Newbie 345: Another town has fallen...

[OnFire]

Hooray! My first ever game - go easy on me

[OnFire]

Well, that didn't start out so well. D'oh!

[OnFire]

Man, TOUGH crowd.

I better get a vote in before I go offline for a bit.

Vote: Innocent Townie

because that username is clearly a ruse

[OnFire]

Do the two scum out there want to just quicklynch OnFire for us? If you both bundle on now then we'll know who you are. Come on, it'll be

great

.

While obviously intended as a 'joke', this post actually says scum to me. Calling out to the scum "out there" is like holding a big sign that says "See, look! I'm not scum! Really!"

Which, to me, suggests you are.

So,

Unvote, Vote: Mert

(And I would think the same thing even it wasn't me Mert targeted. This is not a revenge vote).

[OnFire]

While obviously intended as a 'joke', this post actually says scum to me. Calling out to the scum "out there" is like holding a big sign that says "See, look! I'm not scum! Really!"

Which, to me, suggests you are.

So,

Unvote, Vote: Mert

(And I would think the same thing even it wasn't me Mert targeted. This is not a revenge vote).

You make a reasonable point, but the purpose of my post was both as a joke (as you have identified) and to pre-empt anybody who would be inclined to say that placing a second vote is scummy - it is not bad for the town if the two scum out themselves on Day One, no matter which role gets quicklynched in the process.

Indeed, if my death led to the identification of the 2 scum, that wouldn't bother me, as I win if the town wins. But since you went ahead and pointed this fact out, it's actually now much less likely that any scum would pile on and reveal themselves. In fact, your post might actually be a subtle warning to other scum (particularly if they are new) to not pile on for this very reason.

I think I'm comfortable where my vote is right now.

[OnFire]

LOL, most of this game got lost in the move.

Erm. Where was I at?

Unvote

for now anyway.

Man, what a bummer!

The last thing I did before the whole thing crashed was to

Unvote

, so let's get that back on the books.

[OnFire]

MeMe, I'm assuming any votes that took place during the blackout are gone and not to be counted, so can you post a new official vote count based on what we do have?

Thanks!!

[OnFire]

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.

[OnFire]

I have seen things like this in games I have read, and obviously what happened affected our thoughts towards our fellow players, but I fail to see a way to use erased posts as evidence as it could too easily turn into ‘he said she said’ types of situations.

I agree, but we could try to do something like what I did above and summarize (with whatever evidence is left, if any) any major discussion points that have been lost. Then maybe those discussions can be picked up and continued, so we're not starting from scratch. As you say, that could indeed lead to "he said she said," but knowing that we can try to avoid it.

That's the best I've got. I do wish there were more action in the thread. Where is everybody?

[OnFire]

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?

No, at this point I don't think my suspicions of Mert warrant a vote. In fact, I had unvoted him shortly before the crash and today I was re-establishing that unvote. He is still on my "suspicion" list, however, so in the interests of going on record: FOS Mert.

I will also throw out for discussion's sake that Ectomancer's overly-agressive (IMO) responses to IT had been making me very suspicious, but he then explained reasonably and effectively that he was being provocative on purpose to generate a response from IT. So I was pretty much back to square one with Ectomancer.

And finally, it seems to me that diamondfalcon has been laying very low throughout, not posting frequently or with a lot of content. At this early stage, I do not find this overly suspicious, but just something that I was keeping an eye on.

[OnFire]

Ok, so can someone tell me why they're suspicious of Mert again? I failed to catch it the first time I guess.

My explanation is in post 17. It ain't much, but it's all I got right now

[OnFire]

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

(vote un-bolded to avoid confusion)

Braze, you had voted for V-R K prior to the crash - was that a random vote or did you have a reason?

[OnFire]

Braze, you had voted for V-R K prior to the crash - was that a random vote or did you have a reason?

Forget it - now that I took the time to look back at Page 1, I see that it was random.

[OnFire]

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.

I've got to agree with V-R K here. Your position makes perfect sense until the vote, i.e. "looking at your (Df's) behavior makes me realize that I've been playing in a similar fashion and that's not good for the town. So I'm going to vote for you (Df) for this anti-town play."

If your reasoning is sound and Df's playing was indeed anti-town and vote-worthy, why the heck shouldn't I vote for you when you were admittedly doing the same?

[OnFire]

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 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

[OnFire]

I want to follow up on my post above to discuss a more general topic brought up by IT and V-R K with regard to DF, i.e. inactivity or risky playing. I believe there is a middle ground between these that is most beneficial to town. IT's point that if you are too meek and inactive, you allow the scum to hide is well taken. We must generate conversation, reaction and analysis. However, his conclusion:

More specifically, avoiding risk is something the town should never do.

is too much for me. Just as we should not be too inactive, neither should we be heedless. It is in scum's best interest for quick bandwagons to get launched and for days to end early without enough discussion.

All things in moderation 8)

[OnFire]

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)

[OnFire]

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?

[OnFire]

I suspected something like this might happen - I'm glad it did.

Whaddya all think?

What do I think? Erm, "die scum" basically sums it up.

Your first point isn't a terrible one, but it's not conclusive either. I wouldn't have had a problem with it if it weren't for your second point - assuming for a second that you're both part of the great uninformed, how can you, at this early stage, state with any degree of certainty that one opinion is worth more than another or is "more correct"? You post like you

know something

and I don't like it.

Talk about misrepresenting! I did not say I

knew

anything and I said absolutely nothing about someone being "more correct" than another. (I don't even know what you mean by that). What I said was that, so far, Df is at the bottom of my suspicion list, so those who vote for him look more suspicious to me. What's wrong with that?

As for your final point, about Innocent Townie's "town must play riskily" post... well, that's not actually what he said, was it? What he said was that "avoiding risk is something that the town should never do". There is a subtle but important difference between the two statements. One says the town should make risky plays deliberately, the other says that the town should not hold back on doing something risky if it will help them to find scum. The latter is not something I disagree with particularly, but the way you rephrased it makes it into something I

do

disagree with - your misrepresentation of his post has, therefore, been noted.

What you call a misrepresentation is really just a paraphrase. I think anyone who looks over the complete exchange between me and IT on this point will conclude that I was not trying to twist his words, merely restating my initial reaction back in posts 70 and 74.

Actually, I'm going to

Unvote, Vote: OnFire

.

I'm going to pre-empt a few accusations that may come my way now. While I

am

defending IT a little here, I am not his scumbuddy. I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote.

Now you're just making things up. I

defended

IT in the face of Ecto's (IMO) overly agressive attacks. Of course, those posts have been deleted, so I can't quote, but I had at least two posts saying I thought Ecto was hammering at IT for almost nothing and I was just about to vote for him over it when he backed down. This exchange with IT is the first major back-and-forth I've had with him for the entire game, and definitely the first time I've attacked him (not counting my initial totally random vote).

Now before you all bash me to death with your WIFOMsticks, let me point out that I'm not using this as evidence that we're not scum, I'm just flagging it up before you all decide to accuse me of it again.

Keep dancin', friend. I think this post of yours is very telling and I hope others look at it closely.

[OnFire]

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

I addressed it somewhat obliquely in my vote post:

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.

To be clearer, I was saying that I thought it was perfectly valid to point out his realization, but the vote was hypocritical. So if, it were me, I would have pointed it out, but not voted. (Same as you, if I'm not mistaken).

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.

Fair enough. I still think it is a somewhat valid data point.

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?

I am just not seeing this "gross misrepresentation." In post 73 he moderates his initial stance, but repeats the main point : "Avoiding risk is something we should never do." Note the "never." Here's how I read that: If you are never avoiding risk, then you are playing risky. To me, it still seemed like he was advocating a style of play for the town that I think is not good, and that was why I posted more in 74. When I posted, I was just paraphrasing how I interpreted his posts. It's not like I pulled this out of thin air.

Look, I get it, my evidence against IT is thin. I admitted as much when I voted for him. And certainly each individual point is not enough to vote for him. But

taken together

, I felt my three points were enough for a vote. I certainly had no more on anyone else, and I wanted to get some discussion going (which I seem to have succeeded at )

And for what it's worth, I think your criticisms of my post are reasonable (with the exception of "gross misrepresetation"). Mert's post, on the other hand, was

very

scummy, IMO.

[OnFire]

Wow. I guess if I give other people a chance to talk, they practically lynch themselves. You continue to disparage my frontal attack on IT, but the reactions I got around the board were telling, and with this you act as though you didnt get anything out of it. Mert and VRK make good pbp's on the exchange with IT.

vote OnFire

Man, I'm getting reamed here

I said nothing whatsoever about "what I got" from your attacks on IT. What I did say was, at the time, I thought your attacks were unwarranted and overly agressive - that is,

until

you explained yourself, at which point I backed off. To sum up: at the time, I thought your attacks were scummy because they appeared to be based on nothing. Then you explained what you were doing, so I no longer think that and your play did in fact generate good discussion and some potential "alignments."

But that doesn't change the fact that Mert says I was attacking IT

even more than you

, when that was clearly not the case. What do you think about that?

[OnFire]

One more thing I should have added to my last post:

I'm about to be offline for many hours, but assuming I don't get lynched in the meantime, I will happily respond to all criticisms/questions. Please don't mistake my silence for avoidance

[OnFire]

Unvote

to avoid a careless hammer. I currently think OnFire is scum, but I'm open to hearing more from him before he is killed.

That's ridiculous. There is no careless hammer, and there is no tempting scum without the bait. If you think OnFire is scum, you should have left the pressure on with your vote. Once we agreed as town to lynch, we get the 4th vote on, anything before that and we know we have scum as the 4th on the wagon.
If you are open to hearing more from him, why did you take off the incentive for him to talk?

I'm back, and needless to say happy I didn't get lynched while offline. I don't need 3 votes on me to give me an incentive to talk - I think it's fair to say I've been one of the most active players in this game so far without that "incentive"

I am more than happy to continue to try to defend the reasoning behind my IT vote (which is admittedly looking lamer to me after V-R K's critique). I believe I have responded to each so far (and have raised some questions that I would like to see addressed), but if my explanations were unsatisfactory, I'll try to be clearer.

More than anything, the vote was an attempt to get discussion happening (like Ecto's earlier and now erased move on IT), and at least it seems that I got that right even if I unfortunately made myself look scummy in the process. As flimsy as my "evidence" is, and I acknowledged as much at the time, it was more than I had on anyone else, so I thought I should proceed with it.

[OnFire]

In case it wasn't clear though,

FoS: OnFire

. You're not out of my scope just yet, so don't think I won't move my vote back to you if you continue to act scummily.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I certainly don't feel "off the hook" at the moment.

In any case, could you address my point here:

I'm going to pre-empt a few accusations that may come my way now. While I am defending IT a little here, I am not his scumbuddy. I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote.

Now you're just making things up. I defended IT in the face of Ecto's (IMO) overly agressive attacks. Of course, those posts have been deleted, so I can't quote, but I had at least two posts saying I thought Ecto was hammering at IT for almost nothing and I was just about to vote for him over it when he backed down. This exchange with IT is the first major back-and-forth I've had with him for the entire game, and definitely the first time I've attacked him (not counting my initial totally random vote).

[OnFire]

The point is that when I said "I just think that the way you (and Ecto, to a lesser extent) have attacked him during this game have been scummy and have looked like somebody stretching to find a reason to place a vote" I didn't mean the

frequency

of the attacks, I meant the

way

the attacks were made and the

substance

behind the posted reasoning behind them.

