Newbie 345: Another town has fallen...

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Vote: OnFire

for not making a random vote for his first post ever!!!

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

EBWOP: should be "...for his first

game

ever!!!".




EBWOP = Edit By Way Of Post. We can't edit our posts on Mafiascum.net, so this is the only way to correct a mistake you make.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Grrrr. I'm here.

Unvote

for now.

I would like to see Mert and OnFire finish their dialogue. I have something to add to it, but I don't want to influence the conversation.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I would like to see Mert and OnFire finish their dialogue. I have something to add to it, but I don't want to influence the conversation.

Well, I thought our conversation was pretty much resolved in the missing 2 pages, culminating with me unvoting him, but I'll try to recap it from my perspective.

I commented that Mert's "joke" calling out to the scum to quicklynch me was scummy because it seemed like calling out to the scum was an obvious flag saying "Hey - look at me, I'm not scum." Which could be a bit of a ploy. [See my post 17]. Mert agreed that this was a reasonable point in post 21, but offered another explanation. That explanation led me to think he might have been warning newbie scum to be careful of bandwagoning too obviously. You jumped in to point out the problems with recursive reasoning and I was convinced by that and explanations from Mert and others that this was probably bad reasoning, and admitted as much.

I still think my first point is good, although pretty flimsy.

That's about it from my perspective, although it did partially help to get a different conversation rolling b/w Mert and IT and Ecto, so I thought that was a good thing.

I'm not sure there's much more to continue discussing, although I'm happy to do so to get some more content back into the thread.

I was kinda hoping that you guys could discuss it again, instead of the recap, but either way that's fine. The new discussion could have given us something to springboard from, because with the move we've lost a lot of momentum.

I suspect that everyone is kinda lost at this point, and that's why there's not much going on. If we were on page 6 or so and had something to work with, it wouldn't be nearly so bad, but it almost feels like we're starting over again. I agree with IT's post 31. Going back to the random stage makes no sense, but it's hard to try to reconstruct why you thought someone suspicious without the physical evidence as a reminder. It's like we're caught in Limbo, and we're gonna have a hard time getting back off the ground. What would really help us is a review of any newbie games that started around the time of the Oct 2006 crash, and see how they handled it when the forums came back online.

In the interest of generating discussion, let me ask this: Do you still think that your suspicions of Mert warrant a vote? I'm assuming you unvoted because we all sort of need to regroup and try to figure out what is going on, but assuming we get back on track, do you see yourself voting for Mert again based on the discussion we have on record and the material you recall that was lost?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Newbie 285

This game had the same problem we have. They had 5 pages and got wiped back to 2. It's not exactly the same, but maybe we can get some ideas from there. 284 and 286 weren't affected nearly as much by the forum crash.

Something to chew on.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

FoS: Vel-Rahn Koon

From what I recall, each of VRK's posts (except for the initial Random) had some sort of diversion from the game at hand in it. Initially it was "let's all have a good game, be sure to ask questions cause we're newbs" or something like that. Now he's mentioning some other newbie game that has little to no impact on the game at hand.

As for the Mert thing (if you were asking me): He's still suspicious in my eyes, but I'd need more information to warrant a vote.

Most of my old posts were teaching-type posts. I did not find anything pre-crash in all the back and forth that was going on to which I could add an opinion, hence I didn't get to say much pre-crash.

A lot of what was going on pre-crash seemed to me to be a feud between 2 or 3 people, and we were just starting to come out of that and get to a point where we could all chime in and add something to the conversation when the crash occurred. My first game here I got into a big feud with another player and it dominated a good portion of the game, so I wasn't all that keen to jump into the middle of another one.

The other newbie game that I mentioned (post 36) was a newbie game that was started around the time of the October 2006 crash. A few people have said that they didn't know where to go from here, so I dug that up as a way for us to see what others did after their crash, and maybe we can get some inspiration from it with the aim of getting our game rolling again.

I'll answer the question that I posed to OnFire: I don't see Mert being scum at this point. My view of where he was going with his post was what he intended - he was trying to stop the "2nd vote on Day 1 is scummy" argument before it got started. I personally don't agree with trying to stop any type of discussion, because I think that any dialogue we have is good and will lead to more discussion. But I never thought that he was "calling out to the scum" with that post.

OnFire stuck with his vote (post 22) which says to me that he's acting pro-town (he's not just pointing fingers to sow dissent - he actually believed in that vote and didn't use it as a way to stir the pot). Post 30 which is post-crash seems to have a bit of a contradiction in it

I still think my first point is good, although pretty flimsy.

but that's not anything that I'm willing to get nervous over at this time.

Ecto's vote for Diamondfalcon seems a bit shaky to me (post 18). If it were me in Ecto's shoes, I'd have FoS'd that

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

First off, thank you, diamondfalcon. You posted this:

2) I'm just observing, and a little unclear of what to look for at this point. Since I don't want to risk sounding random, I've just been sticking to reading. I'll try to give more input if and when I see something though.

I have been playing very gingerly, not wanting to risk being wrong, since day 1 of my last game (When I got another Townie lynched... Oops!) Your post made me realize that by doing so I am just throwing a free pass to scum. The way it made me see this is that if townies are inactive it gives the scum a free pass to hide themselves. More specifically, avoiding risk is something the town should never do. So thank you for making me realize I need to get back in the game and

Vote: Diamondfalcon

for flat out saying he is doing something (avoiding risk) that is not a town play.

So, you're voting for Diamondfalcon based on behavior you admit to exhibiting?

FoS: Innocent Townie

Please explain why you find that Df's behavior is worthy of a vote if you are guilty of it also.

Vel-Rahn Koon: The game you linked was interesting, but it seems they had a lot more definitive plays that got rolled back. When they restarted, several of them thought they knew (and in one case actually did know) who the scum were. I do not believe any of us can claim that this game, so possibly that game makes for a poor model. That being said, it was an interesting case study.
I think in post 18 Ectomancer was just looking for anyone to mount a full frontal assault on. He found me, and we had some good (albeit now deleted) arguments. At that point I believe he was just looking to generate discussion.
I agree with your point of view on Mert’s post.

I was simply trying to find a way for us to generate discussion, but it looks as if Mert has done that for us I wasn't expecting that game to be a perfect parallel, but I thought maybe we could get something from it.

My point concerning Ecto was merely how I would have played it. You were directly involved in the conversation, so your recollection of the situation is probably much sharper than my own.

What would really help us is a review of any newbie games that started around the time of the Oct 2006 crash, and see how they handled it when the forums came back online.

You live too much in the past. That doesn't work in this game. To me, you're obviously trying to hide something, or put yourself in some sort of mindset to hide your motives.

