kerrigan.

here is my own prod-dodge post

[Wisakedjak]

I quickly skimmed his ISO in a couple of them, but there really isn't a direct comparison that can be made. I don't expect ICs to play the same in a new player's game as they do in a regular game - the way people interact with each other is completely different. While I don't 100% support the idea that Zach is town, I still lean towards it.

[Wisakedjak]

If i have enough time, i think i'll read one of Zach's game a bit.

zach's games posted : Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:08 pm
wingless post : Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:28 pm

Hey, it's only been 2 weeks and 3 days, we'll give you another month or so

[Wisakedjak]

If we have to lynch somebody, I suggest that we lynch the blank slot. We don't know anything about them and run the risk of having to random guess a couple of scummy looking new players vs. someone with no background whatsoever.

UNVOTE: Wingless
VOTE: Saint Kerrigan

[Wisakedjak]

Yes, I made bizarre statements, but I didn't play the newbie card with will. I am newbie without pretending it.

yes you did. On three occasions:

ISO #20

Listen, guys. If I were an experienced player... I am not experienced.

ISO #23 (in response to Zdenek voting him)

If you think it is a good idea, justify it and go for it.

Fair enough . . . .
When it comes to Wingless, I think I've seen enough. Post by post:

1. He opens the game with the plan to vote off an inexperienced player with the justification that it is unlikely that 2 of the 3 experienced players are mafia. While that's true, it is a completely ludicrous argument for voting off an inexperienced player who is no more likely to be mafia than anyone else.

2. Switches his vote to Paschendale for voting for him for those reasons. OMGUS? But okay, Paschendale turned out to be suspicious after all.

3.

I'm going to get a cool avatar,

How can i be SE or IC? Do i have to win heaps of games?

Where's that guide? I would be pleased if I were told where those guides are.

making comments that are irrelevant to the game.

4.

Wagon that Paschendale guy unless he shows us something

It seems a little chummy, and on top of that, they've both been suspicious. He seems really happy about this post, and I wonder if it's because he is bussing his partner . . .

5.

This is my first online mafia game, so i am fairly bad.

Here he says that its his first mafia game, but it turns out later that he's modding a game on another site, so I think it means he is lying about his experience level.

6.

Could somebody explain to me why is boberz voted 3 times? You guys wrote a heap of posts and things, and my mother language is not english so i do not really enjoy reading them and i do not understand it as you do.

He doesn't care to read people's posts.

7. Role fishing.

8.

I think I will be killed after you.

This seems to imply some sort of knowledge about the order in which people are going to be killed.

9. He goes on for a while about how he must inexperienced using a WIFOM style argument.

If he is inexperienced, then there is a good chance that he is mafia simply because of the things that he is saying: making comments that are irrelevant, not caring to read people's posts and seeming to have some sort of knowledge about the order in which people are going to be killed.

If he is pretending to be inexperienced, then his actions indicate that he is trying to out the power roles, and get the town to pursue poor strategies.


Unvote

Vote Wingless

I am inexperienced.

I have never played with experienced players before. I am hosting my game on a poker forum, so I had to organize the whole thing and as the organizer, I couldn't take part in it.

If i were experienced, I wouldn't have made these nooby/scummy posts that cause life expectancy reduction.

I wouldn't be that fool.

I am just totally newbie

and I didn't know what is going to kill me, what kind of noob post. I was not role fishing. I tried to make a system that gives the cop full comfort.

I can not read all your posts here because I do not have that much time. I am a high school student, and I have a lot to do. My youth could cause that this is my first play, because this isn't for 10 year old guys. And, as I said, I cannot speak English as well as you can.

I think the mafia is trying to lynch me and exploit my weakness. They are trying to vote me off, because If they do not die in the lynch, that's awesome to them. I think at least one of them has voted me. I do not think boberz or Zdenek are mafia becouse as I read, they are really trying to find scum, I think I am going to change my vote:

UNVOTE
VOTE: andrew94

ISO #7

OK, i am a bad player that can't do much post analysis.

And you stopped shortly after Boberz talked about andrew winning a game as scum by playing the noob card.

While I'm at it, is your ISO #67 a Freudian slip you hold so dear as evidence?

I think he's scum.

[Wisakedjak]

Are we down for lynching Wingless? I've already made it clear that I don't mind lynching Wingless.