When I said that you were doing so to a greater degree than Ecto, it was intended to mean that your recent attack on IT looked

more

like it was trying to find a reason to vote than Ecto's attacks, but that Ecto had still looked like he might be doing so. The "Ecto to a lesser extent" did not mean that he had done so less often, but that his attacks had seemed less opportunistic than yours, which is what I was attacking you for.

Hmm, well, that actually makes reasonable sense to me. The phrase "the way you...have attacked him during this game" sounded to me like you were accusing me of attacking him

throughout

the game, which is not at all true. In light of this, I will withdraw my claim that your response to me was scummy.

This disturbs me: There is no one that I consider anywhere close enough to a confirmed innocent that I would vote someone else for being suspicious of them. On day one I cannot even see how it is possible; there is no hard evidence for anything. Upon reading this I tried me make a list of who I am least suspicious of, and the list only included myself. If I may ask, why are you least suspicious of Diamondfalcon?

Let me reiterate that I DO NOT believe Df is confirmed anything and have NEVER said so. (Mert also responded to this point saying he thought I was too "certain" about Df. [post 79]). And I would not place a vote on someone for

solely

this reason - remember, this was one of three points. My position is that I viewed him the least suspicous, and I found it interesting that the person I found least suspicious had the most votes at that time. Why do I think he's the least suspicious? For the most part, it's that he has not posted anything that read scummy to me, whereas several other posters have. He just seems like a true newbie hanging back, asking questions, not knowing terminology, etc. Of course he could be acting, he could be newbie scum and completely fooling me, but that's the honest read I get from him right now.

Now, based on the strong negative reaction to this, I'm willing to concede this is a bad strategy on Day One, when so little is known, and abandon it. (V-R K's post 81 is particularly convincing on this point). I just assumed we're all making lists of things we find suspicious and using that "data" (I use the term loosely) to find the bad guys. No hard evidence, I agree, but suspicions. Non-snarky question: Is everyone really equally suspicious to you? You don't have any ranking at all of who is slightly more scummy-looking than anyone else? I thought that was what the whole FOS thing was about. You have a vote on Ecto right now, is he looking slightly more suspicious to you than everyone else?

[OnFire]

EBWOP: In light of several valid points deconstructing and criticizing my vote for IT, as well as his decidedly non-scummy reaction to it, I believe it only fair to say that that dog won't hunt, and

Unvote

.

[OnFire]

If town, and he did get lynched, yes Mert, technically it would be a lylo tomorrow, but when we already know the scum and have him lined up for the lynch, it isnt a true lylo situation for us until the following day. This is the worst case scenario for my setup, and it aint bad at all for town.

I've been following this exchange b/w Ecto and Mert with interest, although I admit I'm not quite sure I completely understand all of the implications.

Here's my question for Ecto: doesn't your worst case scenario above rely on the premise that a townie would

never

be the 4th vote to lynch? That the 4th vote is

always

scum? That's what I'm getting from your position - let me know if I'm wrong.

If that's true, here's my problem with that. Assume for a moment that I am town and that IT is town. I made an "attack" on IT that got me three fast votes, yours being the third. Isn't it possible that IT (knowing he himself is town and himself being new to the game) could have been convinced I am scum for the reasons the other voters articulated and/or could have just made a revenge vote, sending me to the noose? If so, under your scenario, he

must

be scum (because he put on the 4th vote), so you would then vote to lynch him on Day Two. If that happened, then that would be the death of the town, factoring in two night kills, right?

I hope I am explaining this right, but to me it looks like your quicklynch strategy is not nearly as cut and dried as you suggest. If the scenario I describe above happened (and I think we were fairly close to it), it could have been disastrous for the town.

[OnFire]

IT would never have thrown on that 4th vote as town. Have you really followed this entire game and dont know that?

Yes, I have really followed this entire game and I don't know that he would

never

do that. Please tell me what I have missed during this game that makes you 100% confident of that. What if he was convinced I was scum? What if he was just pissed at me for voting for him? I don't know IT from Adam and I don't understand why you think it

impossible

in a newbie game that someone would make that mistake.

PS. Does your reply mean that I understand your position on the 4th vote correctly (as I asked above)?

[OnFire]

If you dont know IT from Adam, then you didnt read the game. If you feel you read the game and still dont understand how I can make that statement, then you need more exercises in reading individuals and crowd mentality.

Dude, it's my

first game

. Perhaps you'd be better served explaining yourself rather than insulting me. (Nevertheless, I'm going to go back and read all of IT's posts to see if I can grok what you're saying).

And would you mind answering my question above?

[OnFire]

If I need to be replaced as a result, then I'll completely understand, but if you can keep me in for that period of time then I'd be extremely grateful.

Don't know if my opinion matters, but I would much prefer to go without a player for a couple days than to replace and start from scratch with someone new. Just my $.02

[OnFire]

Im not trying to insult you. I apologize if you took it that way.

OK, thanks.

Unfortunately, specifics I could show you that were used for my conclusion have been lost to the rollback.

Yeah, I kind of thought this is what you were talking about, guessing that your pursuit of IT and the discussion surrounding it was where you saw whatever you saw. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember you coming out of that with a pro-town feeling from IT and you provided some explanation, so I'm willing to accept this.

Remember, this isn't a 5 page game, it is a few pages longer. So, while some of the rigid questions you asked may have been valid on page 1, by page 7 or 8 they no longer hold, especially when the discussion has been as intense as ours.

My questions were "rigid" because you seemed to be dealing in absolutes, which is, in my opinion, not a good idea (which you seem to agree with at least in part below).

I will also once again answer your question in a different manner. You ask finite questions of a fluid situations. The answer to both of your questions is in fact no, never and always are almost always never a good qualifier for complex topics, however in

this

game, and at

that point in time

the answer is yes, town would not have placed that 4th vote, while scum

might

have. But once again, the opportunity to prove me correct has flown.

For which I, for one, am grateful More seriously, I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I think you are making an assumption that town would not have done something irrational or stupid or simply without enough thought. And I think my example demonstrates that if such a mistake were made, it could have been game over for the town. You say you think the risk was "very, very small," but I'm not so sure.

[OnFire]

Everyone is not equally suspicious to me, but the only people it is worth keeping track of are the people I find the most suspicious. If someone else does something I find particularly questionable I go back and reread all their posts in isolation, and then in context with the game, and then decide if the thing that bothered me still does. If it does, then they are now a candidate for the top. That being said, I am tracking why I believe everyone to be scum and there is certainly no one I would willingly trust at this point. Without any concrete information about who the scum are it is too easy for them to misrepresent themselves as town.

I get what you are saying here and I agree it is definitely easier to point to actual suspicious behavior than it is to point to a "lack of" the same, and I've been doing that. But I have read some other games and it does not seem unusual for people to construct and even post "suspicion" lists from most --> least suspicious. I was just following that practice, and I don't think there's really anything wrong with it. (And let me reiterate that "least suspicious" to me does not = "not suspicious" or "cleared.")

[OnFire]

Aside from the exchange, the thing I've been thinking about, personally, is "what are the possible scum-pairs out there?" This question's been bouncing around in my head for quite some time now.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the pairings. So far, I've been looking at individual players without much thought to pairs. It could be an interesting filter to look back at posts through. For example, Mert and IT: way too obvious or do they "protest too much"?

[OnFire]

Well, as others have suggested, I think it's time for me to go back over the pages we have and look for evidence. I started today by reading Diamonldfalcon's posts, since I had been defending him as a newbie earlier and thought it would be good to take a closer look.

What did I discover? Not much, frankly. That is, Df has posted very little. His posts are few, they are short, and there is not a lot of analysis going on. There's a spurt on page 3 where he defends himself, and a good amount of agreeing with other posters on certain issues, but precious little else. Despite the fact that he defended me in my recent debacle, I don't think this is good.

As well all know, discussion and analysis are the only way to generate leads for the town, so keeping quiet is anti-town. I'm not voting or even FOSing Diamondfalcon here. But I am calling you out: Where's the beef? You've been hiding behind the "I'm new and not sure how to catch scum, though I'm trying to get better" line for long enough. I'm new, too - this is my first game ever - and I'm getting in there and mixing it up, so it's time for you to step up.

I'm going to go back and read someone else next, but it will have to wait until tomorrow (sorry, MeMe).

[OnFire]

I'm going to go back and read someone else next, but it will have to wait until tomorrow (sorry, MeMe).

As good as my word , I am back with some detail work. Here is my PbP summary of Vel-Rahn Koon. I have tried to be as accurate as possible while summarizing.

Page 1

[5 & 6] Random vote for me

Page 2

[28] Unvote after crash. Prodding for Mert and me to finish our conversation

[35] Agrees with IT’s post 31 (I think the part about going back to random voting makes no sense). Suggests review of other newbie games where there was a crash and lost content. Asks me if I still want to vote for Mert

[36] Suggests review of Newbie game 285

[41] Defends himself from Braze’s FOS that he is trying to distract us with other games/information. Explains why he doesn’t think Mert is scum. Likes my position in post 22, but thinks he found a contradiction in post 30, although it doesn’t make him “nervous.” Thinks Ecto’s vote for Df is shaky.

Page 3

[51] FOS IT based on his vote for Df (for exhibiting the same behavior as IT). Claims Braze’s reason for voting for him is weak – calls for more explanation. Puts some pressure on Df regarding his reaction to Mert’s vote.

[52] Finds the Mert/IT voting similarities interesting. Suggests that scum probably wouldn’t be so open, but speculates that IT could be making a newbie scum mistake.

[56] Another defense response to Braze’s vote and the reasoning behind it. Makes a fairly lame (IMO) deflection of Braze’s point that he is adding lots of non-relevant info to the game by referencing the brief exchange about forum icons by Braze and IT. Makes a better (IMO) point that two instances of introducing non-game information does not equal “always”, as Braze had said.

[67] Aggressively asks Df to explain himself and his “nervousness” re Mert’s vote, but also praises him for not changing his vote just to make someone else happy. Makes a very interesting assertion (which I question him on later) about town having nothing to worry about. Also responds to IT’s question re “If I realized I was doing something that decreased the town's chances of winning when I saw someone else do it”

[72] Explains himself in more detail about the town not having to worry about getting lynched comments that I FOSed him about. (Personally, I find his explanation not spectacular, but not terrible either).

Page 4

[81] Dissects my vote for IT, finds it problematic, and votes for me.

[91] Agrees with Mert’s unvote to take me off of L-1. States that short days are bad for the town and thinks Ecto made a bad play to put the third vote. FOS Ecto and Braze for “not understanding this.”

Page 5

[120] Explains why he thinks putting me at L-1 was bad at this point (too risky for newbie game). Calls out Braze to explain his stance on the matter.

Page 6

[128] Praises Ecto and IT for their recent analysis. Says he is in the process of a post-by-post analysis.


So, what do I make of all this? Well, I'm not seeing too much scummy here. I don't think Braze's accusation about V-R K trying to obfuscate was particularly compelling. I still think V-R K's "town don't have to worry about getting lynched" comments were not good, but he did explain himself. His dissection of my IT vote was mostly well-reasoned and not reactionary. Overall, based on the above, I would say that I am leaning toward V-R K being town (note: this is NOT definitive - please do not attack me for being too "certain").

[OnFire]

Something I am curious about though, is what made you choose Vel-Rahn Koon to analyze?

Well, I started with Diamondfalcon because I had recently gone on record saying I thought he was least suspicious, and wanted to review and take a closer look at why I thought that. That post was obviously less detailed than what I did on V-R K, partly because there wasn't much to analyze and partly because I did not have as much time. I didn't want to analyze you next because of our recent kerfluffle, in case people thought I was targeting you or something. A brief skim of the thread revealed that V-R K had enough posts for me to sink my teeth into, but not so many that it would take me 3 hours to summarize, so I went for it. I'll pick someone else next, and maybe others will start doing the same.