Vote Vel-Rahn Koon

So you're voting for me based on trying to find a way to get the game back on track? You're reasoning is weak, so I'd like to hear something more substantial than what you're claiming.


@Diamondfalcon: Post 44 is rather nervous-sounding. I'd like to see you answer Mert's post 45 question. Why do you assume post 43 was aimed at you specifically?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Just an observation, but seems like Mert and IT are taking the same sides again. Like I said before, I wouldn't think that mafia would do this, so I suppose it's just a coincidence.

I don't agree that they're taking sides, because Mert's post 43 is, for all intents and purposes, a random vote (or that's how I'm reading it). The fact that IT is following Mert (I seem to remember he was doing this pre-crash as well - please correct me if I'm wrong) is much more interesting. I agree that I wouldn't think a scum pair would associate this closely either, but if it is a Mert/IT scum pair, then IT could just be making newbie mistakes.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

So you're voting for me based on trying to find a way to get the game back on track? You're reasoning is weak, so I'd like to hear something more substantial than what you're claiming.

I'm voting you because I feel that your constant mentioning of past games was scummy as it moves attention away from the current game and adds more information that isn't relevant to this game. I have no clue where you pulled the

Will you finish the last sentence please? As for adding information that isn't relative to the game, do you not agree that the post between IT and you concerning your forum icon isn't along the same lines - adding information not relevant to the game?

In fact, I put an FoS on you on post #39 for always trying to introduce information from other games. The first post you put after that, #41, you go on and bring up, yet again, another game from the past.

As for voting to get the game back on track? I've never said anything along those lines. I think you're scummy.

I talked about

two

past games. One was a game I played in and was using as a reason for why I didn't get into the banter that occurred pre-crash (the banter being gone now). That information was relative to my defense for being quiet. The other was a way to help us move forward. I don't consider two instances "

always

trying to introduce information from other games" (emphasis mine).

No you didn't say that's why you were voting for me, but you have to have a reason to think I'm scum and that's all I could think of for your reason for the vote, hence the call in post 51 for further clarification.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Ok, V-R K, I'm pretty sure post 43 was directed as a reply to my reason 2 in post 40 and Mert votes me at the end of the post, so it was not at all random.

"Pretty sure"? Post 43 contained a statement about random voting and how we shouldn't be afraid to use it, and then a vote for you. This says to me that the vote was random. Mert didn't mention your name anywhere in there, as he explains in post 45. Since he didn't bring you up specifically, why are you "pretty sure" that it was aimed at your post 40?

You seem to be acting really nervous, first by sitting back and reading and not wanting to make any mistakes (IT weighed in on this, and voted you for it), and then went and took post 43 as if it was aimed solely at your post 40. That post was aimed at all of us, and I'm glad Mert made that post because it's exactly what we all needed to get the game going again.

Can you explain why you're feeling so nervous? There's two types of players here: Town and Scum. Town have no reason to lie, and therefore they can say what they think and what they feel and not have to worry about getting lynched. A Townie who gets himself lynched is a bad player, and was lynched because he was acting scummy, and was giving off dishonest signals.

The Scum have to lie, and sooner or later they'll screw up. Which one are you Df? If you're Town, there's no need to be nervous and worry about the scum coming for you later on. Acting too cautious is, to me anyway, a scumtell, because only the scum have to constantly worry whether what they're saying is consistent with what they've said before.

Your post 66 is, IMO, an excellent post. Mert is correct in that your retaliatory vote is an OMGUS vote, but your assertion that changing your vote just to make someone else happy is "very un-townlike" is dead on.

@IT: If I realized I was doing something that decreased the town's chances of winning when I saw someone else do it I would:

1. Change the behavior. If you're not helping the town, you're hurting the town, and making it more difficult to find scum.
2. I can see how your vote was used to emphasize your point, especially as a way to garner a reaction, but IMO it makes you look hypocritical. I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to vote for the person that was exhibiting the same behavior I was, but I would most definitely point it out. I guess it would depend on the circumstances.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Let me add some detail, because I don't think you are taking this the way I intended it.

There's two types of players here: Town and Scum. Town have no reason to lie, and therefore they can say what they think and what they feel and not have to worry about getting lynched.

Sorry, this is way too definitive for me. Townies have all kinds of reasons to worry about getting lynched, because there are duplicitous Mafia trying to make it happen, by twisting words and "misinterpreting" posts and trying to convince other townies that they are scum. Townies definitely have no reason to lie, but that doesn't mean they have no reason to worry - the

slightest

turn of phrase can get you FoS or voted on, particularly on Day One.

A Townie who is playing like a townie doesn't have to worry about getting lynched

due to the things

he

says

. Sure the scum are going to try to twist what you're saying, and make a mountain out of a molehill, but this leads right into my second point: A good player will not let himself get into that situation by making bad statements that can be interpreted as, or twitsted into, seeming scummy. And, the duplicitous mafia can't push too hard, or they just give themselves away by being too aggressive in going after small, nit-picky points. We're all human, so we're bound to make mistakes and not be a perfect townie. But, if the slightest turn of phrase gets you an FoS and then enough votes to cause your lynch, then you're not a good player. A good player won't let that happen.

A Townie who gets himself lynched is a bad player, and was lynched because he was acting scummy, and was giving off dishonest signals.

Wrong again, or "too definitive" again, at least. When there are players actively trying to get you lynched, and you get lynched, that does not

necessarily

mean that you are a bad player. Other townies could mistakenly see something that's no there or, again, scum can twist your words to make you look scummy. Why are you downplaying/ignoring the mafia's role here?

FOS Vel-Rahn Koon

Not too definitive I don't think. The statement reads "A townie who gets

HIMSELF

lynched...". The statement was going towards a Townie who screws up so badly that he gets himself lynched. The statement didn't say anything towards scum manipulating people into lynching someone who makes a mistake.

I'll admit that they aren't necessarily the best set of examples, because these are examples in the extreme, and most players aren't going to fall into either of these extremes. But, they serve to illustrate the point that I was asking Df: why he was being so nervous - nervous to the point where it was affecting his involvement in the game.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

OK, the game seems to be grinding to a halt, so I think it's time for me to get off the "post-crash" fence:

Vote: Innocent Townie

Here's why:
1. I still don't like his hypocritical vote on Df. I understand he's said that he had a "realization" about their overly cautious gameplay and it makes perfect sense to point that out, but then to vote for it? Fishy.
2. In a similar vein, I also don't like IT's vote for Df because of everyone, Df is the least suspicious to me. So those voting for him become more suspicious.
3. While he has since moderated his stance to the point where we pretty much agree, his initial view that town MUST play risky struck me as a little scummy simply because quick and heedless town play benefits scum and not town.

On preview, the above is far from air tight, but I think it's better than random and provides something to chew on. Whaddya all think?