[Wisakedjak]

Zdenek is cleared
Zach has a low probability of being scum
SaintKerrigan is not cleared. show me proof that most people do not abandon a scum role.
You have been acting scummy for most of the game.
I know my role and I am not scum. This isn't so clear to any other players, so I don't expect them to take my word for it.

For me, it is a choice between Zach, SK and you. I'm not currently inclined to believe Zach is scum. We don't know anything about the playerslot that SK is in, so I won't rule it out, but it's not particularly likely at this point.

You, on the other hand, have a terrible track record and both Zdenek and I have built cases against you, and Zach has already cast his vote. I want to wait for Zach to say OK to this lynch, but if he doesn't respond by the time I check this thread tomorrow, I will hammer anyways.

[Wisakedjak]

Wow.

Wisakedjak, don't lynch me for someone else's lack of playing. I can assure you I'm not scum.

much like everyone else in this game would say. Boy am I convinced.

So here's what I've gathered:

Zach claims town, to prove it he gave us two results. Either way, I trust that Zdenek is town because of it. Do I doubt his claim? Sure. Do I think he's scum? Not from the way he was playing. (I read some of his other games as well, at least the few that he linked too earlier on.)

Zdenek, again I think is completely cleared in my mind.

Wingless, after viewing his play I'd agree.. he's worth hammering. Either way town wins. I'll explain in a minute.

Wisakedjak, I would believe if Wingless did not play with the blatant way he's played, I'd have voted you. If Wing turns up town, you'd be the next lynch.

I would be or I will be? Why do you think I'm scum. Give me something concrete instead of: "I don't like you."

With this said, I'm going to hammer Wing.

I want you and everyone else to note that I was waiting for consensus on this instead of jumping in for a quicklynch.

If I'm wrong, Wisaked or Zach would be the scum. But we'll see when that time comes... so for now,

VOTE: Wingless

You are aware that you are not at all in any way cleared, right? So stop acting like you are. The tone you make and the (lack of) arguments you make for voting, quickhammering and all aren't exactly points in your favour.

[Wisakedjak]

EBWOP

Wow.

Wisakedjak, don't lynch me for someone else's lack of playing. I can assure you I'm not scum.

much like everyone else in this game would say. Boy am I convinced.

So here's what I've gathered:

Zach claims town, to prove it he gave us two results. Either way, I trust that Zdenek is town because of it. Do I doubt his claim? Sure. Do I think he's scum? Not from the way he was playing. (I read some of his other games as well, at least the few that he linked too earlier on.)

Zdenek, again I think is completely cleared in my mind.

Wingless, after viewing his play I'd agree.. he's worth hammering. Either way town wins. I'll explain in a minute.

Wisakedjak, I would believe if Wingless did not play with the blatant way he's played, I'd have voted you. If Wing turns up town, you'd be the next lynch.

I would be or I will be? Why do you think I'm scum. Give me something concrete instead of: "I don't like you."

With this said, I'm going to hammer Wing.

I want you and everyone else to note that I was waiting for consensus on this instead of jumping in for a quicklynch.

If I'm wrong, Wisaked or Zach would be the scum. But we'll see when that time comes... so for now,

VOTE: Wingless

You are aware that you are not at all in any way cleared, right?

The tone you make and the (lack of) arguments you make for voting, quickhammering and all aren't exactly points in your favour.

[Wisakedjak]

Yay! Wisa has some fight in him! My turn though...

much like everyone else in this game would say. Boy am I convinced.

I don't quite understand your reasoning here? I'm pretty sure townies would say they are townies in any game they may be participating in... I thought it was normal? Silly me!

Of course they would. The question is, would scum say it as well? Of course they would. Saying you are town doesn't mean anything because it's what everyone would say.

If you're referring to me saying "don't have your suspicions concerning me because of somebody else's weak attempts at playing the game, or someone else's faults"

I don't have suspicions of you based on someone else's weak attempts at playing this game. There have been 4 players in that slot already. The first didn't make it past day one, the rest didn't make it past an introduction post and the last didn't read through the thread (or did, and decided not to participate). Of 5 players, only 1 is actually cleared, thus there are 4 possible scum scenarios remaining. There is not enough information (in my eyes) to accurately determine who the last scum is with great confidence. You aren't cleared, and so I will push you to gauge your reactions and determine if you are the last scum.

well let me explain something to you... to be fair, I guess I should have considered I'd be jumping into a game with plenty of suspicion possibly on me already.

