Newbie #358 - Big Trouble in Little Rome (Game Over!)

[vollkan]

/confirm

[vollkan]

Vote: ElKabong

for making his name inconvenient to type by including a capital letter; interesting that he is trying to deter people from discussing him.

[vollkan]

I am here, sorry about my not posting.

it was 3 to lynch at deadline. with only hours to go, for all intents and purposes, you hammered me.
And yes, i didnt use the phrase in the exact context for which it was designed, but you should see what i am getting at.
BM

I don't see what you were getting at. The phrase "lynch all liars" has nothing to do with the way you used it. Or am I unaware of some other meaning?

[vollkan]

It's a stupid method only good in games that have roles that aren't complex.

What about if you were a town and were at -1 and about to be lynched for some reason (mafia repeatedly accusing you of being scum for instance)? In that case, if there was no other way out wouldn't lying possibly save you? I mean, there would always be the chance that you could be caught out lying, but I imagine that even if somebody else counter-claimed it would at least buy some time.

[vollkan]

I suppose a bit more pressure on ElKabong to post more wouldn't hurt. Lurking like a lurky lurker.

Vote: ElKabong

Tendril, putting someone at lynch -1 is not pressuring them to post, it is dangerous and reckless. We need to spend time in discussion; putting someone at lynch -1 just because they are lurking is either scummy or stupid.

Not only that, but earlier on you stated:

Anyway, back to finding scum....my only suspicion is on the aggression of Battle Mage, however it could be Jack playing a clevel double bluff, for now i'll hold back my vote for more discussion.

Why did you "hold back" your vote then, but you were prepared to put someone at -1 with no discussion at all? At that point, you could have put Battle Mage at -3 or Jack at -1 but you did neither. This all seems a bit inconsistent so:

FoS: Tendril

[vollkan]

Apologies for that, i can see you all leaping like excited gazelles at my mistake, I can't really defend it other than I was purely doing it for teh reasons I said.

That's your explanation?!? Your vote created a risk that we could potentially lose a town. Plus, you voted on the assumption ElKabong was lurking, by reading the thread and not posting; hence, why didn't you just say something like "ElKabong please post something so we know you aren't lurking" rather than putting him at -1?

Additionally, you have avoided explaining the inconsistency I pointed out above which, might I add, entirely undermines your whole "putting pressure" excuse. I don't want to vote for you yet, since that would put you at -1 which I don't want to do, since it is perfectly possible you did just make a stupid error (though your contradictory behaviour suggests otherwise).

I want to know how your excuse makes sense in light of the contradiction.

[vollkan]

Its not an excuse, its a mistake, thats why I'm in a newbie game, so I can learn these things.

Again, I don't think that is valid at all. You didn't vote to put Jack at -1 because you thought it would be better to:

hold back my vote for more discussion

And yet then you go and knowingly vote to put somebody at -1. The fact that you did not vote for Jack makes me highly suspicious since your defense of "mistake" doesn't hold any weight in light of that.

As I said, I don't want to start a lynch by voting for you. So, please explain why you chose not to vote Jack to -1 to avoid rushing a lynch but chose to vote ElKabong to -1, knowing that you then ran the risk of having somebody lynched.

[vollkan]

I'm not inclined to jump all over someone for what could be a newbie mistake.

fos:yakult not sure I liked the tone of your accusation of tendril. Tendril did explain his reasoning, it was to put more pressure on elKabong. He could be scum pushing for speedlynch or mistaken townie, I'm not going to assume either just yet. One thing though, generally whenever a newbie makes a newbie mistake there is at least one scum that jumps all over them for it.

As I said earlier, his defence seemed dodgy but it could have been a genuine mistake, the contradiction just made it a little more suspicious but, even so, the possibility of it being a genuine mistake was still high.

[vollkan]

Your logic seems sound however it seems to ignore the fact i had posted to defend myself by explaining the my reasons. Why is that, or is my explaining my actions not defending myself? What would you consider a defence?

Your defence is complete, I don't think anyone is denying that. It's more just that unlike a really good explanation, the defence of "newb" is a relatively easy way out of suspicion and, hence, people are rightfully suspicious of it. In the last game I was in (Newbie 339), another player (who was scum) lynched someone and then excused themself on the basis that they "made a mistake" and "weren't paying attention". I kept pressing the person on it since I, correctly, thought it was a complete lie...and I got lynched for it (I was town).

In short, I don't necessarily believe your excuse but since it may well be a genuine newb mistake I don't think we will learn anything by pressing the issue any further.

[vollkan]

this is just my own personal opinion, (but what on this forum isn't someone's personal opinion.) but I find it suspicious that Tendril requested replacement through PM. I saw someone ask for replacement, but they did it in forum. I don't know if PM is the usual way or not, just thought I would throw that out there. Besides, if Tendril requested replace for some reason like a death in the family, I would feel like a total a**.

I don't think that his PM request to leave is particularly suspicious. I stand by my last post in regards to Tendril's suspicion in general, but I don't think requesting to leave via PM is particularly noteworthy. I mean, if he might have thought it was normal to request to leave by PM (I know it is what I would have done until reading what you said).

[vollkan]

Volkan, it was your post that yakult quoted. Yet ypu Fossed, while yakult voted. You were/are voting kabenon007 at that moment. Why did you kept your vote on kabenon007 and did not switch to Tendril? Please, explain.

My vote for ElKabong/kabenon007 was just a random starting vote. I didn't switch my vote because I wasn't entirely convinced that Tendril had done anything scummy; I merely wanted to get him to explain his actions to see whether there was anything suspicious or whether it was likely just a newb mistake, so I fossed to make him talk. I became more suspicious in the post following that one, but by that stage Tendril already had 2 votes and I did not want to put him at -1.

Where do you guys know from that he asked for replacement by PM? Why would that be inherently scummier(or inmherently more protown) than other methods (asking in-thread, just disappearing)?

I didn't know, and still don't if he actually requested by PM. In my previous post I said that I didn't think it was particularly significant if he did. Maybe other people think more of it than I do, but I think Tendril's request to leave is a non-issue.

[vollkan]

First up,

Are you confident with your random vote? I guess we have left the random stage, so wouldn't it be better to take your vote off, just in case that person is innocent? And there is a metareason to do it:
If people were allowed to let their random initial votes rest for long, scum could use it as an excuse why they vote for someone. IE: I don't think that "It's a leftover from random voting stage" is an acceptable reason to vote for anyone anymore.

Am I "confident" with my random vote? I don't quite follow you; it was random. I didn't consider the possibility that people would think I was scum because it is an easy excuse for a vote; I kind of just assumed that if people jumped on a bandwagon they were more likely scum but I do see your point.

unvote

. Also, Dio's vote on Jack is also a random from the start, so Dio might want to unvote as well.

Now, the matter of kabenon and the PM request.

Hm, I get a very defensive vibe from this, as if you try to put any discussion about it down.

Note: I know it is not an issue. I can't really imagine how the fact how you get replaced (by flaking, or by requesting it per PM or in-thread) is or can be a strong or even weak tell (either for summiness or innocence [Note to teh note: Asking in teh thread would be more open, and thus a very, very, very, weak protown tell, but thats all about it]), so I dont want to talk about if it was either a scum or town tell, but want I want to talk about is how the discussion about it runs, and how people talk about it (thats why I asked in teh first place).