1. You never address the rebuttal he made to my question (post 62):

Vel-Rahn Koon/OnFire:

you're voting for Diamondfalcon based on behavior you admit to exhibiting?

Yes. I am. Because until his post I had not realized why my lack of confidence had to be a bad thing. When I realized how it was bad and understood why it allowed me to use that knowledge to look at others’ play. The most hypocritical thing I could do would be pretend that I had been aggressive when I had not. That does no one any good. The greatest advantage of being town is the ability to be totally honest. For me to claim I do not make mistakes will in the long run set up more opportunities for the game to be derailed than for me to be open about realizations I have as I have them. And to overlook a potential scum sign just because I have been guilty of it in my ignorance does not seem like the right play.

Open question: If you realized you were doing something that decreases the town’s changes of winning when you found someone else doing it what would you do?

I find this response to be more than adequate of an explanation as to why he made the play he did. I may not agree with it, but I don't find that it's something to cause a vote. What would your answer be to his open question?

2. Eh. Just because you don't find a particular player suspicious, doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't or wouldn't. Different people pick up on different things, and you may not have seen something that IT saw that set off his scumdar w.r.t. Df. I don't think it's a wise idea to base a vote for someone off of the fact that he finds someone suspicious who you don't.

3. I find this to be a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said.

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

That is not to say we should take needless risks, and I would certainly neither say something I know would get me lynched (unless I could be sure of taking the scum down with me) nor will I sit idly by and let myself be torn down without doing everything I can to pull out as much information as possible for days 2 and 3. But I honestly believe that any fear of getting lynched is not proper town play. Again, this does not mean we should try to be lynched; far from it: just that when right is on one’s side one must know it.

So I have to disagree with you, OnFire, and I will restate:

Avoiding risk is something we should never do.

I'm not sure we're all that far apart, actually. I completely agree (and stated above) that we must be active and generate discussion. However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with. Incautious play by the town can only help the mafia.

(Note: cautious does not = meek)

In post 73, IT spells out that we should not take needless risks. In post 74, you're agreeing with him, but you're apparently ignoring everything in post 73 that comes after "Avoiding risk is something we should never do". Then, you vote for him in post 78 based on it. By taking his statement out of context you're making yourself look very scummy, because it seems like you're purposefully trying to misrepresent what he said, and place a vote on him based on a fallacy. You agree with what he was saying, and you're saying the same thing he said in post 74 with this: "However, if "never avoiding risk" means playing without caution, then that's something I cannot agree with." so how can you possibly vote for him?

Vote: OnFire

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Sorry guys but I agree with Mert here.

The best way for us to catch scum is by having a long Day 1 with plenty of discussion. That way there's a lot of information present for us to help weed out the scum. If someone did drop a hammer, carelessly or not, that would only give us 4 pages of information with which to work.

short days = bad for town

Assume that someone did hammer before Mert unvoted. End of Day 1. Day 2 starts, and assuming we had a night kill, that leaves us with 5 players left. One of the 5 left is the person who hammered, and is almost assuredly scum. Then you have to now stretch Day 2 out as long as possible, with only 4 people giving you information. The outed scum isn't going to say anything, because he'd just be helping you catch his scumbuddy. And, since you're missing two players now, that means that you don't get as much discussion on Day 2 as you would have on Day 1. That brings us to Day 3 at LyLo endgame with only 3 players left, and very limited information. That makes it extremely hard on us to find that last scum. If you can't find any connections between the outed scum and his partner from the limited information on Day 1 and the possibly limited information on Day 2, then you have a 33% chance to get a lucky lynching. I don't like those odds.

short days = bad for town

If I was scum, and I saw 3 votes on someone on page 4, I'd hammer without a second thought. Sure, I would out myself, but the chances of you catching my scumbuddy at that point just went through the floor. Newbie games are already weighted in the scum's favor 64:36. Why make it easier on them?

FoS: BGM and Ecto

. You guys are experienced enough that you should understand this.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Very interesting few days. I held the same opinion as Mert, and was thinking along the same lines as he was. My vote for OnFire was designed to get the requisite 2 "pressure votes" to get some conversation going concerning his stance on IT. I had never looked at putting someone at Lynch-1 as a viable strategy in the same manner as Ecto has - I had always thought of L-1 as "forbidden territory" until the players were as convinced as possible that they were going after scum. There is merit to the method, although I think it's a bit too risky for my tastes in a newbie game. People make mistakes, and this would be a dangerous gambit in a normal game, much less in a game where someone may hammer by mistake without realizing they were doing so (by not doing a post count prior to voting, for instance).

I also find it interesting that Braze had a similar stance as Ecto (post 90), but hasn't been called upon to explain his reasoning for that statement. Braze, care to add your two cents here?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Open question: Would a listing of scum pairs suspected at this time be everyone be beneficial?

First off, good posting Ecto and IT.

As for the question: A PbP (Post-by-Post) analysis can take a fair amount of time (60+ minutes). I am in process of doing one, because I've fallen behind due to RL and I need the refresher. But if you have the desire to do one, knock yourself out. The information that you arrive at can only help the town out because it will give us all more information to work with than what we currently have.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Hey everyone. Sorry for my absence, but I have a sick child at home and I didn't have time to get to read the game, much less post, until now.

I'm going to make a summary post of overall impressions, just going in alphabetical order:

Braze: Not a lot of posts to work with, IMO. Attack on me, then he gets lost on the Mert/Ecto exchange. Seems to be focusing in the later posts on scumpairs, but I think it's too early to go that route. That's easier to do when you already have one known scum, or you're down to Day 2 where you have less people. Not all that thrilled by his statement that either Mert or Ecto must be scum because of their conversation, but overall I don't see a lot to work with in his posts.

DF: Most of the game has seemed nervous and defensive. Not sure what to make of this: could be newbie scum getting rattled by pressure, could just be new player nerves in general. At one point I was entertaining a DF/Mert scumpair due to the post 40-45 exchange between them, could be distancing/nervous behavior by new scum (I know I said above that it's too early for this, but this one jumped out at me, so I had it in my notes).

Ecto: The Lynch - 1 gambit still makes me nervous (Sorry I guess I can't help it). I'm happy with the way Ecto and Mert resolved their dispute, and I think they both came out looking pro-town because of it.

IT: Very firm grasp of the game of Mafia in general. Good, well reasoned posts. I like the open questions that he presents as it invites discussion from all players in the game. As for the Mert/IT similarities, I think it's all just coincidence for now. It would take a really gutsy set of scum to do this on purpose. Also still not happy with the hypocritical vote, but I've given my opinion on that.

Mert: As with Ecto, I'm glad they had their spat. Their exchange went a ways towards clearing Mert for me. Posts were a bit thin in the beginning, but he makes up for it in later pages.