[OnFire]

BGM

has seemed a little... not lurky as such, but more like he's lurking in plain sight. He's posted regularly enough, but he hasn't really

said

anything, if you know what I mean?

Indeed, and here is my summary of BGM's posts:

Page One

[13+14] Random vote for V-R K

Page Two

[29] Unvote due to crash

[39] FOS on V-R K for posting extraneous info not relevant to the game at hand. Also voices minor suspicion of Mert.

[47] Vote for V-R K after he defended himself from BGM’s initial suspicion. (Opinion: upon review, I find this to be a pretty lame vote.)

Page Three

[54] Defends and presses his V-R K vote, adding “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.” Somewhat accuses V-R K of twisting his words and calls him scummy again.

Page Four

[90] Derides Mert for unvoting me and taking me off of L-1.

Page Five

[122] Responds to questions about his stance in post 90, explaining that Mert’s unvote seemed scummy to him, then asks for more explanation about Mert/Ecto’s L-1 exchange. Says he is “mind-boggled” by the exchange, and says he would be “very surprised” if one of Mert/Ecto was not scum. Suggests that he is thinking about possible scum pairs.

Page Six

[135] Defends his suspicion of Mert/Ecto against Ecto’s reply, saying that he thinks all the “large SAT words” were scummy and designed to trip up newbies. Talks about the use of discussing possible scum pairs again, but declines to do so other than mentioning either Mert or Ecto again.


Your sense of him lurking is not unfounded. He has a presence on each page, sure, but that's 8 posts (I count his first two as one post) out of 141, or just over 5% of posts. His main participation has been to accuse V-R K of posting extraneous information to obfuscate, and to accuse (either or both) Mert and Ecto of posting complex information to obfuscate. His accusation against V-R K started out sounding somewhat reasonable to me (although I didn't agree), but it soon became "constant mentioning," which I think is a mischaracterization. His fingering of Mert and Ecto is very lame, IMO, for reasons already mentioned above.

All told, I would say BGM has climbed higher on my suspicion list as a result of this review. I'm getting a vibe on him similar to Mert's, I think.

[OnFire]

FYI, if you look under the "submit" button, you can filter the thread by player to make a PBP a bit easier. I did it the hard way for a long time, not realizing that feature was available.

Hmm, can you explain in more detail? I'm looking under the submit button and seeing the "Topic Review" window, but nothing about filtering by poster. I've tried clicking around a bit with no luck, so any advice appreciated
I would definitely find this feature useful, so thanks for your help!

[OnFire]

FYI, if you look under the "submit" button, you can filter the thread by player to make a PBP a bit easier. I did it the hard way for a long time, not realizing that feature was available.

Hmm, can you explain in more detail? I'm looking under the submit button and seeing the "Topic Review" window, but nothing about filtering by poster. I've tried clicking around a bit with no luck, so any advice appreciated
I would definitely find this feature useful, so thanks for your help!

Forget it, I figured it out Thanks again for the tip!

[OnFire]

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?

I don't necessarily see any cons for "going after" lurkers. As you say, lynching people with little info is risky, but "going after" does not necessarily mean lynch. As long as we don't rush too fast and they have a chance to defend themselves, I don't see it as a problem. We need everyone to participate.

Mert: Your list looks quite a bit like mine, with the following major (more than one place) changes:

Since Mert is not on his own list (obviously) can you tell us where he is on yours?

[OnFire]

OnFire/Ectomancer: I did not leave Mert off my list because I did not publish a list. I was attempting to discuss differences of opinion on individual players and obviously discussing differences of opinion with Mert on whether I think he is scum is not going to be useful. I intend to actually come out with a list this weekend after I have time to go over either Mert or Ectomancer’s posts (well, I am going over everyone’s, but only doing a play by play on one of them) The lack of trying to publish a list is also the same reason I did not mention how I thought people moved up or down except for those that I had a large difference for.

For my part, I was not criticizing you in the way that Ecto did - I just want to know what your thoughts on Mert are at the moment, list or no list.

[OnFire]

As for scum pairs; that seems only to be useful once we have fingered a person to be a part of the pair. Analyzing 30 potential pairings does not appeal to me at this time.

Which brings me to this point: why do you think there are 30 potential pairings? A townie who's counted would only count the other 6 players in the game as potential scumpair and not themselves. A townie would count 21 total potential scum pair if not counting yourself. If counting all players, there would be 28.

First off, thanks for taking the time to make this post, which is a full of information and a good way to fend off calls of "lurker." Now, though, I need to question you about it a little, because I think your numbers are off. Here's how I count potential scum pairs:

P1-P2, P1-P3, P1-P4, P1-P5, P1-P6, P1-P7
P2-P3, P2-P4, P2-P5, P2-P6, P2-P7
P3-P4, P3-P5, P3-P6, P3-P7
P4-P5, P4-P6, P4-P7
P5-P6, P5-P7
P6-P7

That's 21 pairs by my count, and only 15 if one removes oneself from consideration. I find it somewhat suspicious that you are voting for IT based on (I think) catching him in a numbers mistake when you yourself appear to have made a numbers mistake. But to be honest, I don't understand your reasoning for the vote.

However, you did say "does not appeal to

me

." I threw the number out in hopes that scum would play with it, so I'm going to have to

Vote: Innocent Townie

.

I have no idea what that means. You threw

what

number out? Can you please explain in more detail, because it sounds like you think you caught IT in a scum tell, but I can't figure out what it is.

[OnFire]

BrazeGoesMoo: I find it odd you are suspicious of me for getting a number wrong but do not ask how I got a clearly impossible value. You yourself said that you would expect scum to get 28 if they tripped up. I am trying to decide if I think you are just overreacting or are trying to get attention off of yourself.

BrazeGoesMoo: I was suspicious of him before because of the focused lack of content. Now that I find him attacking me over a numbers mistake that does not make sense for anyone to make except by just error (i.e. scum have no greater pull toward it than town) makes me think he is just trying to get out of the hotseat and not actually look for scum.

I tend to agree. Braze's vote seems like a reach to me, as if he was looking for

anything

to take some attention off of him. It's possible that it was just poorly executed by not leaving the "15" trap he wanted and then doing the math error he explains above, but it still doesn't sit well with me.

FoS BrazeGoesMoo

.

[OnFire]

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?

Don't be a martyr, please. Besides V-R K's humorous (and harmless, IMO) "CrapLogic" dig, can you point out any insults thrown at you? 'Cause I'm not seeing them. (I, in fact, explicitly thanked you for participating more fully, and we're getting lots of good discussion out of your participation, whether it's good for you or not).

I don't mind attention at all. I find it easier to respond to things thrown at me than to work with pretty much nothing. I failed at my scum trap, as you can see. But I assure you I really want to help the town win.

If you don't mind (and in fact prefer) attention, then perhaps you should not complain when you get it.

I'm interested to hear what Ecto and Diamonfalcon are thinking about BGM at this point. Care to go on the record, guys?

[OnFire]

Another, more refined version of lurking is the type I feel from Diamond right now in his last few posts. That type of lurker will come in, post a lot of words, but really not say much. Non-committal in nature and appealing to the current general consensus.

I'm getting a similar feeling from Diamondfalcon, and his most recent post bothered me. In fact, I am going to quote it in its entirety:

I think Braze is acting really suspicious, but I don't think I should be making any decisions right now, seeing as I haven't read most of the posts on this page fully. I promise I'll read them in depth after my finals are over and decide then. If you truly think he's mafia then go ahead and lynch him, but just be careful and don't be too hasty (of course you already know this). I should be able to on Friday, I think. If that's too long, please replace me, mods.

I find this to be a CYA post, making points on both sides of the fence, possibly to be pointed back at a later time. For example, if Braze got lynched and turned up scum, Df can say "I said he was suspicious!", but if he turned up town, he can say "I told you guys to be careful!" This is not a town-friendly post, IMO.

PS. On an unrelated note, not being able to post for six days is a bummer. I know everyone's busy (hell, I opened a play that I produced and directed this past weekend - I've barely been sleeping), but checking in every 2 or 3 days doesn't seem an impossible burden.

Ahh, maybe I'm just grumpy b/c of said lack of sleep...

[OnFire]

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.

It's a good question, and it's been kicking around in my head as well. I would say that it is most often better to point things out. The exception would be if you think you found something that you could use to trap a player, then you might hold back and try to set the trap. But without a specific strategy like that, I think it's better to speak up. Yes, you give scum a chance to explain/cover themselves, but those explanations will often have to be lies, and so you've then generated more possible tells. I don't think anyone would disagree that more talk = better for town.

Of course, this game is the only direct experience I have, (I've read some others), so take the above with that in mind

On another note, I think the "lurker" conversation has quickly become chaff and has sidetracked what I felt was a good examination of and defense by BGM.

[OnFire]

What death would yield us the most information if we guess wrong, and what likely scum pairing might it imply?

Which wrongful death will get us the most profit. Morbid question If I had to answer, I'd say that if OnFire were wrongfully lynched (i don't feel he's scum), then I'd we'd get the most information. OnFire's done a couple well written PbP analyses during the course of this game. If he were to be found innocent after death, I *think* we could take those posts he made as decent evidence, or at least use them as a starting point to weeding out scum on Day 2.

Do you think this is a valid reason to vote for someone? I don't mean by itself (because that would be ludicrous), but rather one data point to consider? What about you, Ecto, since you asked the original question?

[OnFire]

Actually, there is one thing I would like to weigh in on. Specifically, the discussion about voting for someone based on info; I had never thought about that being a determining factor in lynching, but it does make a lot of sense, all other things being equal, as more information can only help. That being said,

it is only the case if all other things are actually equal

. I would not vote someone based on how much information their death would give unless I believed they had as good a chance of being scum as any of my other choices.

(bolding mine)
This is the crucial point to me. It sounds like a OK strategy in theory, but in practice how often are all things actually equal? It makes me very uncomfortable to think I might get lynched because I am posting good information that could be verified by my death. Doesn't this (in whatever small measure) discourage the posting of good information and other interactions that could be examined later? It just seems like academically it makes perfect sense (and I see where you're coming from, Ecto, and the qualifiers you've explained), but in reality I think it's a theory that could be easily exploited by scum to sway a lynch toward an active, pro-town player. I don't like it.

Of course, I take Mert's point that I should not be overly concerned with my own skin, but rather the good of the town, but I honestly don't think this is necessarily helpful to the town, and I can't see myself including it in my deliberations. YMMV.

On another (vaguely-related) note:

If anything, I can say that I think it doesn't make sense for us to go after diamondfalcon. If he's lynched and turns up town, I don't think we have anything to work with on Day 2. If he's lynched and turns up scum... we still won't have anything to work with on Day 2. A plus to this is that it won't be LyLo.

I sort of see what you're saying here, but a lack of content doesn't necessarily mean a lack of information based on his lynch. One example would be the timing and way people voted to lynch him. Another might be those who defended him at points through the game. The content doesn't have to come from the person who was lynched for there to be information.

Completely agree. And in addition, "a plus is that it won't be LyLo"?? The plus is that we lynched scum and there's only one left! Not only do you make it sound like lynching a townie and lynching scum are pretty much equal, but also this theory basically gives someone a free pass for not posting much information. This is the exact opposite of what we want.