Now, kabenon. Your posting has been odd. I don't think anybody else gave the request to leave a second thought, and yet you have actually commented that you think doing it by PM is suspicious (I'll leave it up to your imagination as to HOW a PM reuqest is more suspicious). I dismissed this issue back in post 98, to which you responded with:

okay. Just checking.

What were you trying to prove? Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a completely irrelevant point (I would like the thoughts of the other players in this regard in case Doom and myself are missing something). You then acted as though the whole thing was irrelevant and just a 'stupid' mistake on your part pointing out something 'different' though not 'scummy'. I don't know if it is particularly 'different' (it may be quite common) and there is no way which it could be scummy (He has left the game, he has no need to make scummy plots).

But let's move back a bit. Kabenon said:

We townies are more thoughtful. We think things through.

In your highly defensive post 110, you apologised, pleaded stupidity and "I am probably sounding like..." defense. In the above quote, you play the "we townies" card. I have been responding to Doom's questioning plainly, whereas your comments are always so defensive, even when you are not responding to criticism.

Now, kabenon post 83

but is tendril still a newbie? I mean, this is his fourth game, and that also doesn't include how many he might have played outside of forum.

So the newbie of "stupid mistake" is rock-solid for yourself, but dubious for tendril/Dr Doom?

Also from the above, we can see something else. kabenon has consistently been playing against Tendril/Doom: post 80

I don't know. Tendril's reluctance to defend himself seems a little scummy...
If he were town, he would want us all to believe he was town. If we all believed he was town, and he was, then we would have one less person to suspect as Mafia.

If Tendril's true goal is to expose the Mafia, what better way to do it than to clear each person, beginning with himself? That way we know one person who is not mafia.

Then in post 85, after Tendril had made a defence, you state:

I admit that you have defended yourself before. However, you clearly state that you are done defending. That's all I am pointing out.

In short, your effort here seems to have been to invalidate Tendril's defence and then make it seem odd that he would then make a second defence after having declared to have finished. Why would he make a second defence....possibly because he was under suspicion and had to. But, then you changed tact after I said Tendril's defence was suspicious but not provably. You said:

"tis true, tis true, this we are often told: that with virtuous deed and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."

A good point, vollkan.

And, surprise surprise, kabenon dropped discussion of it. This has been repeated in regards to the PM issue, but because Doom has pressed kabenon on it (and kabenon started this issue) it has turned around full circle.

In short, I

vote: kabenon007

for the following reasons:
1) Your defensiveness and consistent use of emotional appeals
2) Your hypocritical use of the newbie defence
3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.
4) The fact that you keep accepting everything I say as though you want to be agreeable (challenge me dammit)

I did not vote for Tendril in the first instance because I considered that his newbie defence may have been valid. However, since kabenon himself criticised Tendril's use the newbie defence, kabenon's right to rely upon equivalents of that defence (ie. stupid) is revoked. Kabenon's actions, unlike Tendrils, are not consistent with newbieness but, rather, reek of an agenda against Tendril whilst, simultaneously, playing as defensively as possible (and doing a very melodramatic job of it).

[vollkan]

Wow, this just gets better and better.

1) check
2) check
3) check
How's that for a challenge?
oh and 4) check

1) You didn't actually address why you are playing defensively. In respect of your emotional language your excuse was "I am an actor". Much like what I said in regards to Tendril's "newbie" defence; it is a sufficient defence, but it is certainly not adequate. Thus, you have failed to explain your defensiveness and you have provided a flimsy excuse for your language. "check" overruled.

In any case, my thespian friend, I believe the words of Shakespeare himself do justice in proving why your emotional appeals and suchlike are suspicious: "An honest tale speeds best being plainly told."- The Tragedy of King Richard the Third (Queen Elizabeth at IV, iv)

Your tale has not been plainly told, therefore I must assume it is dishonest! Thankyou, Bard.

2) Being "aware that it is not an excuse" makes your reliance on the newbie "stupid mistake" card all the more interesting. Even in your most recent post (the one I am responding to now) you wrote:

I try to be myself, and myself is emotional. Now if that is something that is thrown into suspicion while playing Mafia, maybe I will adjust my playing style.

Again, you imply your suspicious behaviour is due to lack of knowledge. This is my second game kabenon and I have no prior experience with mafia. I refuse, however, to use my own inexperience/lack of knowledge as a defence because I know that I will eventually (and understandably) be lynched for it at some point because it is inadequate and evasive. Also of interest to me is why you did not address the little point I made regarding the hypocrisy inherent in you using the newbie defence. A tad evasive perchance? "check" overruled.

3) Your response to my point 3)

I beg your pardon? You wound me, sir. I do not target. If I targetted, I would have voted! Yet my vote remains uncast. And besides, one person has to continually target someone, otherwise nobody would get lynched.

Well firstly, not voting is most definitely NOT proof that your casting of suspicion is not scummy. Did you consider the possibility that maybe it would be smart for scum not to vote so that they do not appear to be rushing a lynch? Also, one person does not need to continually target people. Usually, as is the case now, it is more that somebody does something and gets challenged which exposes some sort of inconsistency which gives rise to suspicion. Furthermore, targeting ONE person as you acknowledge you have done is incredibly counter-productive. All you are doing in that case is narrowly attacking somebody whilst losing sight of the broader issues. The only people who benefit from targeting a single person for lynches are scum (providing they don't make it obvious). "check" most definitely overruled and has even enhanced my suspicion.

4) Ignoring my last post, you have agreed with me giving the reason that:

And then I agreed. That's it. Is it wrong for me to think that someone has made a good point?

It is not wrong for you to think someone has made a good point. Several people in this game have made excellent points. However, why bother stating your agreement? It looks as though you are trying to earn brownie points by complimenting people, so as to evade suspicion. This game is all about suspicion and not trusting people, so simply giving other people's comments your seal of approval has no possible rationale other than making a personal appeal. A good town will suspect everyone and try to reason their way through, a good scum will try and minimise suspicion against themself (to simplify). Thus, I still find you suspicious in this regard. I don't care if you agree with me, since all that leads me to think is that you are trying to influence me to adopt a particular position. "check" overruled.

[vollkan]

Since kabenon has not yet responded to my comments, this post will focus on the comments made at me by Doom...

Quote:
Also, Dio's vote on Jack is also a random from the start, so Dio might want to unvote as well.
Trying to pass suspicion on to someone else? Noted.

That wasn't an attempt to pass the blame. Doom you stated:

Are you confident with your random vote? I guess we have left the random stage, so wouldn't it be better to take your vote off, just in case that person is innocent? And there is a metareason to do it:
If people were allowed to let their random initial votes rest for long, scum could use it as an excuse why they vote for someone. IE: I don't think that "It's a leftover from random voting stage" is an acceptable reason to vote for anyone anymore.

You said it yourself, it is better to take the votes off. I was merely suggesting that Dio do it also because, as you say, it is better that way since it could protect an innocent person. In your post you didn't mention Dio, so I thought that I should suggest your advice to him also.

So? If you are the only one who finds something fishy, it does not mean that that thing is not fishy. Majority or Minority has nothing to do with the validity of a point - If everyone agreed that the sky and the grass had the same color, the sky would still be blue and the grass still be green, so anyone who would point that out would still be right, although being the only one who thinks so.