OnFire: Really solid for your first game. OF went a long way towards being pro-town in my eyes because of how he handled the resulting backlash from the IT vote.

Due to that:

Unvote

There's no one I've got high on my suspicion list at the moment, and I don't like to post a "list" from most to least scummy. I like to present what I'm seeing of people and let others ask questions and formulate their own opinions. If we had to vote right now, I would be hard pressed to find a good person on which to place a vote - all the reasons I have right now are rather flimsy.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Open question: What are the pros and cons of going after lurkers day one? I can see that it may encourage them to participate more, which is good. On the other hand, lynching people you have the least info on seems risky. Then again, lynching people who participate the most risks taking some of the force driving conversation out of the game, which also seems risky. Thoughts?

There's very little you can "go after" for lurkers. My opinion is that it's the Mod's job to get a lurker to get in the game.

If someone is lurking, they're either doing it intentionally or not. If they are not doing it intentionally (internet problems, RL issues, whatever) it is highly unlikely that they are checking the forums. If they're not checking the forums, then pressure via FoS or vote is going to do absolutely nothing at all. Best course here is to ask the Mod to prod them, and then wait and see if they show up again. After 72 hrs, ask the Mod if they've picked up their prod (a PM goes from the Outbox to the Sentbox once the person who is the receiver has actually read it). If they've picked up their prod and still lurk, it's on to case 2. If they don't pick up their prod, the Mod will start looking for a replacement.

Case 2, intentional lurking, is flat-out crappy play. Intentional lurking does nothing at all to help the town, because you aren't contributing if you're intentionally lurking. If you're a townie and lurking intentionally, shame on you. This is a bad player. Scum lurking, well, that's also a bad player. Scum intentionally lurking just makes them an easy target. I think in this situation, voting to get rid of an intentional lurker would be warranted, but not before serious discussion has gone on concerning getting rid of that person. This would also be a situational issue, where the circumstances may dictate whether you'd want to get rid of the lurker sooner or later. If they're lurking it probably means that they've not contributed much, which means that, just by random chance, you have a 5/7 chance of getting rid of a townie. But, as I said, if it is a townie that is intentionally lurking, getting rid of him probably isn't going to hurt the town, since by his lurking it's almost the same thing. Sure you have one less body so now the number required to lynch goes down, but what's the point of having someone just sitting around taking up a space? I would think it would be better to get rid of them, confirm their identity, and then we'd at least have some small bit of useful information out of them.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Meme: Could scum talk before day one?

Yes.

Note: in view of the number of players, we will start in the day phase, although most larger games start with a night.

The mafia will be allowed to communicate pre-game

, though no role will submit choices until Day 1 is over.

Emphasis mine.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Braze (and to a lesser extent IT), I feel like you're misrepresenting what I actually said in post 149 with this:

Aside from that, the thing that bugged me the most after I unvoted him was the fact that he was felt it would be alright and maybe better the town if we lynched a lurker townie on day one. What this amounts to is that he's alright to put the town in a LyLo situation just to get rid of a lurker. Which makes me do this ->

FoS: VRK

I will freely admit that I didn't fully get the implications of what I was discussing, as shown by IT here:

Vel-Rahn Koon:

But, as I said, if it is a townie that is intentionally lurking, getting rid of him probably isn't going to hurt the town. Sure you have one less body so now the number required to lynch goes down, but what's the point of having someone just sitting around taking up a space?

I strongly disagree with this. If a townie is not participating and they are lynched it does not only remove a body. I allows the scum another shot at killing (which is guaranteed to be bad with only one scum group) and the sum of these actions brings the scum that much closer to being 50% of the town. Because of this, while it does seem to be a good metagame play to lynch lurkers I am unsure if it actually aids us in individual games.

I had gathered the fact that we'd have one less player available to help us catch scum (moot point because the lurker isn't helping to catch scum), and it would make it easier to lynch, which is bad, but I didn't look at the other face of the coin concerning the fact that it also makes it easier for the scum to win by lowering the Town:Scum ratio.

Removing a lurker does bring you closer to a LyLo situation, and I'll take the hit for not stating that in my post 149. But to flat out say that I feel that "it would be alright and maybe better the town if we lynched a lurker townie on day one. What this amounts to is that he's alright to put the town in a LyLo situation just to get rid of a lurker." is pure crap. No where at all did I say anything of the sort. I didn't even imply it!

In fact, if you go back and read it again, I said "I think in this situation, voting to get rid of an

intentional lurker

would be warranted,

but not before serious discussion has gone on concerning getting rid of that person. This would also be a situational issue, where the circumstances may dictate whether you'd want to get rid of the lurker sooner or later.

" (emphasis added). I'm saying here, explicitly, that if you are going to vote to get rid of a lurker, that you have to have "serious discussion" about whether that would be a good thing for the town. And, I also stated that it's a situational issue, and the players as a whole may decide that we don't want to get rid of the lurker in question at that point in time, or at all. I don't see how any of that indicates that I'm willing to just run off and lynch a lurker. Quite the opposite, as stated I think that lynching an

intentional lurker

is something that we

could

look into. There's a difference between someone who's been confirmed by the mod to be checking the boards and is still not contributing versus someone who is not around at all.

I also feel like you are trying to steer the heat you're collecting away from yourself and onto others. In the same post (158), you jumped on IT for making a calculation error that you yourself made, and voted him for it. The vote is still in place, despite the fact that you've corrected your own error and said that "IT said that analyzing 30 possible scumpairs was unappealing to him in post #138. He said a specific number, meaning he's at least counted out how many possible pairings there would be." (post 160). If you've redone the math in that same post, and gotten 15 and 21, how is IT's number of 30 anywhere near anything but a mistake?

It's my opinion that you're getting nervous concerning the attention you've drawn from people. More than one person has stated that you're lurking, or not giving much content. These last few posts seem like nothing short of your attempt to divert attention away from yourself with a healthy dose of CrapLogic™.

Vote: BrazeGoesMoo

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Honestly.. you guys call me out for not posting, so I take some time to put some effort into posting and try to help the town out and this is what I get? Insults?

1. I'm not nervous.
2. My logic is not crap.
3. I'm not an

intentional lurker

(tm) (tm) (bold) as you put it.
4. I'm pro-town.

But to flat out say that I feel that "it would be alright and maybe better the town if we lynched a lurker townie on day one. What this amounts to is that he's alright to put the town in a LyLo situation just to get rid of a lurker." is pure crap. No where at all did I say anything of the sort. I didn't even imply it!

@VRK: Your post #149

if it is a townie that is intentionally lurking, getting rid of him probably isn't going to hnurt the town

.

Why would you even plant this thought into people's minds?