There wasn't really suspicion on you up until this point. General consensus is that most people were abandoning a vanilla town slot, and that's certainly a possibility, but it isn't unreasonable of me to think that maybe you aren't. I'm not inclined to think you're scum over Wingless, for example, but I was still waiting to hear what the rest of town (zach) had to say about a Wingless lynch.

However, it'd be very foolish, and very unhelpful to say "well so and so said this!" and expect me to make a defense for their case?

Your making a defense like my pressure on you is because of how someone else acted. It's not.

If that's not what you're trying to do, then you can't possibly say with clarity of mind that the statement above would be an inaccurate statement.

Look, my point is that your argument for you being town is: "Hey guys, I'm town. Why am I town? Because I said I am." You're getting defensive over me pointing out that this is a faulty argument using circular reasoning. You are not town merely because you say you are.

Wisakedjak, I would believe if Wingless did not play with the blatant way he's played, I'd have voted you. If Wing turns up town, you'd be the next lynch.

I would be or I will be? Why do you think I'm scum. Give me something concrete instead of: "I don't like you."

*claps*. Bravo Mr. Jak. You're living up to your name! You have brought approximately "jack" to the table of suspicion concerning me. Though it looked good in sight, it had absolutely no depth to it at all.

What had no depth? That I want to know why exactly you think I'm scum?

Now let's run this step by step, so that you can't possibly ever claim to have "missed" my quite obvious points.

I'm... vaguely offended that you'd think I'm an idiot, or that I deliberately omit parts of an argument to make mine seem better. You haven't really read any arguments I've made have you? To be fair, I guess I haven't posted enough to make my style of argumentation clear yet.

#1. "I would be, or I will be?" That had absolutely nothing in context to rather or not you're scum.

I was referring to whether or not I would be your next lynch (it is a possibility i considered, but opted against for the time being) or I will be your next lynch (I am definitely voting for you tomorrow, if Wingless turns out to be town even though I hammered him). It was also a slight jab at your odd tense phrasing.

It had to do with... well, exactly what I said. "I would believe if..." Not, "You would be scum if..." or "You will be scum if..." I simply stated suspicions concerning you. Since I had no intentions on lynching you, or pursuing a lynch on you because I believe there's a better suspect to pursue right now, I figured I wouldn't be making a case right now against you. Should the off chance happen, and this character come up town, then I would state a case against you.

Pretty much the response I expected. I wasn't really pushing you with that. I did want it cleared up, though, so I knew where you stood with it.

Do not use a "he has no evidence against me!" claim when I'm not throwing anything against you... yet. However, I simply stated that should this cause happen, the effect would be me making a case against you. Meaning, in the future, not right now.

I'm not making that claim, but I am asking why you think I'm scum. I mean, this is my first mafia game on this site, in the new players area. I would like to know what you think is scummy and why.

With this said, I'm going to hammer Wing.

I want you and everyone else to note that I was waiting for consensus on this instead of jumping in for a quicklynch.

Aww, how awfully sweet of you. Make yourself a sweet name so if something happens tomorrow (like he turns up town, and you'd know this if you're scum), people wouldn't be too quick to look at you.

I was worried this would come out this way. Let me explain my stance:

Wingless is currently the scummiest player in the game. But he has a language barrier to overcome and he's made some really weird arguments that could possibly be attributed to being new and to having a different mother tongue. The sheer quantity of odd arguments and lying have made him the current target, but it's not implausible that he's town. This is why I didn't hammer when I had the chance and waited to hear what Zach had to say (in spite of the fact that Zach was first to vote him). While I certainly hope this ends the game for a town win, I refuse to count out the possibility that it won't.

Which I guess would explain your failing attempt at trying to point suspicions at me? This for the record, doesn't make you look more town. If anything, it should be racking up points in the "SCUMMAHHHHH" category.

I'm not trying to point suspicions at you, I'm questioning your methods and reasoning because it's at odds with my current view of what's going on in the game. I guess I'm indirectly pointing suspicions at you, but that's more a byproduct of me saying, "What is this guy doing?" and trying to learn more about the "If that playerslot = scum" scenario.