I did not mean that the majority was right. Your point is valid, equally as valid as the possibility that kabenon made his PM discussion in order to raise suspicion against Tendril. I was just pushing him on that point to see how he would explain it, trying to find if it would lead to anything.

Quote:
Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a completely irrelevant point.
Trying to buddy up to me? Noted.

No I was not trying to buddy up to you (you wish!) As I was writing that I had a feeling that somebody would later suggest I was being chummy. All I was trying to get across there was that you had also expressed similar thoughts so that I wasn't saying it was irrelevant with no other authority for that position.

I agree, although I find the language... odd. When you say "you acted..", you quietly/underhandedly imply that Kabenon was more or less lying. Noted.

I can't believe we are debating semantics, but oh well. In that context my use of "acted" was in reference to kabenon's comments at the prima facie level. I don't know whether he was telling the truth or lying, but his actions, prima facie, were that he then started to play down the significance of what he had said.

Doom, you just tried to make a suspicion of me based on a narrow interpretation of language. To use your parlance, noted.

Um, see this article for why this line of reasoning is Bad Logic (a scumtell, btw).

For starters, I did not invoke the Tu quoque fallacy. In the article you linked me to they define the inconsistency version of the fallacy as: " A makes claim P. A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P. Therefore, P is false (or is dismissed). " They give the example of: ""You say airplanes are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said airplanes fly because of magic."

Now, my logic is: Kabenon uses newb defence. Kabenon has also criticised others for using the newb defence. Therefore, Kabenon is hypocritical to use the newb defence.

I have not used the fallacy. I am not making any conclusion regarding the newb defence being true or false, I am merely stating that it is hypocritical. In simplified terms, my logic is: Person A says theft is wrong. Person A steals. Therefore, Person A is a hypocrite. There is nothing faulty in my logic, in fact, if my logic were a fallacy than the concept of hypocrisy would be based on a fallacy (which it is not).

Maybe my understanding of this fallacy is different to yours and I am wrong, though I really don't think that can be the case. You then try to construct this as a scumtell? Noted.

Hm. I did not get that feeling from reading his posts. In fact, about 5 of his sistenn game-relevant posts had been about Tendril. The ones about/in respobnse to me were not at all aggressive. In teh same vein, you could accuse me of being overly aggressive towards him. Plus, whenever someone said something about his arguments against Tendril, he agreed with them both times (That is a thing that irks me somewhat, as if he wants to seem agreeable).

Very true but you have missed my point. Until kabenon came under criticism, I counted 6 out of 9 posts solely focussing on Tendril. The difference between your accusations against kabenon and kabenon's against Tendril is that you, Doom, have targeted a large number of people whereas kabenon, after making two very short statements regarding Dio and Battle Mage began to solely focus on Tendril.

Btw, you use appeal to emotion a good bit yourself - Im not saying that it means that kabenon is left of teh hook on that one (that would be "tu quoque!"), just that you are on the hook now too.

Examples, please?

Err, wait. If I am a newbie, and I see someone using that defense, but then see that that person has played about 500 Games, and said in his "get to know a scummer"-thread or his wikipage, that he has played onm Grey Labyrinth for years , and in Real life since he is nine, then I rightly accuse them of misusing the Newbie defence, but I'm still a newb myself, so IM more prone to errors due not thinking about consequences that are not apparent to happen on first glance.

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you please explain it a bit more clearly so I can answer it.

Quote:
3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.
Err, again, where? What? Plus, I did it to him too, and with me it was A-okay? Oh, and buddying up to me again?

Again, I am pinged on a matter of semantics. When I said "Tendril/Doom" read the / sign as "who has now become Doom". I didn't actually mean kabenon had targeted Doom. Like when the mod writes the name with the cross-out line, but I can't do the cross out line. Probably confusing so I won't write like that again.

I agree, though teh languiage irks me. You can't just "overrule" something, kay?

*jk* I can do what I want. You're complaint is overruled */jk*

Quote:
Your tale has not been plainly told, therefore I must assume it is dishonest! Thankyou, Bard.
Okay, everyone, could you please stop using Old English? Not everyone here is from an Englishspeaking Country, so they might have not read Shakespear in Original. Say what you mean, with your own words, in (mostly) modern English, okay?
I don't get what you try to say here. Do you imply that he is lying? Than we should lynch him, as there "Lynch all Liars" is a thing I adhere to.

You clearly have no idea about what I said, but you say you aren't from an English-speaking country so that would explain it. kabenon said he was an actor. I, jokingly, then inserted a quote by Shakespeare on lying as a humourous means of criticising the newb defence. I was not trying to start a "Lynch all liars". Other English speakers, please explain to Doom that what I said is not what he has interpreted it as.

And, finally,

I find your pouncing on kabenon very odd, since it is so vicious. Whats up with that?

It's not vicious. I play by waiting until I find some sort of inconsistency and then I try and pressure the person into explaining themself. That way, it may open something up which can determine if they are scum. Kabenon acted inconsistently, I questioned him. Kabenon's responses were inadequate, so I pressed further.

And, also Kabenon remember to address the issue of defensiveness since it is an important one.

[vollkan]

A lot to address, but suspicion and discussion is precisely what this game requires, so it is a good thing.

@doom

As I understand it, you basically said that since kabenon said to Tendril that "being a newb" is not really a good defense, he can't use it for his (kabenons) own defense, right? Well, that is wrong. A thief may very well go to the police when he gets robbed, and a murderer is still protected by law against being killed (xept in rare circumstances). Thats what I wanted to say with my confusing paragraph as well - Even if you do something that is criticizable, you are still allowed to critizise others for it, and only you critized others f
or something does not mean you can't do it yourself (especially in this example, where Tendril could/can very well have been/be a liar and kabenon in fact a newbie).

Again, you misunderstand me. I know very well that Tendril could have been lying and kabenon may have been genuine. To avoid getting this over-complicated, Tendril criticised the newbie defence then used it himself. Firstly, the newbie defence is always bad, since unlike proper reasoning and explanations it never actually becomes fully believable. As in, saying "It is because I am a newbie" closes the discussion and, furthermore, prevents anyone pointing out some sort of contradiction (usually). Here, kabenon had relied the defence after criticising someone for it. Everything you said, Doom, is valid but you have missed what I was trying to do. If kabenon was being deceptive I may have been able to get some information to either cement or dispel my suspicions. The way things have turned out, this whole line of reasoning has been ruined by you complicating it with the fallacy discussion. I know the fallacy, I wasn't making it. I was not drawing any definite conclusions, merely trying to gather some information on the person who has struck me as suspicious.

The rest of your comments weren't actually points for me to address so I will leave them for now.

@kabenon

First of all, get rid of the agree/buddying up accusation. I agreed with you in one post and you jump all over it. You have agreed more with Dr. Doom than I have agreed with you. Your hypocritical use of the buddying up accusation nullifies your right to use it as well.

You are using what Doom said here and I disagree. Your agreement with people has been different to mine.
ie. you @ Jack

jack raises a good point, after all, someone has to be lynched first, and without a lynch -1, we can't have a lynch.

"tis true, tis true, this we are often told: that with virtuous deed and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."

A good point, vollkan.

My "agreement"s, in contrast, have more been in concurrence with general observations.
ie.

Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a completely irrelevant point (I would like the thoughts of the other players in this regard in case Doom and myself are missing something).