This is what I mean. I was not calling

you

an intentional lurker! I did not say that - please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. The written record we have in forum mafia is the biggest difference from RL mafia, and you need to be careful with how you interpret what you're reading. The point of bolding intentional lurker is that in my post 149 I was talking about us lynching an intentional lurker - a person whom the Mod has prodded, the Mod has told us that said person has picked up the prod, and continues to lurk. You do not, in any way, shape, or form, fit into that category!

The part you quoted above from my post 149 was addressed in my post 164. I stated that I did not go far enough in my analysis in post 149, and if I had thought about the fact that lynching an intentional lurker would bring us closer to the scum winning (as pointed out by IT in post 152) I would have stated so, although I don't think that I would mediate my stance too greatly, because if you're going after a lurker you're doing so with the intent to lynch. If you're not, then the threat has no teeth, as it were. And you are going to lynch someone before the day is out anyway (unless you vote no lynch, which I think can be just as bad as lynching a lurker). As I said, I'll take the hit for that mistake - I have no qualms about admitting when I've screwed up, although I don't think that my position is nearly as bad as you or IT are making it out to be.

This whole thing was brought about by IT's open question in post 144. He asked about the pros and cons of going after lurkers on day 1. I was one of three people who answered that question, and I answered it to the best of my ability. As stated, going after a lurker is not really our job, it's the Mods job, because we don't know if the person is lurking intentionally or not. We can, and

should

, ask the Mod for a prod, and by that find out if the person is lurking intentionally or not, and if they are intentionally lurking then we can decide on the merits of going after that person, up to and including lynching them. OnFire answered this question in 147 and didn't necessarily see any cons. Ecto answered in 148 saying that he wouldn't lynch before they get involved, but if their answers stink...

My attempt at least tried to outline cons and problems with going after a lurker, and Ecto states a simple conclusion which I had never explicitly stated. I'm not saying, or ever will say, that any game in which there's a lurker that the other players should just run him up and lynch him without getting something out of him. What's the point in doing that? This point of this game is for us to hunt scum, not lynch lurkers. The only time I said we should lynch a lurker is if it's a confirmed

intentional

lurker. A player, town or scum, who is intentionally lurking isn't helping us, and if they continue to lurk for the time that it takes to get the required number of votes on them for a lynch and don't defend themselves or say anything, then they should be lynched.

This tactic is

not

something that I, or anyone else for that matter, can do alone. To lynch a lurker means that the majority of the town feels that the lurker's actions are scummy, and the responsibility for the lynch will fall upon everyone who voted for that person. If they come up scum, woot! One less with which we must deal. If they come up town (which, if the person has given almost no information by way of posts, is a flat 5 in 7 chance), well then all 4 people who voted for the lurker (assuming a Day 1 newbie game) will need to answer for their actions. The only good thing that comes from lynching a lurker is that we'll know whether they were scum or town, and we can then go back and analyze their interactions (if there are any) and use that information to possibly pick out associations, distancing tactics, etc. and by that method find more scum, so that the lynched player's death at least serves some purpose, whereas when he was just sitting here he wasn't serving any purpose at all.

As a final thought, consider this: If a Townie is

intentionally

lurking, do you honestly think that he's doing anything whatsoever to help his side win? Would a Townie actually go so far as to intentionally lurk? If you think he would, and we just let it slide, what would be the ramifications of just letting him coast through to the end game? This is aimed at everyone, not just Braze, so feel free to chime in.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

As a final thought, consider this: If a Townie is intentionally lurking, do you honestly think that he's doing anything whatsoever to help his side win? Would a Townie actually go so far as to intentionally lurk? If you think he would, and we just let it slide, what would be the ramifications of just letting him coast through to the end game? This is aimed at everyone, not just Braze, so feel free to chime in.

If a townie is intentionally lurking, they'll just get replaced in the long run. He/she will never make it to the end game unless the townies are hasty voters or overly understanding of the lurker's AFK'ness.

Nice dodge of the original question

This depends on the Mod, from what I understand. I define a person who is intentionally lurking to be someone that is present and reading the thread, they are just choosing not to participate to any great extent. The Mod will not do anything about it, because they are present, and participating (sort of), so the only way to get rid of them is to vote them for a lynch. Therefore, they

will

make it to the end game if we, the present and fully active players, do not do something about it. So, assuming the Mod lets them go, and so do we, what would be the ramifications of letting said sloth slide on through?

To IT & VRK:
Why is it so important that we keep talking about lurkers if no one in the game is lurking? Or do you think someone is actually lurking, despite the decent number of post counts from all players?

I do not think that anyone is lurking, but both you and IT became suspicious of my response in post 149, so I'm trying to clear things up and put out some questions of my own. I think it's an interesting question - humor me.

As for me preferring to receive questions than ask then:
If you're townie and a question is presented to you, it's easier to just speak the truth than formulate a lie.

Hmmm. As a townie, do you not think it's our job to hunt scum? That's what we're here for, isn't it? How do you plan to hunt scum if you just sit back and wait for someone to throw a question at you? That's reactive behavior, not proactive, and it doesn't go a long way towards helping catch scum, IMO.

Assume this is a meatworld game - what's your typical strategy there?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Open question: So I was thinking about play errors today. Namely, say you find someone doing something scummy. If you point it out right away, you generate discussion, but you also potentially point out to the scum the mistakes they are making so they can get their act together. Is it sometimes better not to say anything for a bit to allow them to give them enough rope to hang themselves? And if so, how do you determine where the line is?

I've got another game that this question came up in, and I gave a clear "you should say something" answer there, but upon thinking about it more, I think there's no real way to make this a cut-and-dried answer. As Ecto said, it seems to me that this is a matter of experience.

If you do say something, of course you're giving a warning to the scum that they need to straighten up, and it may make it difficult to find that person's partner(s). But, you've also thrown suspicion on that player, so now it will be difficult for them to regain their good graces in the rest of the player's eyes and could minimize their ability to confuse and misdirect the game.

OTOH, the information you have could be very valuable to the rest of the town players (valuable enough that it may cause the day to end with that person's lynch right then and there) and if you get night killed that night, then that information is gone, so this is a double-edged sword.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

The point at which real life should be allowed to impact the game seems gray. Obviously, if I have to leave for a month I should be replaced, whereas 24 hours is fine. So where is the line? A week seems plausible to allow for player continuity, which is to be valued. This is the first finals season I have been on the site. It is usual to have games falter while they go on?

From the Rules post:

If you anticipate being unavailable for more than a 48-hour period, please post a notice to that effect in the thread. Treat this game as a commitment. Be considerate – don’t leave us hanging.