[OnFire]

Dont make the mistake of attributing someone else's extrapolation to the originator of an idea. BMG calling you a good lynch based upon his assessment of your playstyle thus far does not make his evaluation a valid one, nor representative of anyone else's opinion but his own. You tell me OnFire, why someone would interpret a general assessment of our voting situation in such a way as to discourage another player from posting content, while advising that we stay away from the player who has contributed very little.

Don't worry, I'm not attributing BGM's response to you. I understand that you were talking about general principles. My point in 194 was to say that I think those general principles make perfect sense to me in theory (who would argue that more information is bad?), but might not work so well in practice. (I think mostly because I'm having a hard time imagining a situation in which all things could be equal - maybe that's more likely on later days). BGM's take on it reinforces my suspicion that it could be applied poorly, either through mistake or malice.

I make these plays to see how people will react, or use the situation to promote their agenda. I'm not liking the atmosphere being generated as a result of BMG's responses.

Can you explain this more? Are you saying you don't like BGM's responses or everyone else's responses to BGM?

[OnFire]

@Mert, care to explain further what you meant by "too calm"? I don't see a lack of following up on my accusation seeing how I asked Ecto twice to answer his own question.

FoS: Mert

What can I say beyond "your post doesn't read like you're actually bothered about the loaded question stuff"? Sure you bounce the questions back to Ecto at the end, but the tone of your post doesn't match the things you say within it, in my opinion.

I have no desire to agree with BGM at this point, because he still looks mighty scummy to me. However, on this point alone, I have to say it seems to me that he has addressed Mert's problem adequately, and Mert's accusation is somewhat lame (in a hard to prove/disprove kind of way). In fact, I'd like to look a little closer at the evolution of it:

You think it was asked soley so he can find a reason to put you at L-1? If that's what you think, then your response is remarkably calm and lacking on the sort of attack on Ecto you'd expect from such a move.

Eh? It's always good to be calm in a logic game, unless you're trying to elicit some sort of response from someone. <snip>
If I were angry in my response, or at least put forth some sort of emotion, you or someone else would just go "why the outburst, it's only a question?" ...

I wasn't suggesting you can get emotional about it. You're absolutely right about what you say, but I fear you've misinterpreted what I intended to say. <snip> So yeah, you're basically throwing out an accusation on somebody but don't seem to actually be posting as though it was one. That's what I meant by "too calm" - a lack of following up on your accusations.

You say this even though I put forth the question back at Ecto on post #186? <snip> Or maybe did you miss my post at #191 where I asked again: <snip> That's two times I call him out.

What can I say beyond "your post doesn't read like you're actually bothered about the loaded question stuff"? Sure you bounce the questions back to Ecto at the end, but the tone of your post doesn't match the things you say within it, in my opinion.

Maybe your style's just flippant generally then? Your post seemed too flippant to be a genuine feeling of being set up, in my opinion. I honestly don't know what more you want me to say on the issue - it's clearly a subjective point and I got a "vibe" from the way you posted that you didn't appear interested in actually finding out Ecto's intentions. I tried to explain as best I could in my post why I got that vibe, but ultimately it comes down to how your post appears to me and my opinion of how it appeared hasn't changed.

So, after all that, it looks to me that Mert made an accusation, Braze made a decent, documented defense of the point, but Mert does not buy the explanation due to it being "subjective" and moves to an "agree to disagree" stance. To be honest, it's not that big a deal despite all the coding I just did, but it did not sit completely well with me, so I had to say something. In sum: it feels like a bit of a reach.

[OnFire]

YagamiLight replaces diamondfalcon, effective immediately.

Welcome, YagamiLight! Here's hoping you have more commitment than your predecessor 8)

And thanks for the unvote. Whatever I think of Braze, that was a pretty lame thing for Df to do as he did.

[OnFire]

I don't recall exactly, is there anyone who

didn't

vote for me at one time or another?

I did not vote for you in the missing content (or at any other time). I believe I threw an FOS your way, though. I'm not sure it makes a big difference, but since you asked...

I will also try to do a solid review tomorrow and post my thoughts as to where we are right now.

[OnFire]

Vel-Rahn Koon: None

Note again these are post crash. This almost makes me want to vote Vel-Rahn Koon just because he is lacking in votes.

You missed Braze's vote for Vel-Rahn Koon in post 47 (I think that's the correct # - it's in the 40s).

[OnFire]

Votee, voter (post #), voter (post #), etc.

Diamondfalcon: Mert(43), Innocent Townie(46)
Mert: Diamondfalcon(44), BrazeGoesMoo(205)
Innocent Townie: OnFire(78 ), BrazeGoesMoo(158)
OnFire: Mert(79), Vel-Rahn Koon(81), Ectomancer(82)
Ectomancer: Mert(94), Innocent Townie(96)
BrazeGoesMoo: Mert(163), Vel-Rahn Koon(164), Diamondfalcon(212)
Vel-Rahn Koon: None

Note again these are post crash. This almost makes me want to vote Vel-Rahn Koon just because he is lacking in votes. Something else kind of odd: there was some commotion made by some about me doing the same things/casting the same votes Mert was. Looking at this I have voted closely after him twice. Vel-Rahn Koon has done the same. I do not have time to go reread the game at the moment to see who was accusing me of being scum with him and ignoring Vel-Rahn Koon, and I do not know if there is a connection in any case, but the consensus was point odd things out as they come up, so there it is. I will follow up on this when I have more time.

Sadly, I have not had the chance to do the in-depth review I wanted, but I did want to respond to this post because I find the patterns you have turned up interesting. I don't really know what to make of it all quite yet, except to say that Mert has a knack for getting people to vote the way he does quickly. Every one of his votes has been followed within 3 posts by either V-R K or IT (and in my case then by Ecto). Again, not sure what to make of it, but there it is. When Mert talks, people listen

Actually, while I'm on the topic of Mert, I have a question:

I am not voting for him [BGM] based solely on "subjective feelings" - my reasons for him have been stated previously and the vote was cast prior to my opinion of the post in question <snip>

I took a look back at your vote post and you say there that you are voting for him based on "general suspicion." Could you point out where you've stated your reasons previously?

[OnFire]

Hey Mert, can you answer my question from post 233? Thanks.

[OnFire]

Hey Mert, can you answer my question from post 233? Thanks.

My Post 140 has him second on my LoS and gives an explanation of how it feels like he's lurking in plain sight (which is very different from lurking).

Also, my Post 190 doesn't only address the issue of him seeming uninterested in his response - it details more points about his post that I don't like and they can't all be covered by the same umbrella as the "subjective/lie" argument.

Thanks for answering. I agree with your post 140 with regard to BGM. But post 190 is after you already voted for him, so it doesn't really count for the purposes of this discussion. If fact, you say in 221:

I am not voting for him based solely on "subjective feelings" - my reasons for him have been stated previously and the vote was cast prior to my opinion of the post in question ...

So the stuff is 190 (however valid) had no bearing on the vote.

In your vote post, you say you are voting for him for "general suspicion." Then later you say you are not voting for him based on subjective feelings, but for reasons stated previously, for which you point to post 140, which is this:

BGM has seemed a little... not lurky as such, but more like he's lurking in plain sight. He's posted regularly enough, but he hasn't really
said anything, if you know what I mean?

I don't want to beat this horse to death, and I've been debating posting this in the middle of your current exchange with BGM because I do not want to be linked with his arguments or accusations against you. But the fact is I find your statements about your BGM vote somewhat inconsistent and vague. Please be specific about why you voted for him. (Frankly, I could see why you would vote for him NOW, but why did you vote for him THEN?)

All that said, BGM continues to look scummier and scummier to me, and given that he is flailing at Mert right now, it puts me in an awkward place. Let me state for the record that my questioning of Mert has nothing to do with BGM's increasingly desparate-sounding defense/attack, and I am NOT trying to defend BGM here. Please do not let his arguments (or lack thereof) bleed over onto me

[OnFire]

I think you're scum, therefore any breadcrumbing or subtle hints you make is scummy. So far, if anyone's felt something's scummy, they've put it out on the table. What makes this different?

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. What you're saying is that your mind is already made up, so any hints he might post confirm your decision. It's completely self-fulfilling! "You're scum,

ergo

what you hint at is obviously scummy. QED." That's not evidence, it's a vicious circle.

This is the worst bit of reasoning yet in this game. You are making it almost impossible not to put you at L-1.

[OnFire]

@Onfire #246
It's also called interrogating. I might change my mind, hence the beauty of the unvote. For now, I think he's scummy, therefore the things he does is scummy. It's the same thing that's happening to me in this game. Some people think I'm scummy, so they think that everything I do is scummy.

Actually, it's called predetermining. How will you ever unvote him? I assume the only way would be if he does/says something you think is not scummy, but since you've already determined he's scum, and "the things he does is scummy," how would that happen? As I said: vicious circle. By your logic, no one would ever unvote anyone.

From my point of view, it just looks like the whole town is just sitting back and waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. Or just watchin Mert and I argue. Either way is fine, I suppose. It's what happens in games.

At least I'm putting some effort in this game, rather than voting and saying "eh, I'll see if I get lucky".

Whole town, eh? What have I been doing for the last couple pages? Your two votes came like 5-6 pages ago. If this is a bandwagon, it's missing two wheels, an axle and a horse. It does look like some people are hanging back to see what happens, but if you want to convince people not to vote for you or to vote for someone else instead, your logic above is not going to work.

Everyone: now we have a deadline, and I have a feeling based on the amount of activity lately that things could easily get to Friday without everyone getting their input in. I think we need to make sure everyone votes and gets on the record before the end of Day 1.

[OnFire]

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.

No kidding. Where is everyone? I understand why MeMe imposed the deadline given the dearth of posting going on, but it's kind of a bummer given where we're at in the game. In my case, I am very suspicious of BGM and have continued to question him, but I'm still not 100% certain if he is scum or just playing poorly. I would like more time to question him before I vote, but given the posting frequency, it seems unlikely that anything substantive will be posted. Nevertheless, I am going to wait until closer to the deadline to make my vote.

BGM, now is the time for a comprehensive defense if you've got one - convince me not to vote for you if you can.

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

Finally, I'm going to try to post more PbP summaries before the deadline so I can air out all of my thoughts before Night (I feel there is probably a better than even chance I'm going to get killed, given how active I've been).

[OnFire]

Well for one, if you lynch me, then you lose the town cop.

I'm basically at L-1 (or L-0 if the Friday reaches).

If you're town, do *not* hammer me unless someone counterclaims.

This

is your role claim?

I realize this is Day One and the cop has not had a chance to investigate, so you cannot point back to breadcrumbs to bolster your claim, but you don't have anything else to say?

Here's the problem: if you're scum, this is exactly what I would have expected you to do. You are (well, were since Mert unvoted) at L-1 with no one else yet voting for any alternate lynchees, so what did you have to lose? There is no way to verify - if no one else counterclaims, that doesn't tell us anything, since there may not even

be

a cop in this game.

Let me try to work out the possibilities:

1. You are the cop.

As a cop facing the noose, you roleclaim to save your neck and so you can get a chance to investigate at night. Unfortunately, since now that the scum know you are the cop, you're going to be killed at night. So your claim, if successful, helps the town very slightly in that it won't lynch the cop, but also guarantees that the cop is killed at night, hurting the town. Given the deadline, it also forces us into a last minute decision, which can only help the scum. Personally, if you are the cop, I think it would have been better to try to convince the town to vote for someone else without claiming, by making a detailed accusation against who you think is scum.