If I'm wrong, Wisaked or Zach would be the scum. But we'll see when that time comes... so for now,

VOTE: Wingless

You are aware that you are not at all in any way cleared, right?

Ah, no I was not "aware" of that kind sir. I actually believed I was set in stone as town, and I'd fly my way through... /end sarcasm.

Thus my "Boy am I convinced" comment.

Actually, I had no reason to defend myself at the moment. Again, I'd be making my cases tomorrow should he come up town.

Getting statements from you before and after flip so I know how to weight them is part of how I try to figure out the game. Let's both keep dancing with this "If wingless most regrettably turns up town tomorrow" thing, though. It's fun.

I don't think he will be, but you sure seem to be banking on it with your "defenses" against "non-accusations" and your "attempt to clear your name" when no one is really looking at you at the moment.

But they are. You did, by saying that if Wingless didn't play so terribly I'd be next on the list. I want to know why. Zach says the choice is between me and Wingless, based on his analysis. Wingless was trying to make it be a choice between me and him right after he made it a choice between him and Zach. I understand where I stand and I have an idea of why I'm there, but I'd still like to hear

your

reasoning about this.

Either you have an insane lust for attention, or you're scum scared that the slightest finger pointing could expose you, so you jump at EVERY single point of a finger, no matter how small or "illogical."

Or you can project suspicions about how I think and react (something you absolutely must know a great deal about) to build some kind of case for tomorrow. If, and only if, poor Wingless happens to turn up town.

[quote="Wisakedjak"The tone you make and the (lack of) arguments you make for voting, quickhammering and all aren't exactly points in your favour.

Points in whose book exactly?[/quote]

Mine. That's why I said it.

If he turns up town, and I'm correct... you'll be the scum of the game.

Well, not necessarily. Is "Wisakedjak = Scum" the only remaining reasonable possibility if Wingless turns up town tomorrow? No. You forget that your name (and Zach's) can both be substituted in there, depending on how the night goes.

The '...and i'm correct' part is cute, though. Have you accounted for the possibility you aren't?

And no offense Mr. Wisaboo,

Wisakedjak, please. Thank you.

but I'm not exactly in the business of earning points with the scum.

Who is?

And if you meant points as in figurative, marking identifications... well then, the "points" you've made, really don't impress me.

I'm not building a case against you, I'm pointing out flaws in your thinking. There's a subtle distinction, you know. I am really unhappy with your quickhammering of Wingless, although I would probably be doing that today considering how often Zach seems to check this thread.

In any case, the points aren't meant to impress you. They're to give information to the rest of town.

And I don't think they'd impress anyone else, if they really read through your passage of text.

That's a really odd way of saying "post", but to each their own, I suppose. It's nice that you can project your own view on to the rest of town. If only the whole world worked that way...

But still, I'm not trying to convince anyone of your alignment at this point. I'm still pushing you to see how you respond to pressure.

The only thing you've done that should be taken note of, which isn't even something you said exactly, is the fact that you're so quick to jump when someone hints at a slight accusation, that you could clinically be considered "paranoid."

You realize you've done much the same with this large response you've typed up to me? You're still projecting your own image of how I would respond to certain stimuli without having a contrasting image of how I play to determine it. Is this a subtle form of WIFOM? It's still an argument based on how

you

think

I

should react.

Now we can go back and forth in the circle of who's being defensive when and under what circumstances but the fact still remains that I dislike your quickhammering of Wingless without giving any kind of real reasoning behind it (even if it is the right move). I think it's an anti-town play, but, and this is a caveat that I meant before but need to add for clarity's sake now, since we're arguing about it, it isn't necessarily indicative of your alignment.

Why would a townie need to be so paranoid?

Am I paranoid? I think your exaggerating the response, personally, but that's bound to happen when the only communicative clue we have to go on is text. What I am is cautious. We are in a game where we make decisions based on lots of imperfect information. Because there are still so many possible game scenarios, I won't rule anything out until the flip sets information into stone.

[Wisakedjak]

this game has languished in neglect from all parties

[Wisakedjak]

I was worried this was going to happen.

Zach, I guess you should reveal your report.

I figure the two of you know this, but nobody should cast a vote to prevent quickhammering for the win.

[Wisakedjak]

What do you mean, no result?