There are two major differences:
1) Your agreements are entire posts
2) Mine are not inserted just to say "I agree", the one I quote is a good example of what I mean. I was making an assertion "xx is irrelevant". To substantiate my position I referred to what Doom had said also. Rather than re-explaining everything Doom says, why not simply refer to Doom? Obviously, Doom is as suspicious as everybody, but that doesn't mean that it is suspicious for me to refer to his logic rather than restate it.

Yours, vollkan, changed dramatically. You started out with shorter posts, and now your posts have reached book length, all over strange and bizarre reasons...

I got this comment in my last game (Newbie 339) as well. But in the end, I was right in my accusations; only problem was that everybody accused me of being aggressive and had me lynched (I was town). That seems to be happening here as well, so let me explain..

It is the way I play. I start out watching and waiting for something to grab my attention, then I open a broadside against the person to see whether or not I can expose any further scumminess. Hence, I open with a few short posts while I am watching then I begin making massive ones once I have found something. If there is something suspicious about this playstyle do let me know. The only problem I have found (twice now) is that other people do not respond correctly for two reasons:

1) Firstly, and most importantly, somebody always interjects by inverting the accusations (Doom in this case). Of course, you should be suspicious of me, but all the interference does is protect kabenon by making me lose my authority to make accusations. Everything you have said at me, Doom, is valid but it would have been smarter to say it AFTER I had finished discussing kabenon.
2) Once a person interjects the suspicion gets levelled against me rather than the person I suspect, which defeats the purpose and ends up being worse.

How is being myself attributed to your accusation of my lack of knowledge? Please explain.

Your exact words I was addressing their were

Now if that is something that is thrown into suspicion while playing Mafia, maybe I will adjust my playing style.

Your logic is "I didn't know x was suspicious therefore I won't do x". "lack of knowledge" probably wasn't the best phrase but I basically mean "the defence of pretending you didn't know". Again, you may be telling the truth; I merely wanted to make some investigation to find out.

Please observe the bolded parts. Vollkan says casually that the whole PM against Tendril was a "completely irrelevant point." Vollkan says that! And then, in the very next sentence, he accuses me with this "you then acted as though the whole thing was irrelevant." Didn't you yourself in the preceding sentence admit that the whole thing was irrelevant?

That looks as though you are really trying to turn this round onto me. Noted. My point there is simple: your position backflipped once people had disagreed with you. That may not prove anything, but it struck me as odd so I tried to investigate. However, rather than discussing what I addressed you latch onto semantics and try and contort it against me.

3.)Defensive play. Let me ask you a question. How else do you defend yourself except defensively?

Not "defensive play", "playing defensively". Again, kabenon, you are focussing on semantics whilst dodging the questions. Let's compare my behaviour with yours to explain what I mean here. Until we criticised your use of emotiveness, you were using things like "my personal opinion" and "stupid mistake" and "apologies". Those phrases add nothing to the merit of your reasoning, they are merely an emotional appeal designed to make people suspect you less. I don't use them because I prefer to rely solely on reasoning and explanations in my defence, rather than trying to fumble around with useless, empty phrases.

Kabenon, you haven't addressed the major issues raised by me. Instead you have given me half-defenses and tried to criticise me with semantic attacks. That was the sort of information I wanted in the first place, I just had to go the long way round to get it. Noted.

@Jack

I swear, neither kabenon nor vollkan are making ANY SENSE to me. Does anyone what the hell they are talking about?

I'm going to assume it's distancing, especially from vollkans list of points against kabenon which is just bizarre vote:vollkan

See above (somewhere) for my playstyle in general. The listing of points was just to simplify what I wanted kabenon to explain and so that he could answer with "In response to 1)....." rather than "In response to what you said about me saying....." I just find it a tidier way of doing things.

At this stage, I would advise people to look over the criticisms of kabenon I have raised, putting aside my apparent aggression for the moment. I know my post was aggressive, but the point of it was to see whether kabenon had some valid explanation for his conduct. In response, he has dodged the major questions and made sideways attacks at me. If Doom had not intervened and questioned me until after I had finished with kabenon then people would be able to read my comments objectively, rather than as now where they appear to be in defense. For that, I stand by my vote.

[vollkan]

I was in a hurry because I had to catch a bus to uni so I didn't get round to finishing up my last post @ Jack.

what the christ is this? Why bother stating your agreement? Stating your position can only help the town. It makes it hard for scum to go with the flow if they can't contradict earlier opinions. But vollkan accuses him of trying to earn "brownie points"?

My problem was not with agreement, as I said, it was with the way that kabenon was doing it. ie. I have referred to comments made by Doom in agreement but always only to show that my position at least has substantiation somewhere else.

Kabenon, in contrast is:

"tis true, tis true, this we are often told: that with virtuous deed and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."

A good point, vollkan.

or at you Jack:

jack raises a good point, after all, someone has to be lynched first, and without a lynch -1, we can't have a lynch.

My point is that, whilst not inherently scummy, it contributes nothing to the discussion other than him effectively saying "Yes, I second that". I don't like it because it doesn't help us determine who is and who isn't scum because it adds nothing to the discussion. Since town needs ample discussion to win, I find it highly unhelpful.

I need to reread kabenon before deciding if it's distancing.

I assume that was addressed at me. Read over what I said. I know you don't like my list, since the points are not certain scumtells, but I made my accusations because I had spotted those things in kabenon's behaviour. As I said previously, if you had allowed me to make my questions and receive answers then maybe we could have determined better whether or not kabenon is scum. What has happened now, is that Doom has intervened and accused me of being aggressive. The accusation by Doom of me is valid, but because of its timing it has effectively nullified the point I was trying to raise. Plus, my suspicion of kabenon has been offset by kabenon jumping onto the accusations raised against me, rather than addressing my points plainly.

Reread it and you should see what I mean.

@kabenon

Sure, we have suspicions and allegations, but how do we deduce when suspicions are true? We read the person's posts. So that is why I believe that delving deeper into the semantics is a way of discovering mafia.

Two problems with this:
1) Relying on semantics as a source of suspicion is downright reckless. Each person will use words based on their own personal style (You, for instance, seem to like emotive language). If you think targeting people's semantics is a good way of deducing scum then you are mistaken, all you are doing is contorting people's language usually to find a positive result. The way to out scum is with inconsistencies and behaviour not by nit-picking at an alternative meaning of a particular word.
2) Even IF semantics were valid, your usage of it was deflective and evasive. Rather than addressing my criticisms of you like any reasonable person would do, you attacked my language. Easy to do and it moves me onto the hook whilst pulling yourself off.

[vollkan]

In regards to this BM and Scarecrow (henceforth abbreviated to SC):

SC wrote:

I'll take back that statement and replace it with: "BattleMage is very aggressive". Smile

and

1. You jumped hard on Jack after he put whoever it was at -2, as well as aggressively responding to my off-hand comment.

2. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in this thread you said you are an aggressive player. Wink

Hmm, not the most in-depth analysis of BM's behaviour there (then again this is from my perspective where I think less than 5 pages is too brief XD) I hadn't noticed BM being "aggressive" until SC pointed it out.

Having said that, BM's response to SC's accusations is very interesting. For starters,:

1. that was a natural protown reaction. unfortunately its hard to read Jack at the beginning of games, because he always tries to play the fool, by making silly votes, but i felt this overstepped the mark a bit.