2. You are lying scum.

As scum facing the noose, you claim to save your neck and to sow confusion among the town, hoping we lynch a townie instead at the last minute. Also, perhaps the real cop (if there is one) will counterclaim to ensure your lynch, which then gets the cop killed at night. The obvious play for a scum.

3. You are vanilla town, but claiming cop.

As town facing the noose, you claim to save your neck. I'm honestly not sure what to think about this. It's either somewhat smart or really stupid. Smart because it could save a townie (you) from getting lynched, and might provide cover for the real cop (if there is one). Really stupid because if there is a real cop, he knows you are lying and would obviously think you are scum and either waste an investigation on you, try to get you lynched on Day Two for lying, or even counterclaim. It also adds confusion that could come back to haunt the town later. It seems like there are many more bad outcomes than good, and in general I think truth is the town's best weapon, so I'm definitely leaning toward stupid here. Like in scenario #1, I think if you really are vanilla town, it would have been better for the town if you did not roleclaim.


OK, so what does that all add up to for me? I think this is either a good play by a scum or a bad play by a townie. I'm leaning toward the former. So my sights are still set on BGM to lynch.

[OnFire]

I'd rather give him one night to confirm his role. It's not like he can come out with any "I was roleblocked" type defenses, so let's see what he thinks tomorrow - there may be a doctor so if he

is

the cop then his death isn't guaranteed. The scum may even look elsewhere for their night kill for fear of a doctor protection scuppering them, so it's worth giving him a night to live. If he dies and is truly cop then his death will still give us plenty of information.

Well, I hadn't thought about the doc protecting him, but I don't see how giving him one night will confirm his role. Let's say he survives the night and reports back: "I investigated X and he is scum. Let's lynch him!" Will you believe him?

But let's assume for a moment that I agree and we shouldn't lynch BGM due to his roleclaim. Who should we lynch instead and why?

[OnFire]

Given my views on BGM's claim, I support an Ecto or YagamiLight lynch today. Either is more beneficial than not lynching, in my opinion. Due to differences in time zone, I may not be able to get on again before the deadline tomorrow (though I am around for the rest of tonight) so I'm going to

Vote: YagamiLight

right now. If I

am

able to get back on then I will do so, but I can't make any promises

I am absolutely fascinated by this Yagami bandwagon that has gotten rolling (OK, not really a bandwagon yet, but you know what I mean).

Mert, do you not find it...troubling that you are voting for the person that your alternate suspect is also voting for? In fact, in your suspicion list posted on this page, Ecto was your #2 suspect behind BGM (and before your recent exchange with BGM, Ecto was #1!). Now you go and vote Yagami right after Ecto does? I hope you get a chance to come back and explain that.


All: Both Mert and Ecto are saying that we should let BGM live so he can confirm his status. Can someone please explain how that would happen? i.e. answer my question is post 263? Also, any responses to my analysis of BGM's claim in 261? We're down to the wire, folks, time to stop hanging back.

BGM: Anything else to add? Are you keeping your vote on Mert?

[OnFire]

It's quite simple - in the interests of not lynching, I had to choose the one I thought would be most likely to succeed at the time. I view Ecto and Yami as relatively even on my LoS (even if I suspect Ecto slightly more) and so I picked one.

I'm on for the next couple of hours or so, so this may change.

So if a couple of people voted for Ecto, you'd change your mind?

As for BGM "confirming" tomorrow - if we lynch scum today then his claim can obviously be tested - a guilty result that's wrong will result in us winning the game as we'll lynch him the following day. That's the best case scenario if his claim is untrue.

The worst-case scenario is that we mislynch now and are in LyLo tomorrow. He will be asked to reveal his results and we can then look at what he got and on whom to have far more information with which to evaluate the believability of his claim. It's not proof in that it's beyond reasonable doubt, but it will give us far more to go on than a "blind" Day One where we may end up lynching the real cop.

Here's my problem, and I'm just going to lay it out since it doesn't seem like BGM is going to post anything before I have to vote: I simply do not believe his roleclaim. If you are the cop, you are pro-town. Did that post help the town at all? Any analysis of who we should lynch instead? Any evidence of who might be driving the bandwagon to lynch the "cop"? Anything at all other than "I'm the cop, don't lynch me?" No.

As I've laid out (and others have) in many posts up to now, I've found BGM's behavior very suspicious: defensive, reaching for evidence that doesn't seem to be there, bad logic, etc. And when it looks like he's going to get called on it, he claims with nothing else at all helpful to say, just an old lingering vote for Mert. It's not enough.

So, I may be screwing myself for tomorrow if you really are the cop, BGM, but I just don't buy it.

Vote BrazeGoesMoo

[OnFire]

EBWOP: Plus this whole scenario reeks of "last minute scum switcheroo." Town should be carefully watching the remaining posts before the deadline with great interest to see who switches from and to whom.

[OnFire]

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.

[OnFire]

MeMe, any chance we can get a last minute prod of Innocent Townie, since we haven't heard from him in a week and he has not voted?

Thanks.

[OnFire]

Since it looks like you're going to lynch me, I'll just say that you'll find that I'm pro-town with a power role.

At this point all I can say is that I really hope you're lying.

Of the three people voting for me now, I'm gonna say I'm sure one of em is mafia, because there's no way three townies would kill off a possible . Two adamantly oppose my claim of being cop and have put votes on me *and* try to sway others to put their votes or keep their votes on me. The other says he can't lynch a townie, yet he's alright lynching the cop. Of course the only way *for sure* that someone knows someone else is a townie on Day 1 is if they're mafia.

Well, I tried to give you a chance to convince me you were really the cop. I analyzed the options and I asked again and again for more content from you, but you did nothing. If you are the cop, then I'm sorry and I may get burned, but I'm just going to have to live with that, because I don't believe you.

[OnFire]

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.

Well, I can't blame you for being suspicious of me now. I told BGM I'd have to live with the consequences if he was really the cop, and he was really the cop, so...crap.

I sais this earler:

Town should be carefully watching the remaining posts before the deadline with great interest to see who switches from and to whom.

...so I should heed my own advice. Here is a post-deadline voting analysis:

Format One - Chronological:

Mert - reiterates existing BGM vote (254)
Ecto - vote BGM (256)
***BGM roleclaim***
Mert - unvote BGM (260)
V-R K - reiterates existing BGM vote (264)
Ecto - unvote, vote Yagami (266)
Mert - vote Yagami (269)
OnFire - vote BGM (272)
Yagami - vote BGM (272)
BGM - unvote, vote Yagami (280)
Yagami - unvote (281)
Ecto - unvote, vote BGM (286)
BGM - unvote, vote Ecto (288)
Mert - unvote, vote Ecto (292)

Format Two - By Player:

Mert - BGM (pre-existing), unvote, Yagami, unvote, vote Ecto
Ecto - BGM, unvote, Yagami, unvote, BGM
V-R K - BGM
OnFire - BGM
Yagami - BGM, unvote
BGM - Mert (pre-existing), unvote, Yagami, unvote, Ecto
IT - no votes

I'll leave it with just that info for the moment. I need to look at it all and see if it tells me anything.

[OnFire]

Yagami - vote BGM (272)

EBWOP: Yagami's vote was actually in post 278.

[OnFire]

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.

As much as I am glad to be on your town list, I think you are talking about poor, departed YagamiLight here. Sadly, I voted for BGM and stuck with it because I thought his claim was complete bullshit. So, you probably want to take another look at what I actually did and said leading up to BGM's lynch.

[OnFire]

Some somwhat random thoughts on Ectomancer, and why he might be scum (I had hoped to be more comprehensive, but this is what I had time for:

Ectomancer has twice put someone at L-1: the first was me (town ) and he was very irritated at Mert for taking me off L-1. The second was BGM (cop), who did get lynched. I’m particularly interested in what happened near the deadline:

• Ecto votes for BGM (BGM has 3 votes)
  BGM claims cop
  Mert unvotes BGM due to claim (BGM has 2 votes)
  Ecto unvotes BGM and votes Yagami instead (BGM has 1 vote, Yagami has 1)
  Mert votes Yagami and that bandwagon is rolling (BGM has 1 vote, Yagami has 2)
  I vote BGM (BGM has 2 votes, Yagami has 2)
  Yagami votes BGM (BGM has 3 votes, Yagami has 2)
  BGM votes Yagami in an effort to save his neck (BGM has 3 votes, Yagami has 3)
  Yagami unvotes BGM, sacrificing self (BGM has 2 votes, Yagami has 3)
  Ecto unvotes Yagami, votes BGM to seal the deal (BGM has 3 votes, Yagami has 2)

Assume Ecto is scum for the purposes of this analysis, and let’s look at how it plays out: Ecto puts BGM at 3 votes – enough to lynch at deadline – knowing there is strong anti-BGM sentiment and he can easily justify that vote. Then comes the claim and Mert’s immediate unvote along with a recommendation that we let BGM live the night. Scum is in a minor bind here – BGM was a low-hanging fruit, but what if somebody tries to start a bandwagon on one of them instead? Ecto takes the initiative and switches to Yagami, stating that “We have to give BGM a night to prove himself without a counterclaim coming forth.” That wagon starts to get some traction, but V-R K and I keep up the heat on BGM and the race is close. Now Ecto is in the driver’s seat, because he knows both choices are town. So he waits until there are about two hours to go, seizes on Yagami’s sacrifice, and switches back to BGM (against his own statement above), who he must think is probably the cop – he knows BGM is town, why would he claim cop if he were vanilla?. He gets town either way, but better to take a shot at the probable cop.

Sounds plausible to me, but then again, maybe I’m getting a little paranoid

If he 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).

So, those are my thoughts right now. I agree with Mert that Ecto is pretty high on my suspicion list, but I'll try to pick someone else later tonight and see what I can dig up.

[OnFire]

And some thoughts on Mert...

To be honest, I am having a hell of a time getting a read on Mert. There are times that I think he is totally scummy, but there are other times where he seems 100% town. His unvote of me when I was at L-1 and his unvote of BGM both read very pro-town to me. His vote for Yagami at the same time as Ecto while saying that Ecto was equally (or more, actually) suspicious rubs me the wrong way. I thought his battle with BGM was strange in places because he seemed to be overreaching for evidence against BGM when there was plenty to be had. In particular, the whole "you didn't react strongly enough" thing he was going for with BGM - see post 202 and others around it - seemed like a total reach to me. I remember thinking to myself that that fight left me suspicious of both of them, which was problematic, of course.

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…

[OnFire]

I hate to place a deadline in lylo -- but I'll do it if participation doesn't pick up.

Come on, town. The last time we got a deadline we lynched the cop, so let's try to avoid a similar fiasco. I think Ecto is right that it looks like we're going to need a replacement for IT, which stinks, but he hasn't posted in 2 weeks, so...

[OnFire]

2 hours before deadline, we're deadlocked on 2 players. The likelihood of someone else finding themselves elevated to the chopping block was slim to none at that time. Yagami made a move that struck me to the heart as town. I don't see scum making that move at all. So, I can leave my vote on the guy I believe to be town, or move it to the guy who plays like scum and has a last minute desperation claim. Believe me now and hear me later...wait, reverse that...when you are in a small game like this, or are down to limited players, a vanilla townie is worth way more than an unconvincing power role. Think about this, 50% of the C9 setups don't even have a Cop. 25%

dont have any town power roles at all.

The power role is great for us to have, but believe me, we can win without them. Also, just in case it slipped by you, yes, right off the bat there was only a 50% chance

at best

that BGM was cop. Throw in the fact that he could have been scum with a false claim and we had only a 25% chance of him actually being the cop.
That is exactly where I got the 25% chance of him being town that I stated earlier. I wasn't snatching that number out of the air. Yagami's 90% was certainly more of a gut feeling based upon his actions, yet the disparity between the 2 as far as likely townhood goes was a chasm. I would do the same again in the same situation.