[Wisakedjak]

food point.

um, thoughts?

From my POV, it's a coin toss.

On one hand, I have the zach=scum scenario, where you claim cop on the second last day, provide just enough information to be believeable and play this game as you have thus far - contributing little except to back up what people say or question motives in one sense or another.

I'm not certain whether or not to interpret this as passive scum play or as IC play, both of which I'm just projecting what I feel a reasonable person would do in this situations without knowing what your actual play is like, although, in my skimming of your posted games, there is a discrepancy based on level of participation. I addressed this issue with Zdenek on the previous day, and decided it's inconclusive.

From your pov, you start a wagon on the most suspicious townie, step back and wait for the lynch, kill the townie you cleared and let the endgame fall how it falls, and with 3 suspicious players remaining it is certainly in your favour to wait for the first vote to come in, provided it's not on you, and quickhammer for the win.

Your play thus far in the game has been very, very passive, but the few newbie games I skimmed showed the ICs having distanced play as well, which nullifies that read. However, you do come into Day 3, answer the question I posed then stepped back, not providing any information at all or some kind of case against someone. Which I do find rather suspect for someone who is supposed to be the cop, yet does no real scumhunting except for investigations and a few cases of early game (day 1&2) finger pointing. This in itself isn't much of a clue considering how shitty my own scumhunting has been.



On the other hand, there's the blankslot=scum scenario. The only things I have to go on from this are an off-hand comment from Zdenek on Day 1 where he finds Rydonmower's phrasing to be too careful and thinks this is suspicious. This doesn't really hold a lot of weight to me. The slot rotates more players than this game has days and the last couple did come out with guns blazing, pointing suspicious fingers. The predecessors to this slot were called into question a few times and disappeared without making any kind of response, which isn't really a tell in and of itself, but it's more than nothing, I guess? Rydon stopped posting as soon as he was under fire. Yellowbounder disappeared when he went under fire and SaintKerrigan just stopped playing, but immediately after naming Zdenek as a suspect after he's been cleared (as Zach pointed out).

What bothered me most was how quickly the new player in the blankslot hammered Wingless. That's mostly a clash of approach to the game more than anything else, maybe, but there was no real reasoning given behind a hammer in a game that was approaching endgame this quickly.



Given my reread of the thread, I'm making my own decision now. I get such a strong impression that Zach is actually town, but the blankslot never gave that kind of reassurance whenever the new player popped up. Neil's arguments with me last day didn't really give me the feeling that he's town, and his refusal to talk further until the day ended also bugged me. Zach, while he is making all the proper mechanical plays to be scum, has been a strong pro-town force throughout the game, and knowing who the scum was and a better perspective to read with have done little to change that.

The only thing that seems to defend the blankslot in my eyes was the little back-and-forth right at the beginning of the game (posts #17-21), which was the only interaction between gaul and the slot. The interactions between Zach and gaul haven't shown any kind of buddying or distancing to the best of my reading. Zach jumping on the gaul wagon doesn't clear him at all, though.

So, with all this in my mind, I'm going to VOTE: neil1113. I hate conceding defeat when I think I can win, but if Zach does end up being mafia, I'll console myself with the knowledge that he's just a very, very good scum player, or at the very least a big fish in a small pond.


Posts #339-#345 kind of blow my mind, ftr.

[Wisakedjak]

Yeah, it was a 50-50 shot, in my eyes. I mean, you were scummy enough to be suspicious to me, but somehow that blank slot made me more suspicious.

Every person I've led a wagon on thus far has been town

Also, Zach, I totally forgot about this game a couple times.

[Wisakedjak]

@Neill1113 - It wouldn't have mattered if I questioned you or not. We were already arguing, and what would've likely happened was you'd get riled up about me pointing out flaws in your arguments, call me scum for it, drop a vote and then we'd be exactly where we are now. All that mattered was who would vote first.

[Wisakedjak]

For some reason, the idea of pushing a lynch on the IC seemed really off-putting to me... not sure why exactly that is.

I was suspicious as to how the IC would have survived that long, but Night 1 the doc claim was tested (and unfortunately proven true), then you, boberz, painted a target on your back the day gaul was killed, then the last night it seems reasonable for the mafia to kill the only proven innocent and have 3 suspects rather than drop the experience and have one cleared town in the endgame.