2. You may not be aware of this, but i dont like it when people try and put suspicion on others without giving reasons. Its a strong scum-tell, and you comitted it blatantly.

The first point is a defence, the second one is both evasive and aggressive. Of course, those points were followed with a vote. I mean, BM got 1 vote from 1 player and he jumps up and down with a whole heap of accusations directed back at SC. Look at kabenon/Doom/myself over the past few days, a whole heap of accusations but nothing quite so reactionary. Rather than defending himself calmly, BM has tried to accuse his accuser.

Having said that, SC's initial accusations were fairly weak...though BM's response is aggressive. I don't really know what to conclude here, since both have behaved oddly.

[vollkan]

lol have you been playing this game?
if you STILL cant see the reason behind my votes, i give up trying to explain it to you. suffice to say, your defence has been poor and my vote stands.
BM

Pretend we are idiots. TELL us your reasoning. At the moment you are just telling us to work it out for ourselves, which is utterly pointless.

[vollkan]

In punishment for BM's laziness I shall do you all the favour of exploring this entire debacle and my own reasoning. This should teach you! If you won't tell me in simple terms, I shall make a massive rant and that shall teach ye! (actually there is a point to this)

Scarecrow says @ 138:

BattleMage is very aggressive

after dropping an accusation against Jack. At this stage, my thoughts are: 1) Why did SC not mention suspicion of BM at first instance? 2) Why did SC jump from Jack to BM?

BM @ 139 asks for evidence and an explanation of what conclusion such aggression leads to.

Jack @ 140 accuses BM of defensiveness.

SC @ 141 gives the requested reasoning as:

1. You jumped hard on Jack after he put whoever it was at -2, as well as aggressively responding to my off-hand comment.

2. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in this thread you said you are an aggressive player. Wink

Hmm, the first of these points is odd seeing as (according to BM @ 29) the reason for BM's vote was that he had previously been in a game where a scum Jack hammered and "in part" because of Jack's vote-hopping and putting Dio at -2. BM's reasoning for that vote was flawed, but it doesn't seem overly-scummy (more like a feeble attempt to justify an ice-breaker vote).

The second point was, I presume, in reference to Yakult @ 40 stating: "Why so aggressive BM?" SC relied upon an off-hand comment by Yakult. Noted.

Now, BM @ 144 pretty much addressed SC's points in much the same way as I did and then voted for SC because of the whole "aggression which hadn't happened yet".

This is the part which raises the most questions for me; SC accuses BM of being aggressive with no evidence, BM then responds aggressively, SC then claims that response as proof. My point is that there was still no real basis for SC's claim in the first place.

Most of SC @ 148 is fairly defensive and almost seems like SC is retreating from his initial accusations a bit, but he then finishes with

Finally, you finish with a vote on me. Apparently because I said you were “aggressive”, a statement you proved 100% while coming out of lurk mode with your crap-cannons blazing.

Valid, but again, it dodges the real peculiarity of SC's initial accusations.

BM @ 156 thinks scum are bandwagoning against him
SC @ 157 is, I think, interesting:

You vote on me was normal except for the fact that it was almost completely unsupported by any sort of logic. Other than that I don't see any reason for people to be surprised at it.

You can't seriously expect to wildly vote someone for such a pathetic reason, call nearly everyone else (At least everyone who comments negatively on said vote) scum, and have people just ignore you.

This ignores the fact that SC's initial vote was supported by even less logic than BM's. BM seems to have voted on the apparent oddities in SC's behaviour. SC has moved entirely from his initial accusations to basing everything around BM's responses. To me, it seems like he was trying to raise suspicion and then pick apart the response to find stronger evidence of suspicion. I note this also.

Now, SC's most recent @ 167

I think it is that I said he was a bit aggressive, which I don't see the problem with, because it's obviously true. I think his main "reason" is that I backed up my statement with evidence that had not been available at the time of the "accusation" (Which in truth had only been an observation, but he's blown it all out of proportion now).

Well, this just confirms it! "I backed up my statement with evidence that had not been available at the time of the "accusation"" So, SC, you accused and voted without evidence, pretty much in reliance on some passing comments made by Yakult and others at the random vote stage.

SC, for all of the above you strike me as highly suspicious. Your accusations were knowingly based on nothing.

However, I stand by my comments at 158 in regards to BM being suspicious, though SC definitely takes the cake.

unvote, vote: Scarecrow

[vollkan]

I realised after I posted. I had read BM's vote in response to your accusations/observations and gotten had it into my head that you had voted for him as well. My mistake entirely.

It doesn't change what I said though.

[vollkan]

Okay, I am at -1. I have Jack and kab's vote for me accusing kabenon (I presume) and I have SC's because OMGUS. I can't see SC unvoting me at this stage; Jack also seems fairly adamant that I am the most suspicious. If anyone is going to unvote then it will be kab. Alternatively, since BM suspects SC, a lynching vote is going to come from Doom or Dio. So, basically, this post is directed at kab, Doom & Dio hopefully so I can prevent this lynch.

Re: my accusation of kab
As I said, it is how I reason things through. Kab struck me as having some inconsistencies so I questioned him for it. Aggressive, yes, but I wanted to see his explanations. On the whole, his defence was fairly solid and it allayed most of my suspicion.

Re: SC v BM

See 170 for why I voted SC. But let me quote something from SC again:

I think it is that I said he was a bit aggressive, which I don't see the problem with, because it's obviously true. I think his main "reason" is that I backed up my statement with evidence that had not been available at the time of the "accusation" (Which in truth had only been an observation, but he's blown it all out of proportion now).

So, it's an observation not an accusation. Fine, I'll accept that since it is only a semantic difference. Here, he makes admits to making his observation with evidence that had not been available at the time. The point is not whether SC "attacked and voted" or "made an observation". The point is that he made it WITHOUT EVIDENCE and he admitted it. I fail to see how SC could make an observation based on evidence he had not yet gotten. I mean, that really is complete nonsense.

Jack says

Scarecrow hasn't done anything suspicious.

Explain to me, Jack, why the admitted lack of evidence is so entirely lacking in suspicion. When I accused kab, I gave my examples (as I have now). SC has made observations with no basis and then retrospectively claimed them to be correct. If I am lynched because of my accusing of kab, it ignores the fact that SC has made his observations with an acknowledged lack of evidence. That, if nothing else, should persuade someone to unvote me; at least for further discussion if nothing else.

and SC says

Yes it does. Your only reason for voting me was that I "attacked and voted" BM for something he hadn't done yet. I have done neither of those two things.

All I did was say "BattleMage is very aggressive." Purely a statement of fact. Nothing more.

Dodging my main accusation against you. All you did was say "BattleMage is very aggressive", true. But you did so without evidence, as you acknowledged. That is the fundamental point to my accusation and you have dodged it.

You also accused me of "blatant misrepresentation" when I stated:

1) Why did SC not mention suspicion of BM at first instance? 2) Why did SC jump from Jack to BM?

Er, SC @ 136 makes an observation about Jack. Mentions "several scummy things". No mention of BM
Jack rebuts @ 137
SC @ 138 "BattleMage is very aggressive"
To me, it looks like he tries the "observation" tactic against Jack, fails, moves onto BM.

Jack's most recent post is, I think, addressed by what I wrote above.