As someone who never really bought BGM's cop claim, it is hard to argue with the above. Sadly (for me), it is as plausible as my scenario in 302. Who knows what showdows lurk in the hearts of men?

Also, please, giving Mert credit for his unvote less than 2 hours after BGM claimed is a bit generous. Had I logged on, I would have unvoted

at the time

to give a chance to assess the situation before a quicklynch. But also as I said, I would have moved my vote back again after Yagami's move came out.

Well, I give him credit because he actually did it, which is the only evidence I can really go on. In addition, as I mentioned, it was the second time he's done it, which to me displays a pattern of being careful to avoid a quicklynch and giving town enough time to analyze certain situations. And it's no secret you disagreed with his first unvote (of me) strongly.

But in addition, let's also take a look at why Mert might have unvoted. If he were scum, and his partner is V-RK as fits according to my suspicion list, why would he have unvoted there if he is scum? The answer is because his scum buddy was already on the wagon. He couldn't depend upon scum to finish the lynch. Therefore the next best thing is to hop off the wagon (the first person on it given the opportunity to do so after the claim), then turn and FOS everyone else who was on it. Your scum buddy is there in a fairly safe #1 position on the vote, but still there for some distancing.

I don't disagree that the above is a plausible scenario. However, if true, that would mean that both scum would have placed the first two votes on BGM. I find THAT pretty unlikely, because if the lynch had gone through without all that roleclaim drama, they woud have been looked at strongly for starting the bandwagon against a townie.

Personally OF, I thought your scenario sounded better. However another minor detail. If we trust your scenario, you would have to explain why I didn't simply unvote and hope either someone else would vote BGM, or just relax and let whichever townie happened to get lynched fall on Day 1, and then nightkill the claimed cop afterwards? I was in little fear of investigation at the time from BGM, it was obvious he and Mert were tussling and we could be fairly confident in assuming Mert would have been the investigation last night. So without even a fear of an investigation, no reason to get crazy and hammer because town was going to die either way, and only a 50% chance of a Doc showing up, what would motivate me to act as I did as scum?

Well, it's a good question, and one that I touched upon in my "scum scenario" about you. In more detail: you switched from BGM to Yagami because with the roleclaim and Mert's unvote, you wanted to make sure some townie didn't try to start a wagon on you or your partner in lieu of BGM. Mert was on record with having you on the top of his suspicion list (and there is a history of people following his votes), so you needed to get out in front of that. The flimsiness of your evidence against Yagami indicates that you were reaching to get something going quickly. So, then as we got to the end, you made the last minute switch to guarantee the supposed cop died. As you said, there was a 50% chance of the doc showing up. Odds would be pretty good that he might try to protect the claimed cop, so why take that chance when you could make sure he died? And while YOU might not have feared an investigation, there's also your scumbuddy to be concerned about, and also even if BGM investigated a townie, that information would help the town (assuming he could convince us to believe him). All in all, much safer to make sure the supposed cop died and guarantee no investigation.

How's that explanation work for you? Ready to confess now?

[OnFire]

Who knows what showdows lurk in the hearts of men?

Or shadows, even.

*grumble* Stupid typo ruining my joke...

[OnFire]

Last nights events are

just

as important as the end of the day yesterday. To me it is more important beause it is more telling than lynching someone for being scummy. I would look for yourself and ask the questions I did about who is alive and who is dead and see what you come up with.

Darn. I was hoping you'd be so distraught that I brilliantly uncovered your plan, that you would realize you had no hope and just cop to being scum

But really, I will think about your questions and see if I have any insight. In the meantime, hopefully the others will reappear.

[OnFire]

Venona replaces Innocent Townie, effective immediately.

Welcome, Venona! Good luck catching up...

[OnFire]

Last nights events are

just

as important as the end of the day yesterday. To me it is more important beause it is more telling than lynching someone for being scummy. I would look for yourself and ask the questions I did about who is alive and who is dead and see what you come up with.

I've been thinking about this as well as the questions you ask in 310 and I am quite frankly somewhat befuddled. So, ICs and others who have played before, a question: are the night actions of scum usually examined for motives as Ecto is suggesting we do? I've really been trying to work it out, but every time I do I come upon this barrier: town knows nothing about scum deliberations, so can it not be assumed that scum will try to fuck with the town's mind with their night choices? I just keep getting into a total WIFOM trap whenever I think about it, because they could be making a logical choice, or they could be trying to misdirect, and there seems to be absolutely no way to know (i.e. "But maybe that's what they

want

us to think!"). Does anyone else think this a fruitful line of inquiry?

[OnFire]

Vote: Ectomancer. I am aware of this being LyLo.

vote Mert

(Bolding removed to avoid confusion)

Can I just say how funny I think it would be if both Mert and Ecto turn out to be scum and were sacrificing one so the other would be trusted on Day Three and easily guide the town to lose? 8)

Now I'm going to go back to banging my head against the table...

[OnFire]

Hey Vel-Rahn Koon and Venona. I really don't want MeMe to put us on a deadline yet. Can you get in here and post your thoughts soon? Thanks!

[OnFire]

Does anyone have a comment on IT as a potential scum?

Well, I think a PbP analysis of IT is in order before I can comment more than my thoughts that you quoted. I will try to do so within the next 24 hours. In any case, I want to hear from Venona before considering voting for anyone.

Being as aligned with Mert as he has been this game just makes me think that he makes a perfect town patsy to get the 3 votes together for the 2 scum.

I don't understand what this means, can you clarify? Thanks.

[OnFire]

Does anyone have a comment on IT as a potential scum?

Well, I think a PbP analysis of IT is in order before I can comment more than my thoughts that you quoted. I will try to do so within the next 24 hours. In any case, I want to hear from Venona before considering voting for anyone.

OK, so I've now gone back and read every Innocent Townie post. I'm not going to do a complete list of post numbers here because that would take forever, but I will sum up:

Based on my re-reading, the overall vibe I get is "Town." He did much to generate real discussion, both on specific issues to this game and on general strategy. He spent time tracking votes and posts and analyzing them. He generally responded to points raised against him. His m-o comes across pro-town.

Things that didn't sit well with me:

• His vote for Diamondfalcon for doing the same thing IT was.
  When he finally posted a suspicion list, 2 of the top 3 were now confirmed townies.
  He didn't vote before the deadline, which is presumably related to his being replaced, but still, it's hurting us now.

Despite the above however, the majority of his posts (whether I agreed with his conclusions or not) displayed a distinct town flavor. IT has now moved to the bottom of my suspicion list. Doing that IT review was very handy to recollect things I had forgotten about and I'm now going to go read everyone else - I highly recommended it to everyone to freshen up on what has been said.

Ecto: Thanks for clarifying. I understand now.

[OnFire]

His top three were BrazeGoesMoo (cop),

Diamondfalcon

YagamiLight (townie) and

Vel-Rahn Koon

.

When did V-RK become confirmed

anything

?

FoS: OnFire

Read it again, I think you are making a mistake:

When he finally posted a suspicion list,

2 of the top 3

were now confirmed townies.

(bolded for clarity)

[OnFire]

Still waiting on Venona. Please dont force the mod to deadline. We're much less likely to make a good decision under that pressure.

Indeed.

Here's where I'm at:
I'm not ready to make decision on the Mert/Ectomancer battle, but assuming for a moment that one of them is town and the other is scum, that leaves (for me) Venona or Vel-Rahn Koon as the other scum. I've stated earlier that my review of IT's (Venona's) posting history makes me think she is town, so that leaves V-R K as a prime suspect. It's time for me to do another review of his history and see what I can get.

There are a lot of assumptions in the above, and it's complicated by the fact that Venona is completely absent and V-R K is barely present. Nevertheless, that's my plan right now.

[OnFire]

Hey, it's great to see some action happening! Foolish action, but still..

As I mentioned, I've been doing a review of Vel-Rahn Koon's posts, hoping to glean some new insight. Not surprisingly, I found no smoking gun either way. For the most part, he's been an active participant who puts a lot of thought into his actions. I did not encounter any votes that were not accompanied by an explanation (even his vote for me). He had two lengthy disagreements with BGM, who we now know was the cop, but then, who didn't?

There were some things that I didn't like, though:

• Early on he and I had an exchange about [paraphrase] "town not having to worry about being lynched." (posts 67 et al.) While he explained himself fully, at the time it struck me a little like scum prepping the ground to blame townies who got lynched for bad play. It's still not my favorite position, but I must admit that, IMO, BGM did in fact play poorly and got himself lynched, so...
  
  When he said that it might be good for the town to lynch intentional lurkers (post 149). He quickly moderated that stance when it was revealed what a bad idea that was, but still. His defense there was extensive, and contains a tiny whiff of deperation. Again, though, hard to criticize too much, since he recognized the error and corrected it.
  
  In post 228, as part of the "who would we lynch if we had to to generate info" discussion, he says that he would probably vote for me, as I had "more links with other players." Aside from the voting for me part, I hated this whole avenue of discussion, because it was basically "let's single out those who are generating the most discussion for lynching." I found it to be a totally anti-town idea and a worthless topic for discussion, despite the many conditionals (i.e. only if's) those involved added to make it seem more palatable. (Note: Ecto is also on my list for this discussion).
  
  Minor inconsistency: he spent a lot of time talking about "intentional lurkers" being bad for town (I agree), then posted this in 264: "I'm still watching the game, and until this point, there really hasn't been anything to talk about since the deadline was imposed."
  
  Finally, as an overall note, I'll mention that during the course of Day 1 he FOS or voted for everyone (except maybe Mert?), but also posted an analysis where he pretty much exonerated everyone (at the time). It could be that he was feeling around, waiting to see which way the wind was blowing without showing his hand. Or it could not. Careful play or scummy weaseling - you decide.

So, let's be honest, that's a long way from an open and shut case for scumminess. There's certainly more there that I find suspicious than for IT/Venona, but nothing close to definitive, that's for sure. I'd love to hear what others think (and about my review of IT/Venona too).

[OnFire]

Gah, we're going to get deadlined if we don't so something soon. Conversation seems to have stalled so we may need to think about taking a punt on who we think is scummiest and keeping our fingers crossed.

In an effort to get things moving a bit, I'd like to hear from both you and Ectomancer about your thoughts on the "other scum". You've each voted for the other, and obviously you each claim to be town, so from your points of view there is one other scum among me, Venona, and Vel-Rahn Koon. Who do you think it is and why?

[OnFire]

In the meantime, I want far more contribution from Venona on her opinions of the players still alive. A list of suspicion with reasons would be a good start.

Amen, brother.

(And congrats to Ectochild)

[OnFire]

V-RK - Flying under the radar is my impression of V-RK. Never taking risks, saying just enough to be active. As I said, I found things to tie him back to Mert, but I see little reason to list them. You can take anything and fit it after the fact to your theories. Moby Dick can be interpreted using code to predict the deaths of John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King. So Im not putting great stock in the links, but given his unmistakable playstyle this game, along with my reasoning on OF and IT/Venona, V-RK is more likely to be scum than town. If Mert is town, that would still leave V-RK in the top 2 scum suspects with IT/Venona being the far distant 2nd. Unfortunately, we dont have the luxury of being able to test Mert. That being said, Mert is still my #1 suspect and is my vote today.

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? You say you are town and are accusing the other of being scum, yet you agree on the next most likely scum and the ranking of everyone else. Does that give you some pause?