Each Mod is different, but typically you won't see a Mod start looking to replace until 4 or so days have gone by, a prod is sent, and the prod goes unanswered (7-10 days all said and told). If this is a repeat offense for the same game by the same person, it may be sooner. As always, players can request a prod from the Mod if they want to speed things up.

It's my first time on the site during finals as well, but from what I understand, yes they falter. The summer is even worse

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Everyone,

My son has given me his strep throat infection, so I'm a bit incapacitated. I'll try to get in here and make a real post asap, but for now all I want to do is sleep

Sorry guys,

Vel/Rich

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Bleh. Not 100%, but it'll have to do, I hate getting this far behind

Hey everyone, and welcome YagamiLight!

In response to Ecto's question: If it came down to a deadline situation or something similar where we had to pick someone to vote for, and we did so based solely on the amount of information we could get out of that person's death, I would have to go with either OnFire or Ecto. They've each posted quite a bit, contributed to the discussion, and given their suspicions and not just voted with no explanation. I think, from my perspective, that we'd get more information from an OnFire lynch, because I see more links with other players.

Braze/Mert discussion: I don't see a Mert "lie" in there. I see Braze misinterpreting what's being said, which is becoming a pattern now. I find it very interesting that, once again, BGM is being reactionary. Post 205 he asks for clarification, but doesn't wait for an answer before throwing the vote. Then later on, (208) he claims the vote was for Mert's lie, which is not the reason given in 205 for said vote.

Pick a reason and stick to it. Those two posts were only 4 hours apart, but you can't seem to recall why you were voting for someone? If it was bad enough to cause you to think a vote was necessary, I would think that you would remember why you were voting.

Not sure why DF made the big post he did before getting replaced, and I don't like the fact that he thought that huge posts were a requirement to play. I would have been happier with something of substance, no matter the length. Glad you're replacing YL, so far so good.

@IT: I think if you have any questions, fire them off. Replacements are here to play and should be able to do so once they have come up to speed on the game (based on his posts, YL has done so). Just so you know YL, I

will

hold you responsible for DFs actions (not all of them of course, but the vast majority). The reason being that just because the player changes, the role does not, so if DF did or said something scummy, you will need to answer for it. There's a fine line between what we can hold you responsible for and what we can't, so we'll just have to explore those situations as they come up.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Boy, it sure is a good job that posting has picked up since a deadline was imposed

Town:

if we don't get somebody to at least three votes before Friday then we will not lynch anybody. As discussed, this will be A Bad Thing. So come on, let's reach a decision.

V-R K, Yagami and IT: What are you thinking? Do you plan to vote for BGM or someone else?

My vote is on BGM, and for now I'm going to leave it there despite the cop claim. I'm still watching the game, and until this point, there really hasn't been anything to talk about since the deadline was imposed. If we can find a better target for a Day 1 lynch before Friday and the reasoning for that person is acceptable, I may move my vote. Until the claim it seems that we had talked ourselves out. All the people that had voted for BGM had given their reasons, no speed lynch was occurring, nothing strange was happening. It just seems that we ran out of steam and exhausted all the discussion for Day 1.

I'm not sure what I think about the claim. I could see BGM being a poor player and therefore getting himself into this situation where he had to claim, but I can also see a good scum play for today. If we decide to move our votes off of BGM, we definitely need to pick up the discussion A LOT, because a No Lynch isn't going to help us either. As it is right now, we're in No Lynch territory. Does anyone have a solid candidate other than BGM? If so, who and why?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Unvote -> Vote: YagamiLight

To put in a nutshell what he just did: "Only one person claimed cop, and I'm townie. Deadline is soon, but it looks like I'm going to die, so it's best that I just try and kill the cop now so I survive. By the way, I didn't really kill the cop, cause I'm leaving IT the choice to hammer. Oh yeah, I won't be back till tomorrow, so my vote stays, good game rest of you."

Actually, he's been saying that he was going to vote for you all along, well before the first vote was cast for him, so it's not as bad as you are presenting it. But I'd like to point out that you are changing your vote to save your own skin, too. Funny how that happened. Still nothing posted to help the town, just an accusatory vote on the only other person available to save your own neck.

Yagami: I think you should not bow to the pressure. If you think he is scum, vote for him. If you don't think so, then vote for someone else who you think is scum. I think not voting is a cop out.

I think that last post from Braze (280) seals it for me. That's not helpful at all, it's all OMGUS and snippy. I agree with OF here Yagami, not that it'll make much difference unless MeMe does decide to extend due to IT's absence. If you find someone scummy, you should vote for them. Although, Yagami's last post made him look very pro-town. He saw the value of keeping a potential cop alive vs. just a vanilla townie, and acted like a vanilla townie should in that situation.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

FoS: Ectomancer

Lesser-FoS: {V-RK, OnFire}

Right now I'm definitely leaning toward Ecto being scum. I don't see why any protown player wouldn't have at least entertained the idea of letting the claimed cop live one night to see what information this could yield. The fact that he was third on the wagon disturbs me greatly.

Mert I'm not happy with you FoSing everyone who voted for Braze. That seems rather OMGUSy, in a way. While I agree with you leaning toward Ecto being scum, due mainly to the crazy plays made on Day 1, I have to agree more with Ecto's sentiment that BGM's claim seemed fake.

The votes on BGM appeared over several pages, and I think calling that a "wagon" is a bit reactionary. I don't think that we forced anything with our voting. In retrospect, I wish I had given him one night to make an investigation, but at the time the claim looked like he was just trying to save himself from getting lynched. He didn't provide anything extra to the discussion, and as I pointed out in post 280, he got rather snippy at the end. That didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling, so I didn't move my vote. Seeing the result of the lynch it shows me now that it was frustration on his part not being able to prove his innocence, rather than scummy defensive behavior.

As of now, OnFire is town in my eyes. His play at the end where he was willing to give the cop a free pass has me convinced.

For now, here's my suspicion list:

Mert ≈ Ecto
IT
OnFire

IT I didn't know where to place. I put him above OF simply because we've not heard anything from him in the last week or so, and with his last play, OF is 99% town on my list, so I put IT above OF.

I'm not anywhere near ready to place a vote for Day 2, I'm just trying to get my initial thoughts out there. I'd like to hear more from Ecto and Mert, since they're the two highest on my list. I'd also like to get something from IT.

Mod: any chance you can prod IT for us?

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Oh for crying out loud. Thanks OF, I'm apparently on another planet somewhere

From a very quick skim through, I'm still willing to put OF towards the bottom of my suspicion list (yes I made sure I was looking at the right person this time ). His play has been solid, well reasoned, and nothing jumped out at me as being overly scummy, but as I said, this was a very quick skim through of just his posts. Since I'm getting people mixed up, I think I need to do a thorough read through of everyone and make myself some notes.