In conclusion, even if you are suspicious of me read what I have said (here and in 170) and make up your own mind. SC's actions are highly irregular. If it weren't for my accusations against kab, I don't think my comments @ SC would be being taken with such suspicion.

Unless someone can explain why SC's observing without evidence is totally fine, then I really think we need to discuss more before making a lynch.

[vollkan]

But his last post said that my defenses were half-defenses. It is a blatant lie. My only conclusion is that vollkan is trying to shift blame in a different direction. My vote stands.

Or that my comments made at the end of my last accusation against you, kab, were written to try and prolong the discussion to learn as much as possible. Kab, your defences were solid, I was just trying to see if your semantic attacks were leading anywhere (they didn't). Thus, why I ended my accusations.

That is his very last post against me. In none of his other posts does he admit defeat, or that I defended myself well in any fashion. In fact, he states that I gave him "half-defenses."

Kab, of course I was never going to say "You win, my accusations have been disproven". That would achieve nothing, since I still don't know whether you are scum or not. I thought the smartest thing to do would be to maintain the pressure on you whilst easing off on the accusations, that way I am not making baseless claims but I am not potentially dropping suspicion of a scum.

SC's accusations/observations as I have explained are suspicious. I know BM's behaviour was suspicious also, I have never denied that for a second. My point is that SC made references to minor things and then relied upon them to conjure proof of BM's aggression. I agree, BM's responses were aggressive but SC's tactic of making observations without/with minimal evidence and then using subsequent evidence to justify in retropsect is just plain suspicious.

At this stage, I can't see any of the players who have their votes on me unvoting. Doom or Dio, if you need me to explain any of my reasoning further ask.

[vollkan]

I wake up and look how much is written. I can't find any actual questions directed to me, so I will try and address what strikes me as relevant. If I miss something, though, do let me know.

@ Doom post 185 - addressing each of your points
1) Well, my views on the agreement thing basically stem from what happened in my previous (and first) game. To give you the gist, I was town. After some initial stuff, I began to make accusations against another player like I have here against kab. That, like here, got me suspected. THEN another player made some observations about who he thought were scum and I agreed. I then got accused of being his scumbuddy because I agreed to cover myself. I was lynched on day 2 and I would have been lynched on day 1 were it not for the scum hammering someone who claimed cop. Though, ironically, my accusing the scum got me further suspected. This has happened to me twice now (the first bit, not the cop part) I am interested to know, then, which is correct. Is agreeing suspicious or pro-town because this is just confusing me.

2) The thing is, by you questioning my motive, it derailed my checking of kab. I know we need discussion, it just frustrated me that I couldn't get my accusations down to see kab's response without it coming round to bite me.

3) To summarise: SC observes BM being aggressive, BM responds aggressively, SC says proof of BM being aggressive. I never said I liked the tone of BM's response, but I just got the impression that it was an attempt by SC to create an accusation. I may be wrong, most of you think I am, but my vote generated the discussion I wanted on it; and I would like some more.

Your next point about posting all thoughts. I knew that doing so would be a good idea. But my thoughts were "kab has made some good defences and also some dodgy ones (ie. the emotional appeals)". I was not convinced whether he was town or scum, so I didn't feel safe saying "he might be either" because it just makes me look like I made stupid accusations for no reason (though I am in that situation anyway). I wanted to keep the me v kab discussion going to try and learn more decisively.

In short, to state my thoughts bluntly: I thought kab's defences were solid but I didn't like his emotional appeals. Hopefully that helps somehow for if we get into Lylo.

@kab

My accusation that vollkan lies was basically directed at his post where he claims that I made a solid defense. Because he attacked my defenses, calling them half-defenses, I feel he is not taking time to go back and re-read his own posts, because it does not make sense to call my defenses half and then later call them solid with no apparent change of mind.

Hopefully, what I said above explains it.

I have to catch a bus now, but I will post later and address the things I missed. Coment on the above for now so I can answer later. If it is a bit rushed I apologise but, again, - bus.

[vollkan]

Firstly, @ doom, your comments regarding agreement are quite helpful and cleared up my confusion arising from my last game.

Okay. Well even though I am probably going to get lynched anyway, I might as well continue the post I didn't get finished last time in the same vein since, going by what Doom says, that is the most helpful way to go about things and will be the most benefit to town in the long run.

I had just finished with Doom's three points and kabenon's post after that where he addressed the half-defence thing. Moving along...

SC:

Well, I of course believe him to be scum, because of the way he continually misrepresents my actions and the way he acts with regard to BM. The reason I felt I should put him at -1 is that it would most definitely promote discussion, something I thought we did not have enough of, and I did not really expect him to be hammered, which is of course the obvious risk, because only a fool (Scum, mos likely) would hammer at this point.

In regards to BM, I know that my suspicion of SC can be read as supportive; I knew of that risk when I made my voting post. At the moment, my dilemma is that I have seen everything written about BM potentially being scum, and I think it is all valid, but then I read SC's posts and it just seems to me like he was trying to initiate a defence by BM. The conclusion I reached in 170 (which I posted as a sort of notepad as I was reading through the game) was that SC's commenting was more suspicious than BM's responses (which were, in their own right, suspicious for the reasons everyone has given). Since most people disagree with me, I am probably wrong.

Though, I would like to know the extent to which people agree/disagree with me; as in were my thoughts in 170 entirely garbage or did I just make some error somewhere?

Reading over 170 in light of everything that has been said, I think my biggest problem was that I interpreted BM's vote for Jack as

BM's reasoning for that vote was flawed, but it doesn't seem overly-scummy (more like a feeble attempt to justify an ice-breaker vote).

The post by BM I was referring to stated:

Jack wrote:
Well I have a feeling Battle Mage is scum and I'm usually correct on this so Vote:battle mage


I believe the only occassion in which we have been together in a game and i have been killed, i was a townie, who YOU hammered.
lynch all liars?
Vote:Jack
Note this vote is also due, in part, to your scummy vote hopping, and putting Dio at -2 before everyone had even posted once...

The first part looked to me like a joke vote with the amusing justification of a past game. I didn't really think too much of the second part regarding Dio at -2, mainly because it seemed to me to be more along the lines of an observation made independently of the vote. As in: BM voted because of the jokey reason and made the observation about the votehopping and -2 as an off-hand. I see what you mean about it being suspicious and, with that interpretation, everything I said in 170 can seem unfounded. I guess my initial interpretation of that early post framed everything in the wrong way because, from that point, I read SC as using no evidence to mount an accusation of aggression which he justified in hindisight etc....leading to 170.

Another question, to what extent do people disagree with my interpretation of BM's response?

At this stage, is there any other question I need to address?

[vollkan]

Scarecrow wrote:

I already knew you were aggressive because of the way you jumped on Jack.

As I said, though, I read BM's vote as being a random vote based on a previous game, not out of aggression. I think that is the difference in my interpretation of everything. I admit that my interpretation was probably wrong, but it was the way I read it at the time. In any case, the retrospective justification kind of threw me off a bit because it looked to me like you had made a comment to raise a response and had then used that response to justify it.