It reminds me of something that I remarked upon before, which happened during the deadline of Day One (see my post 302 for a recap of this action). BGM has three votes (including Mert and Ecto), then claims cop. Mert unvotes, then Ecto unvotes. Ecto then votes for YagamiLight, and Mert follows,

despite having stated earlier that Ecto was most suspicious to him

. I asked Mert about this, because why would you vote the same as the person who you find the most suspicious instead of that suspicious person themselves? Mert's answer if I recall correctly was essentially utilitarian: he would have preferred Ecto, but didn't think he could make that happen (that's a paraphrase). I think this is not a good answer and indicates an unwillingness to vote Ecto at that point. Why not come out against him then as strongly as he did on Day Two, I wonder?

I am becoming more and more suspicious that they are both scum and are playing the town big time. Let me float another scenario: BGM is on the hot seat for his defensive (and pretty lousy, frankly) play when the deadline hits. Good for scum, who don't have to do much other than watch BGM flame out. But then he claims cop, which is a problem, because if the town decides to give him a night to prove himself, scum could be next in line. This is a particular problem for Mert, who has Ecto next on his list and does not want that wagon to start rolling. So he gets in front and unvotes, then Ecto gets the ball rolling on Yagami. Mert jumps on that (while still saying he's suspicious of Ecto) and it becomes BGM or Yagami to lynch, a win for the scum either way. As it happens, V-R K and I won't let BGM off the hook and Ecto flips back, so BGM gets lynched and Yagami dies at night.

Day Two, they come out early pointing at each other strongly. It's a great strategy, because if we lynch one of them, the other is perfectly poised for Day 3 as the trusted townie who lynched the scum. And as they are already together building a case that Venona is more trusted than V-R K (with my unwitting help, I must say), lynching V-R K would almost be a slam dunk on Day Three. Voila, scum win.

So,

FOS Mert AND Ecto

. I'm beginning to think it's good for town if either one of you goes.

(Of course, if this is all true, then I'm screwed given Venona and V-R K's level of participation right now).

[OnFire]

In case my wall of text wasn't clear, Venona, V-RK, and OnFire, the ball is in your court. Please don't wait until a deadline is set to try and make a decision. At least talk it out amongst yourselves and keep the Mod off our backs.

Well, I don't like this hands-off approach. Assuming Venona and V-R K return and have something to say, I'd like to hear both your and Mert's response to them.

And in that vein...MeMe, can we get a prod for V-R K, please? Thanks.

[OnFire]

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.

Glad you're back, and I hope you are able to stick with us. Thanks for the substantial post, which I now need to read again....

[OnFire]

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.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree 100%. I have not asked for any controlling role and did not respond to your attempt to give me the "last vote" earlier. I don't want any special status, nor do I deserve any. Despite its (RL) length, this is still my first game, and I am clearly still learning (see BGM lynch). I'm just going to keep doing what I am doing, trying to find scum any way that I can.

Also, to respond to your earlier post, I did not mean to imply that you were not participating - obviously you are. It just seemed like you were planning to take a hands-off approach from that post forward. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[OnFire]

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.

Well, to be fair, he spends a good deal of the post detailing a position shift from Mert and puts the FoS on him, not you. So I don't think it's quite as wishy-washy as you suggest. And I find his argument against Mert here fairly compelling. I look forward to reading Mert's response.

[OnFire]

Come on, he didnt detail a position shift, he parroted what I had to say to Mert. His only addition to it was his WIFOM <paraphrase> "If Im so suspicious, why arent I dead yet?" You find his argument against Mert fairly compelling? I find that it is

my

argument that you find compelling, only not until it is coming from someone else

I came in here all charged up to detail why you were wrong about this, but then I did a re-read of your post 368 and V-R K's post 374 and you are absolutely right - you did question Mert first on this very point. Sorry, not sure how I missed that. (I will say that V-R K laid it out with a little more detail, but I suppose that is beside the point).

So, to give credit where it is due, I find

your

argument here, to which V-R K added his agreement, compelling.

And finally, I must agree with you that V-R K's statement here:

...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?

is pretty useless.

[OnFire]

*ruffles at Venona*

While we wait, an 80s musical interlude...

doo doo, dee dee, doo, dee, doo, dee, doo doo, dee dee, doo doo, dee dee, doo, dee... MY VENONA!

doo doo, dee dee, doo, dee, doo, dee, doo doo, dee dee, doo doo, dee dee, doo, dee... MY VENONA!

[OnFire]

But Ecto, that would be terrible play as scum. Why bus your partner when you don't need to if one more mislynch wins for the town? In a Newbie game, there really is no need for scum to bus their partner in a LyLo Day Two if their partner isn't, for whatever reason, pretty much the town's #1 suspect already.

Scum could just as easily have gone after an innocent and won without having to have the drama of bussing somebody.

In fact, I did exactly that it a now-finished Newbie where Elias and I were scum. Neither of us had been investigated or had the whole town saying we were definitely scum so we helped contribute to a huge case against a townie.

In the current circumstances of this game (cop dead, LyLo Day Two) it would be entirely sub-optimal play for scum to attack one another when there are other options available.

The point you are getting at makes logical sense, I admit. But I don't think it is as black and white as you suggest, e.g. that it would be "terrible" play for scum, or that scum could have gone after a townie "just as easily." If it's one thing I've learned through reading other games, it is that scum are usually not stupid and certainly do not always do the most "logical" thing. If they did they would be easy to detect. Scum's whole purpose is obfuscation.

And though your anecdote about the other game is fine, I bet if I looked around the board a bit, I could find a game where two scum played the game I have suggested. So I don't think that's valuable as evidence.

I agree with you that it would be

quicker

for scum to win to do as you say, but I'm not sure it's better. And I don't think that disqualifies my theory as reasonable or even probable.

[OnFire]

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.

I don't think this really addresses the questions that Ecto (in 368) and V-R K (in 374) asked. Can you take another look at those posts and respond? Thanks!

[OnFire]

The basic argument for Ecto and I seems to be that I'm trying to bus him as he was the number one suspect going into the day, right?

But can someone explain why, if we were scumbuddies, my best play would be to vote for him straight off the bat in the day? There are a million reasons why I could say I'm not voting yet (LyLo being the main one) so why would I, as scum with Ecto, not even allow the waters to be tested before attempting to bus him? OnFire could just as easily have been a prime candidate due to his actions with regard to BrazeGoesMoo.

Surely you can see why it would be terrible scum play if Ecto and I are scum together? Surely? The whole argument for it is so flimsy I'm surprised people are still pushing it. V-RK seems to be taking the lead on it, but Ecto amazes me by claiming it's some kind of setup by me to make it look like we

are

scumbuddies by... posting a comprehensive argument as to why we are probably scumbuddies.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for me to have voted Ecto so quickly in LyLo. What the argument boils down to is basically "it makes no sense for scum to do that, so they're probably distancing and trying to mislead us with their cunning plan". It's a seriously flawed argument and V-RK following it so vehemently is overwhelmingly telling.

Well, as I am the one who first proposed this theory (Mert & Ecto as scum), I will step in here to defend it a bit. I fully admit that this idea is simply a theory, one that I felt fit the facts of what happened at the end of Day 1, and which also made some sense of Day 2 behavior to date.

The reason (under this theory) why you would vote Ecto straight off the bat is to establish unimpeachable townie bona fides if we agreed and he got lynched. Who would question you on Day Three since you came out SO strong and early on that scum? At that point if anyone questioned you, you would say

the exact same thing you are saying now.

So, in my opinion, while this is hardly a watertight theory, I think you doth protest too much. It's not "terrible" play, it doesn't "make absolutely no sense" and it is not "seriously flawed." It is one possible scenario and I've laid out a fairly detailed case why I think it is possible (including a lot of stuff about what happened at the end of Day 1 that you have not addressed in your criticisms).

[OnFire]

The argument that because it's not

impossible

for Ecto and I to be scum trying to bus one another rather than win the game then it probably means we are both scum

is

seriously flawed. Sorry, but it is.

Well, yeah, when you twist my words into that inanity, it is seriously flawed - but that's not what I've said. What I've actually said is "this is a possible theory and

here is the evidence to back it up

." You've taken out all the reasons I gave and created a strawman argument that I never made. Can't say I like that much.

You only bus your partner in LyLo if you have to. If Ecto and I were scum then we could just as easily have gone after OnFire for insisting we lynch the cop. There is no reason to vote straight away before at least seeing if there was any weight of feeling behind lynching OnFire. It's far easier to find reasons

not

to vote in LyLo than it is

to

vote, so why vote for your scumbuddy? It's not like you're expected to put a vote out so you felt pressured into doing it.

Yes, hypothetically you and Ecto could have gone after me instead, but I'm not sure it would have been "just as easy," given that I was probably more trusted than Ecto, and (as you so strongly pointed out) his was the killer 3rd vote. And I've already stated, most recently in 398, why it would be good for you not to wait to come out against Ecto under this theory. I'll refrain from explaining it here again.

Seriously, I am not scum, therefore Ecto and I cannot be scumbuddies.

And while this may be true, it's not an argument the rest of us can do anything with.

[OnFire]

OnFire, if the evidence is based on flawed conjecture then the conclusion will be similarly flawed. Given that the so-called "evidence" relies upon an assumption that doesn't make a lot of sense, the conclusion you have reached can, at least to my eyes, be reduced to the "inanity" you quoted.

This is a first-class post. It seems to rebut my strawman accusation quite reasonably, but really doesn't. Let's go slo-mo:

OnFire, if the evidence is based on flawed conjecture then the conclusion will be similarly flawed.

Can't argue there - makes perfect sense.

Given that the so-called "evidence" relies upon an assumption that doesn't make a lot of sense...

OK, this is a little less convincing, because I don't think you've established that my scenario doesn't make sense. You've certainly said so a lot, and in the strongest possible terms, but I (and others) remain unconvinced.

...the conclusion you have reached can, at least to my eyes, be reduced to the "inanity" you quoted.

And here is where you lose me. If you had said "...the conclusion doesn't make sense, either" I wouldn't really have a problem. But that's not what heppened. You turned my theory into a tautology and then called that tautology flawed. Again, here is what you posted:

The argument that because it's not impossible for Ecto and I to be scum trying to bus one another rather than win the game then it probably means we are both scum is seriously flawed. Sorry, but it is.

You're right that this is a flawed argument. Hell, it's an incredibly stupid one. But it's not something I ever put forth. And your explanation above does not explain it away.



To all: I'm beginning to think that waiting for Venona is a lost cause, and we may need to vote without her. Given lylo, though, we must proceed cautiously. Right now, I would have to say that Mert would probably get my vote. Thoughts?

[OnFire]

It strikes me that this "Mert and Ecto are scum" idea has been pushed almost exclusively, to the point of distracting the town from all other lines of thinking. Nobody except me has any reason to post as I'm defending myself against a flawed assumption based on an unlikely play for scum to make.

I completely agree. Unfortunuately, since you, Me and Ecto are carrying the ball, this has been pretty much the topic recently (aside from your brief exchange with VRK). I don't know what to do about that except continue to encourage the others to post.

I'm seriously not sure what else I can say other than to suggest, again, that you revisit the assumptions you would have had to make to get to that point and work out if it's likely or not. It is my opinion that if you truly do that then you will find it rather

un

likely that Ecto and I are scum together and that we would play such a gambit.

That's a reasonable request and we have been going round and round for a few pages, so I will revisit it.

I'm obviously not understanding here, so I'm going to ask you to explain it again for simpletons like me.