My apologies everyone.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

My apologies for the absence guys. RL is really difficult for me at the moment, and it's affected all my games here on the site. I think things are going to start calming down, and I'm going to try and get back into the swing of things.

For now, I'd like to comment on the fact that both Mert and Ecto have been at each other's throats since Day 2 started, and also look at something that I think we might be overlooking. OF touched on it at one point:

If [Ecto] is scum, who could be his scumbuddy?

• Mert: Ecto has had several noteworthy disagreements with Mert, so on the face of it that seems unlikely. Mert briefly voted with him for Yagami near the Day 1 deadline, which was very strange to me, but on the whole Mert seems to be on a different page than Ecto, and has come out against him strongly on Day 2, as well as voting for him previously on Day 1 (twice, IIRC).
• Vel_Rahn Koon: I have no immediate read on anything between V-R K and Ecto, which could mean anything, really. I have to go back and look closer, which I did not have time to do.
• IT: This is very interesting, actually. Ecto and IT had an early, combative interaction (since erased) with Ecto questioning IT hard, then putting on the brakes at the end, saying the whole thing was a test that IT passed, confirming his probable towniness in Ecto’s eyes. I later had an interesting exchange with Ecto when I voted for IT where he (Ecto) strongly defended IT towniness based on that missing initial exchange (and getting really snippy with me, IMO). Could that initial exchange have been “staged” to insinuate IT on people’s town list? Ecto sure did come at me hard when I accused IT. (In fairness, so did others, and not without reason).

If Mert is scum, who could be his scumbuddy?

• Ecto: See bullet under Ecto above
• Vel-Rahn Koon: Again, I've got nothing here, which is leading me to believe that I really need to take another look at V-R K.
• IT: IT and Mert have agreed and voted together more than any other pairing. This has been commented on by everyone previously. You’d think if they were scum, they would not be so obvious, but maybe that’s what they want us to think! Obviously, this quickly spirals into a WIFOM situation, but it must be remarked upon. It’s too bad IT seems to have disappeared…

Since you guys have been banging at each other for 1.5 pages I haven't seen anything to convince me one way or the other that one of you is scum over the other. The comments in 326 and 327 by both of you is a really sick sort of irony, so I thought I'd go looking elsewhere. We're all of the opinion that OF is town, or at least I think we are, so I decided to look at IT. IT is mentioned in both of OF's suspicion lists as being linked in one way or another to Mert and Ecto, and for most of the game his play was very neutral.

Does anyone have a comment on IT as a potential scum? Just because he's getting replaced doesn't mean that his role is going to change. Anything that a player does, his replacement has to answer for, because those bad moves are usually role based, and not player based. I wouldn't try to hold Verona responsible for IT's personality quirks, but anything that could be an action IT took based on his role is fair game.

Am I jumping the gun? Ecto and Mert seem to have discussed themselves out, so I was looking for something else that might have been floating around. I haven't had a chance to do so, but has anyone else looked at who BGM was associating with, or more importantly, anyone that was distancing themselves or linking themselves with BGM? We may get something there as well, although it will probably be less helpful.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Sorry all, I'm back, and I'm tired of apologizing for the absences. RL is keeping me busier than I ever expected. I'm going to post my thoughts and if this keeps up to where I'm simply unable to find an hour a day or two to post, I'll talk to MeMe about finding me a replacement. It's not fair to you all that I'm not able to devote the time I need to the game.

Vel-Rahn Koon's posts, when read in isolation, don't seem to contribute much to discussion and he doesn't seem to me like he's particularly trying to find scum. He's probably just about my best bet for the second scum, but mostly because of IT's protown posting previously than V-RK being inherently more scummy than Venona.

I find it absolutely fascinating that the two IC's who are prominently voting for and promoting the other as scum both pick V-R K as the most likely second scum (if somewhat tentatively). In fact, their suspicion lists line up pretty much exactly. What do you two have to say about that?

To my mind, the most likely scenario is that Ecto and V-RK are scumbuddies and he's attempting to distance himself by placing V-RK as his second choice.

I am not scum, so it is certainly not good for either one of us to go. Killing me is a loss.

I have a suggestion that will probably do absolutely nothing for OnFire's suspicion of a Mert/Ecto scumpair, but I'm going to propose it all the same - since the one thing we all seem to be able to agree on is that V-RK is scummy, why don't we make him the play for today and we can re-evaluate Ecto and I tomorrow?

Thoughts?

Mert, in the first quoted post above, I am your best bet for 2nd scum, not because of me being inherently more scummy, but because IT/Venona looks more town in his/her posting.

But in your 2nd quoted post (post 367), which comes on the heels of OFs suggestion that the two ICs are both scum playing the town (post 366), I'm now up to being scummy enough to risk a LyLo lynch. What happened in the intervening time period that made you change your mind? You certainly didn't give any reasoning for it...

Ecto has already called you on this in post 368, and it seems your response would indicate that I'm the person everyone suspects a lot. If that's true, why am I not already swinging from the gallows? You and Ecto have been arguing with each other, going so far as to throw votes down on one another, since Day 2 started. I can't see any better way for the scum to start a new day than the way you two have acted. It makes it easy to throw in little suggestions about lynching someone you don't find suspicious because of their own actions.

I'm more than willing to go with the suggestion that OF and Venona finish out the voting since they seem the most town. We're all pretty much in agreement that they are most likely town, so I have no problem with the group's most pro-town players being the ones to decide our fate.

I have to say that the suggestion of Mert and Ecto being scumbuddies is beginning to look very appealing, especially after what seems like a desperation play on your part, Mert - trying to suggest that now I'm scummy enough to vote for after OF points out the possible pairing, when before that occurred I was no more scummy than anyone else by my own actions, it was simply that others looked more pro-town.

FoS: Mert

I am ok with either Mert or Ecto, because as of now I think they're both scum. The last few posts from Mert seem like he's rushing things a bit, so I'd be happier with voting Mert first. Yes there was talk from Mert about "if a deadline appears" and I know I wasn't helping to make that scenario a non-issue, but the Mod is not going to drop an unreasonable deadline. There would be plenty of time for that type of discussion

if

a deadline came about. If the group feels that Ecto would be a better play, that's fine by me - either way I think we're nailing scum.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

V-RK, glad your back, hope you stick around. I really dont wish to see another replacement in this game, partly because it is the sole remaining game I am in that I feel is still adversely affected by the data loss.

As for the V-RK post, looks like a wishy-washy scum post to me. Either Mert or Ecto is good with him, he emphasizes that he would be happier with voting Mert first (work that distancing man!). Nice safe post for him. If I get lynched, he wins, if Mert gets lynched, he looks good for lynching scum.