[vollkan]

BM wrote:

no, but even with the best case in the world, i wont be able to persuade scumbuddies to lynch of their own. My only hope is that the other PROTOWN players read your posts, and make their own decisions.
Your reactions are also pretty funny, considering your criticisms of others being defensive! lol

I have 2 problems with this. Firstly, you seem to just be taking for granted that you are town and SC is scum. There are valid reasons to suspect SC, I have raised most of them myself, but you seem to just be assuming that SC is scum rather than holding it is a possiblity. The whole "scumbuddies" and "PROTOWN" thing looks like a really weak effort to convince people you are innocent.

Also, what do you mean by SC's responses being "pretty funny"? Irrespective of my accusations against SC, his response certainly have not been defensive.

Until now, I had suspected SC more so than you, but this last post's weirdness is certainly making me reconsider.

[vollkan]

Vollkan wrote:

Also, what do you mean by SC's responses being "pretty funny"?

BM, you didn't answer my question. What has been funny about SC's responses? Unless you mean the whole retrospective thing, but that still doesn't explain your reaction.

[vollkan]

You mean in the same way Scarecrow voted me over absolutely nothing?
if i was scum and looked like i was about to be lynched, i dont think i would be excited...

Wha..? As Doom said, I am the person SC voted for. But also, I am the person at -1, not you. In fact, there is not a single vote on you (assuming the votecount on this page is correct). Why are you making your situation sound more dangerous than it is?

[vollkan]

Yeah, what Vollkan said, although I don't get the "I'm in a dangerous situation"-vibe, someone else obviously gets it. So why do you send it out?

Doom. Can you explain what you mean by that, since it seems like you disagree with part of what I said, but I don't understand exactly what you meant.

[vollkan]

Battle Mage wrote:
Besides, the way the current conversation is going, i will be very surprised if i dont get lynched today. If i was scum i would probably hammer you now

As I understand it, BM's logic appears to be that "If BM were scum he would lynch me. Therefore, BM is not scum". As kab said, the very fact you acknowledge this creates a massive circular defence.

[vollkan]

I quote the article you linked to:

In Mafia, WIFOM arguements are usually a Scum tactic used to distract the Town. The scum will make an unusual play at night, which would lead to a situation that would 'clear' them. Also, these arguments are often used by Newbies and should be avoided if possible, in favor of clearer arguments.

As Doom says and the article implies, it isn't a conclusive scumtell particularly in the case of newbies.

Having said that though, I don't think it is a valid defense.

[vollkan]

cross posted. For clarity sake,

I quote the article you linked to:

the you was directed at Doom who was the last person to post before I did.

[vollkan]

Speaking of Jack, he hasn't posted since Friday.

[vollkan]

His first post in 3 days and all he does is try and get me hammered. Interesting.

[vollkan]

I don't think vollkan has acted like a townie though. Trying to get someone to hammer scum is pro townie.

Anecdotes don't prove anything.

Whilst I agree about anecdotal evidence, all you are really saying is "I think Vollkan is scum therefore he should be lynched". Suspicion and discussion is good, bluntly calling for a lynch is not.

I acknowledge there are good reasons to suspect me, given past conduct and all, but the fact that you seem to just be adopting the approach of trying to get a lynch strikes me as odd. Even if the other players suspect me, they at least are engaging in meaningful discussion to work this all out.

[vollkan]

To me this is like saying, "yes, I've acted scummy, there are good reasons to suspect I am scum, but hey, look over here! This guy is acting scummy too."

What I meant was, that it is unrealistic of me to expect not to have suspicion for me, the same as for anyone who has been accused in this game. It is not a confession of scummy behaviour, I was just acknowledging the suspicion from other players in contrast to Jack who just seems to have an agenda of getting rid of me as soon as possible.

Jack's latest:

I do think that if vollkan was a townie then scum would think they could get away with a hammer. Of course it's possible scum are already on the wagon or they have aligned themselves with vollkan somehow, but I think it's less likely.

Again, the logic is ridden with holes. The first sentence equates to:
If Vollkan is town, scum would hammer. -> Not definitely true at all IMO, because as Doom said when I am hammered, the person who hammers will come under suspicion and questioning.

And the second one makes no sense to me. Okay, yes, scum may already be on the wagon. That's a possibility. But what do you mean by "or they have aligned themselves with vollkan somehow, but I think it's less likely"?

My thoughts on this. Jack has consistently supported the suspicion of myself throughout this game. Once the game reached a point where there was a bit more suspicion all-round, he then tries to draw it back to me with these very weak arguments.

Oh, and a final thought, kab you wrote:

While I agree with vollkan on the fact that Jack's posts are extremely blunt, I think that those posts make it all the more easy to interpret what exactly they mean. There isn't much to misinterpret.

Yes. But when the posts are directed at scoring a lynch, making them short just leaves less room for your logic to be attacked. I don't mean this as some sort of general rule, I am just saying that there can be a rationale for making small posts.

[vollkan]

What vollkan said aboput scarecrow was strange, too, but I'm not sure if it isn't a honest mistake or not (it would be quite stupid for scum to misrepresent so blatantly, but he said he has reread the whole thing, so how did he miss that sc never actually voted for BM?).

As I said way back in post 173:

I realised after I posted. I had read BM's vote in response to your accusations/observations and gotten had it into my head that you had voted for him as well. My mistake entirely.

In regards to Jack, said his logic of late has been very odd. He moved from agreeing with people's suspicions of me to now just pushing for a lynch with no analysis or discussion of anything else. It's almost as though once the suspicion and likelihood of an imminent was waning, he tried to spark it up again. That would fit in with the whole "IC luring" suggested by Doom above.

[vollkan]

Hi all, give me a while to review this twelve page monster while sipping some tea, kay? Also, your general impressions of the person I am replacing would be nice.

Hi. My impressions:
Earlier on in the game I noticed some things (my list of 4 points from way back) about kabenon007 (your predecessor) and drew them into question. He was pretty defensive in response and used emotion, but he became less like that afterwards.

More recently, the behaviour of Jack and BM in particular has been very odd, far more so than kabenon's. BM's weirdness over the past few pages (read it, it's addressed fairly clearly) and Jack's use of weird logic in order to try and get me lynched quickly.

Seeing as Jack, SC and Doom have gone away for the weekend you will have to rely on BM, Dio and myself for your requested "general impressions" for the timebeing, most likely.

[vollkan]

Vollkan is orgasmic.

o___o;; You find my posts erotic?

[vollkan]

"Lynch vollkan, I said so" - essentially. I really don't understand. Is this just your playstyle Jack? I much rather prefer Vollkan's overwrought, yet still helpful way of playing to yours. (BTW Vollkan, maybe you'd be in this position less if you realized that your verbosity is both obsfucating to many as well as seemingly overaggressive to people you target).

Using the word "obfuscating" adds a touch of irony to your critique of my play style. Though if it be more helpful I shall try and minimise my sesquipedalianism (I couldn't resist that).

Any results from pressuring vollkan out of a L-1 have already surfaced, I'd rather not have a deadline-induced hammer.

What do you mean by any results have already surfaced?

[vollkan]

guys quit it with the long words. lets just lynch SC and be done with it. his scumbuddy Jack can be killed tomorrow.

Now BM is doing the Jack thing? I thought his behaviour was odd beforehand, but now he is calling for two lynches. I don't think the evidence against SC is even close to warranting a lynch at this stage. Why do you feel so determined that he be lynched?

[vollkan]

Cross-posted.