What is the case against me that exists outside of this current thing with Ecto?

Well, Ecto voted for you before I even brought this whole thing up, so I'll let him re-explain his reasons. And VRK put the FOS on you, so I'll let him talk about that. I'll post some more of my thinking after the review you requested.

[OnFire]

That's a reasonable request and we have been going round and round for a few pages, so I will revisit it.

Sorry everyone, been a touch busy the last 2 days, but I've printed out the last several pages and am in the process of reviewing/taking notes. I hope to have a fairly comprehensive "Mert" post for him to respond to tonight.

[OnFire]

OK, so here we go. I went back to read the last 3 pages very carefully at Mert’s request to revisit why I am getting the scum vibe from him. I will lay it all out here and attempt to be as clear and comprehensive as I can.

First I’d like to talk about a series of exchanges prompted by this question I asked in post 366:

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? You say you are town and are accusing the other of being scum, yet you agree on the next most likely scum and the ranking of everyone else. Does that give you some pause?

In post 367, Mert answers with the following:

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 <snip> 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?

Both Ecto and VRK call him out on this. VRK’s post 374 I find particularly on point:

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.

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...

Mert responds to this accusation in post 387:

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.

But VRK rightly skewers that backtrack in post 396:

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?

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.

Mert never responds to this argument, and immediately thereafter votes for V-RK in post 397. Interestingly, he spends most of this post saying how ludicrous the Mert/Ecto scum theory (which I started) is, but blames V-RK for following it vehemently and votes for him and not me.

Speaking of the Mert/Ecto scum theory, let me examine that argument as well. I first laid out this theory in detail in post 366, prompted by the following things:
1. Their suspicion lists are exactly the same (except with each other as the top scum).
2. Their voting activity at the end of Day One reveals a striking pattern. Here’s what I originally said about that:

It reminds me of something that I remarked upon before, which happened during the deadline of Day One (see my post 302 for a recap of this action). BGM has three votes (including Mert and Ecto), then claims cop. Mert unvotes, then Ecto unvotes. Ecto then votes for YagamiLight, and Mert follows, despite having stated earlier that Ecto was most suspicious to him. I asked Mert about this, because why would you vote the same as the person who you find the most suspicious instead of that suspicious person themselves? Mert's answer if I recall correctly was essentially utilitarian: he would have preferred Ecto, but didn't think he could make that happen (that's a paraphrase). I think this is not a good answer and indicates an unwillingness to vote Ecto at that point. Why not come out against him then as strongly as he did on Day Two, I wonder?

(As I mention there, see my post 302 where I recap the voting and why it makes me suspicious of Ecto – I had not seen a Mert connection at that time, but it fits even better, IMO. Despite several suggestions by me, Mert has never addressed the end of Day One voting).

In post 387, Mert begins a spirited denial of this theory, stating:

Can I also point out how ridiculous it is to accuse Ecto and I of being scumbuddies? What would we really stand to gain in LyLo by attacking each other so vehemently, knowing that a lynch of anyone is acceptable. If I were scum I'd be aiming to lynch someone else as everyone is unconfirmed and there'd be three targets to focus on.

Whatever you think of either me or Ecto, I'd have thought it would be clear that one of us being scum pretty much precludes the other <snip>

Ecto responds with post 388:

We would attack each other so vehemently in order to make it clear that one of us being scum would clear the other one, just as you said in your second paragraph, obviously. They lynch one of us, but not the other, scum wins.

What follows is a back and forth between Mert and everyone with Mert insisting as above that it is terrible play and me and everyone else saying, essentially “no, not necessarily.” As he continues to criticize the theory, he says this in post 397:

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for me to have voted Ecto so quickly in LyLo. What the argument boils down to is basically "it makes no sense for scum to do that, so they're probably distancing and trying to mislead us with their cunning plan". It's a seriously flawed argument and V-RK following it so vehemently is overwhelmingly telling.

and this in post 399:

The argument that because it's not impossible for Ecto and I to be scum trying to bus one another rather than win the game then it probably means we are both scum is seriously flawed. Sorry, but it is.

Both of these statements are strawmen, particularly the second, and I find the use of this tactic very scummy.

And I just want to mention one final thing. In post 367 (as quoted above), Mert suggests that Ecto and V-RK are probably scumbuddies and Ecto is fingering V-RK as his second scum in order to distance himself. This is extremely similar to what I am suggesting that a Mert/Ecto scumpair is doing. Why does it make sense for Ecto/V-RK but “makes no sense” for Ecto/Mert?

In my mind, there's a LOT of slipperiness going on there.


Whew! And now to bed. I can’t wait to hear what Mr. Flay has to say once he gets caught up. Thanks for jumping in!

[OnFire]

I have clearly snipped some of your post (mostly the quotes) from my response and I

think

I've responded to all your points in some way or another, but if there's anything in particular I've missed or you feel I haven't answered as deeply as you'd like please say and I will take them up in my next post.

Well, let me say thanks for taking the time on such a comprehensive response. (I put a lot of time and effort into my post and it's nice that it was not in vain ) At first look, there are a couple of follow-up questions on specific points that I think I need to ask, but it will have to wait until tomorrow as I've got theatre tickets and need to run out the door. In the meantime, I'm sure others will chime in with their thoughts.

[OnFire]

In an effort not to get overwhelmed after mine and Mert's huge posts, I am going to focus this post on one aspect of Mert's response, and look at it in detail. Forgive me for re-quoting things I've already quoted, as I think it is important to be crystal clear on what was actually said.

I never responded because I don't see what's inherently wrong with finding somebody scummy because their peers are clearly not scummy at all. It doesn't seem to be a particularly valid argument to say "you find me least town, but not scummy" and have that absolve them of being scum since he

is

scummier by virtue of the fact that he's not as town as the rest of the players...

You are right that there is nothing inherently wrong with thinking someone is scummy by process of elimination, as it were, but that is not what I have a problem with or what Ecto and VRK called you on. The problem is that you went from saying this in post 357:

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.

...to saying this in post 367:

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?

You went from an extremely tentative "probable" and "just about" suspicion of VRK - not because he's "inherently more scummy" - to "let's lynch him now" (paraphrase). All of that in 10 posts, with the major thing that happening in those 10 posts being me bringing up my Mert/Ecto theory. And when both Ecto and VRK called you on it, you did not explain. Then when I call you on that, you give the explanation above. Do you think that really addresses the core issue? If you saw another player do this, wouldn't you find it scummy?


I want to point out another thing, too. In that same post (357) where you barely suspect VRK of being the #2 scum, this is what you have to say about IT/Venona/Flay:

Venona's vote on Ecto looked a little like it might be an attempt to bus her partner, which worries me. Her vote looks like either Ecto is town and it was an attempt to lynch (and win) or she is scum and it was an attempt to bus Ecto so as to try and avoid suspicion tomorrow.

Note that both of those options have Venona as scum. And yet in your explanation above "their peers [meaning me and Venona] are

clearly not scummy at all

." My emphasis.


To summarize, the situation we had was you had come out strong against Ecto and voted him early as the clear #1 scum, specifically stating that you were well aware we were in lylo. Nobody else was close, but if you had to pick someone to be #2, it would probably be VRK, but not because of anything specific. Suddenly that becomes "we all agree VRK is scummy" and

let's vote him instead

. Seriously? Vote for a weak possible second scum when you are certain that Ecto is scum? In lylo?

And when called on this move by two players, you do not address it. And when called on that lack of response, your explanation is lacking (IMO), if not outright misleading.

[OnFire]

I've got the day off tomorrow, so I will be back then with a reply to Mr. Flay. But quick question: what does this mean? (Sorry if I'm being dense).

Also, <3 Flay.

[OnFire]

Nice

[OnFire]

OnFire:

Thoughts on VRK today? Thoughts on me?

I posted a recap of V-R K in post 353, and I think my observations there still hold for me, i.e. there are some worrying details, but nothing major or overt that screams "scum" to me. He has not posted very frequently since then, but he had substantial posts in 374 and 385. In 374 he challenges Mert on a point that Ecto first raised that I think is important (I raised in again in 420). In 385 he makes a good point about Ecto on the "letting OnFire have the last vote" thing. On the whole I agreed with most (though not all) of what V-R K was getting at in those posts. One more thing: if Mert is scum, I think it unlikely that V-R K is his partner.

As for you, Flay, there's not much to go on yet in your new incarnation. You seem like you are just trying to get caught up on what has indeed been a long and verbose game, and you've said nothing that bothers me to date. I do think, as you seem to be a very active player/mod on the boards, that I need to be careful of giving you too much benefit of the doubt (in a

deus ex machina

sense). But maybe that's too much meta-gaming.

To summarize where I am at right now, my list of suspicion is:

• Mert
  Ecto
  Vel-Rahn Koon
  Mr. Flay

[OnFire]

Howdy all, I'll still be coming along with my VRK/Mert pair case for review.

I'm very interested to see your take on this (and Flay's as well, since he has also mentioned it), because I'm not seeing it right now.

[OnFire]

Well, things have certainly slowed to a crawl here, and maybe it's time to take the plunge. It would certainly appear that Mert is the consensus target for everyone:

I'm almost ready to vote Mert since he's on both of my lists...<snip>

To summarize where I am at right now, my list of suspicion is:

• Mert
  Ecto
  Vel-Rahn Koon
  Mr. Flay

I'm still happy with either Mert or Ecto today.

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.

And of course, Ecto's vote has been for Mert all along.

So, if all 4 are thinking Mert, is it about that time? I'm thinking it probably is. Fingers crossed and here we go...

Vote Mert

gods I hope I'm right this time...

[OnFire]

And the moral of this story is to always listen to Mert

Well played, guys

Sorry, Mert. Obviously, the blame falls squarely on me for this fiasco.

As this was my first game, I would really appreciate any advice from you and the other ICs about how to improve. I tried very hard to analyze things carefully and not jump to any conclusions, and I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy, but I totally screwed the pooch on both lynches!! Thanks in advance.

PS. Dammit you seemed scummy! (Even Mr. Flay thought so!)

[OnFire]

PPS. Thanks to everyone for a very fun game!

[OnFire]

I don't know if this happened to you or not, but generally try to be thick-skinned when people say you're protown or whatever and try not to let those sorts of statements sway you. If someone is playing in a very protown way, scum will be quick to point out that they believe you to be town as it will subtly get you on their side - always try to take comments like that with a pinch of salt.

It's a good point, and I think I may have fallen prey to it here in Day Two a little. After I floated the Mert/Ecto scum theory and Ecto agreed that it was possible while saying it was not true, that might have swayed me a little. I think I just fell

way

too in love with that theory when I should have stuck to my suspicion of Ecto that turned out to be well-founded. It colored a lot of my thinking (in a bad way) for the balance of the game.

Hey Ecto, how close was I in my reasoning about what you were doing at the end of Day One?

Reread Ecto's reaction to when I suggested lynching V-RK instead of Ecto - his reaction there pretty much convinced me that they were scumbuddies. It's hard to explain in detail as it was partly a strong gut feeling, but I certainly noticed a degree of panic when he realised he might have to bus his buddy.

Will do.

But yeah, if there's anything specific about my play or anyone else's you want to ask, feel free to PM me and we'll have a chat about the game if you like

Thanks!

[OnFire]

VRK wasn't even playing

You say that as if that made it easier for town. Trust me - it didn't.

(And sorry for lynching you! )

[OnFire]

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.

Thanks, V-RK and all of you for your kind words. I had a very good time playing despite being instrumental in the loss. I'll definitely be back for another game after my August vacation, so hopefully we'll cross swords again...