This needs to be said, despite my feelings, because that is all I have and I prefer to work on logic. Im rather uncomfortable with the controlling role that OnFire has assumed here (that we allowed him to assume). I dont believe I've ever seen a group of people allow that to happen from someone

who isnt legitimately confirmed

. Trust me, I realize that I helped create that situation, but it still, it feels like the 800lb elephant in the room that at this point, no one is talking about. I'm not trying to distract us from the current path we are trying to work out here, but it defintely needed to be said.

Wow, hi pot, this is kettle calling!

You're calling my post distancing? From the start of Day 2, you and Mert have had a huge argument going which has led absolutely nowhere. If that's not distancing then I'm at a loss.

As for OnFire being in the role in which he is, you are the one who gave him most of that power to start with, IIRC.

Personally, I think that OF should cast the last vote. Of those 3, V-RK and Venona are the 2 likeliest scum. I'd prefer the deciding vote to be in the hand of the likeliest town.

You didn't just help create the situation,

you started it

! The only way to get someone 100% legitimately confirmed is to wait for the Mod to post their role reveal after their dead. You can't get a 100% confirmation in this game and still have the player be of any use (meaning that they're dead and can't post their thoughts any longer). See also post 371, where you basically spell it out that OF, Venona, and I are in the driver's seat ("In case my wall of text wasn't clear, Venona, V-RK, and OnFire, the ball is in your court. "), along with the subtle plea to emotion about the deadline being imposed. You can't say something like post 370 and then try to claim that there's an 800 lb. elephant in the room no one is talking about except you - you're the one who let the elephant in the room in the first place!!!

This seems like a great way for you to try to buddy up to someone whom

you

know is town to try to get them to vote the way you want. Nice play by you and Mert. First you have a nice big argument and get the dust blowing. Before that can settle, the suggestion goes out to the effect of "well, since we can't decide between the two scummiest people in the game, let's look at lynching the other guy".

FoS: Ecto

Can't point fingers at just one scum, gotta make it the pair. Sorry nice try. I'm still happy with either Mert or Ecto today. No voting from me until Mert and Venona post their thoughts.

As a final thought, my point about me swinging from the gallows was not to set up a WIFOM argument, it was to show how weak Mert's post was that

everyone

thinks I'm scummy. First Mert posts his attack, then Ecto comes in to back him up? Seems like a scumpair to me.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Your final line just boggles me. Your gallows comment was cast away. Whether everyone believed you to be scum or not had nothing to do with you being alive. We're at LYLO and even if everyone

did

think you were probably scum, we would still talk it out to be sure we are doing the right thing. So, I dont get how I backed Mert up. I just pointed out how

you

used my

my

argument against Mert to attack him, so where did this comment come from?

As a final thought, my point about me swinging from the gallows was not to set up a WIFOM argument, it was to show how weak Mert's post was that everyone thinks I'm scummy. First Mert posts his attack, then Ecto comes in to back him up? Seems like a scumpair to me.

I apologize for the misunderstanding about my final line. I didn't mean it the way you're taking it, let me try to explain it better. I kinda mixed 2 or 3 thoughts together in there and it sounded good when I hit the Submit button but apparently it didn't come out as I had hoped.

The comment in the last line was not in reference to the WIFOM argument being used by you to attack me. I was using the WIFOM argument statement to clarify how I perceived the statement by Mert that I was talking about in post 374. That should have been the end of that thought. Nothing else in there has any bearing on what follows.

The last two sentences of that mini-paragraph was to show that first Mert attacked me (post 367), then Ecto did (post 377), and thereby you two are working together to try to get me lynched, hence the "looks like a scumpair" comment by me.

Not sure I explained that very well, let's try this. This is the way that line should look:

My point about me swinging from the gallows was not to set up a WIFOM argument, it was to show how weak Mert's post was that everyone thinks I'm scummy.

First Mert posts his attack, then Ecto comes in to back him up? Seems like a scumpair to me.

Better?

I dont deny that I helped to create the situation, but requesting that OF cast the final vote

does not mean that I requested OF to control the conversation.

Unfortunately, and no blame to you, but your lack of access to the site, combined with Venona's absence has led by default to OF being in control of things. With you being back, and if we can get Venona to post, it will naturally shift back to where you 3 are involved in the discussion equally.
Mert and I have not been arguing, we both feel we have cases against each other and have spent time laying them out. We just got the point where we hashed and rehashed about all we can without something from you guys.

When did anyone say that you requested OF to control the conversation? All we've done is decide that OF should be the last vote, since he seems, to everyone here, to be the most town player. Way too emotional of a response for my tastes.

Mert's post 387 and the ensuing discussion is all WIFOM, and doesn't seem to help move things along. I'm happy to see both Ecto (391) and OF (393) pick up on it. The following bothers me:

I believe Ecto and V-RK are scumbuddies. Since Ecto and I seemed to have reached a stalemate,

I wanted to make sure everyone knew I would be happy to move my vote to V-RK as my second choice.

This is not what you said. You said:

I have a suggestion that will probably do absolutely nothing for OnFire's suspicion of a Mert/Ecto scumpair, but I'm going to propose it all the same - since the one thing we all seem to be able to agree on is that V-RK is scummy, why don't we make him the play for today and we can re-evaluate Ecto and I tomorrow?

Thoughts?

That's a far cry from you making sure that everyone knows that you'd be happy to move your vote to me. That's you saying that we should make me the play for today since you and Ecto have confused the situation so badly it would

seem

that I'm the better choice. Interesting how it conveniently slips your mind that we're in LyLo and a mislynch wins you and Ecto the game. Your "error" was pointed out to you and then you try to misrepresent what you actually said.

I agree with Ecto's post 391 in that Ecto was most likely everyone's #1 suspect for day 2 when the day started. However, I can't ignore the fact that Mert's posts are, so far, not the most townie-looking posts I've seen. I'm also leery of the fact that Ecto is being so helpful today, when he knows that he came into day 2 on the top of everyone's $h!t list.

I'm ready to vote, but I think we need to give Venona or his successor time to come back/in and give some input before we do anything.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Vote: Mert

I asked for a replacement a week or 2 ago, but MeMe was unable to find anyone. Looks like we don't need the replacement though.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

I'm just surprised he wasn't replace.

Also surprised that no one even bothered to get him replaced hehe

I PMd MeMe about getting me a replacement a week or 2 ago, but she hadn't had any luck finding a replacement for me. The summer is the worst time to play due to people being on vacation and whatnot, so I'm not surprised she couldn't find a replacement.

I'm truly sorry everyone. I had to drop from all my games due to RL, and hopefully I can get things settled down and start actually playing again. I've already promised MeMe I'd replace in for her if she needed me to in the future.

OF, I know others have said it, but you played a great game. I'm very impressed with the way you handled yourself. You should be proud of your play.