He said it, though not so bluntly, earlier on as well:

Im still happy killing Scarecrow.

and even further back:

It will gain you alot of respect amongst ur scumbuddies

and:

I would gladly lynch Jack or Scarecrow at this point.

and:

it would indicate Jack and SC as scumbuddies, because they both have shown great willingness to kill both Vollkan and myself. if Vollkan is protown, that means that they have set themselves up against 2 protown players, which makes me

feel quite strongly that at least 1 of them is scum.

and:

hes playing exactly how i tend to play as scum. That is probably why it seems so obvious to me.
the fact that his only contribution was a random, meaningless sentence, after doing a full reread, is very scummy. He wanted to appear useful, and look like he was trying to find out who was scum, when

actually he was scum himself.

Notice a pattern? Without any argument, he just states his opinion that SC is scum. When I made my accusations against SC he jumped on them in support:

Vollkan has summed up the discussion better than i ever could. i hope that suffices for the rest of u

My arguments were rebutted, or at least put in perspective, but BM continued to argue SC was scum with no further contributions as to WHY.

I didn't initially realise how far-back this tactic ran:

vote: Battle Mage

[vollkan]

Apologies for the dodgy formatting.

Looks like I cross-posted again.

And

Unvote, Vote: Battle Mage

Gossip, I agree with your second paragraph on SC. The arguments against SC are weak. I made some criticisms, and was rebutted soundly but BM continues to rely on those arguments, or nothing at all.

[vollkan]

I'll tell you exactly what I did.

After my cross post 298 and reading your post, I did a re-read of BM, scrolling backwards up the pages. I read the first "past instance" then started another post, thinking I had found something. Then I thought maybe I should check back further. I scrolled up pages 10 and 11 quoting BM in my post where he had relied on that assertion. The rationale for my vote, aside from my strong suspicions, was that we need BM to explain his actions and I want BM to know that I feel quite strongly about his behaviour.

My kabenon post took me a long time, since it required explanation of a few things that I had noticed over a long time.

I see what you are saying, Gossip, but I hope my explanation of how I made that post deals with your concerns.

[vollkan]

I have a question about this post by BM, well the first sentence to be precise:

its posts like these that convince me Vollkan is town. ive unwittingly defended scum like this many times, and the typical scumbag response is to tie themselves to me, so i get lynched tomorrow. Instead, Vollkan is showing genuine suspicion of me. Im still happy killing Scarecrow.

I can't work out why he seems so convinced about me, since nobody else is. It just strikes me as odd that everyone else has some level of suspicion for me, but BM thinks that because I show suspicion for him it is near proof I am town. It is a difference between him and other people, but I frankly can't work out what his rationale is for saying it.

[vollkan]

[btw, vollkan: You said that you noted your error right after you posted that one, so why didn't you make a follow up that corrected the error after you noticed?]

I assume you are referring to me stating:

I realised after I posted. I had read BM's vote in response to your accusations/observations and gotten had it into my head that you had voted for him as well. My mistake entirely.

It doesn't change what I said though.

If I remember correctly, I had some study to do that night (by my time). After making post 170, I turned my computer off and began to work on an assignment; then I realised that I hadn't actually seen SC's vote but had, as stated, thought that SC had voted for BM based on BM's response. I couldn't be bothered booting this thing back up to write a correction when I intended on coming back on later than night after I had done the work I needed to.

Also, Doom, I got a different read of BM here to you:

Quote:
ts posts like these that convince me Vollkan is town. ive unwittingly defended scum like this many times, and the typical scumbag response is to tie themselves to me, so i get lynched tomorrow. Instead, Vollkan is showing genuine suspicion of me. Im still happy killing Scarecrow.
Care to explain that one further, please? I don't really get what you mean here - vollkan defends someone you think is very clearly scum, yes? Who would that be?

I thought BM posted that (post 284) in response to:
SC suspecting me at 275
BM suspecting SC for accusing me at 277
Me suspecting BM in 283

I thought his logic was that it was not scummy behaviour for me to accuse him (BM) because he (BM) was effectively accusing the person (SC) accusing me.

[vollkan]

Two-thirds of BM's last post (315) was directed in accusation against Doom. The remainder was him just asserting he was town and then stating that he would give us an "ear-bashing" at endgame. He avoided Doom's questions also, instead just picking at apparent problems with BM's -1 vote.

BM answer Doom's questions:

Plus you dodged this entirely:
Dr. Doom wrote:
Your scumminess (as I see it) stems from the fact that I just can't really see why you see SC as scummy. You say he plays like you do if you are scum (I don't see any similarity in the playstyles of you two, btw), and that his remark about your aggressiveness and that his reasons for it relied partly on wrong Logic is a class A scumtell. I just don't follow - It was an Offhand remark, and he did not vote or attack you for it. When you reacted like it was huge thing, he attacked you more, but it was you who first shifted into high-gear.
Plus, when vollkan grossly misrepresented SC, you agreed with him 100%, which does not speak protown to me.
and
Dr. Doom wrote:
Battlemage wrote:
its posts like these that convince me Vollkan is town. ive unwittingly defended scum like this many times, and the typical scumbag response is to tie themselves to me, so i get lynched tomorrow. Instead, Vollkan is showing genuine suspicion of me. Im still happy killing Scarecrow.

Care to explain that one further, please? I don't really get what you mean here - vollkan defends someone you think is very clearly scum, yes? Who would that be?
Say something in regards to this, because that is why I accuse you.

ANd, Dio, your last post is more than a week ago. Say something!

Similarly, Dio post.

[vollkan]

SC:

Battle Mage wrote:
trying to save ur buddy Dr Doom?
rofl.


Make up your mind, buddy. I can only have one scum-buddy.

Just so I follow this, who is the original buddy and who is the buddy BM is now suggesting?

[vollkan]

actually i have. if 1/4 of players are scum, the fact that i have only been lynched as scum 1/16 of the time, is significant in proving that i am more often killed as town than the average player.
BM

But it doesn't prove you are killed more often as town than the "average player". It just gives evidence that over a pretty small sample space there is a tendency for YOU to be lynched as town more than as scum, which just collapses into WIFOM.

Unless there is some statistic floating out there that "the average player is killed as town in xx% of games", I can't see where you are coming from.

[vollkan]

Whoa, way too much information to respond now. I'll post later, okay?

Any chance of that post coming soon? It would be good for this game to start moving again.

[vollkan]

Okay, to get discussion started a little more, can everyone please tell the people again why you want teh player you are voting for to get lynched? Thx.

My reasons for voting BM are (linked to my relevant posts):
1) His accusing of SC (and now Doom) as scum without substantial argument and appealing to emotion [300]
2) BM still has not answered the question regarding that weird post about having unwittingly defended scum [305]
3) His resorting to dodgy statistics [346]

Having said that,

The thing is, the game is unlikely to move now (at least, that's how I see it), and it really saddnes me that Dio got away so lightly - you basically lurked the whole time and left nothing really tangible whatso ever. Plus, you are the only Player who got bot under serious suspicion yet.

So: FoS:Dio doe excessive lurking and flying under the radar.

A good point. Dio lurked and remained under the radar, which meant that he hasn't ended up doing enough to make any opinion of him other than 'lurker'.

[vollkan]

Dio, this sentence here:

Maybe night would be good for the town because obviously if some does get lynched it means that the town generally think he is scum.

You are saying if somebody is lynched who we think is scum, then night will benefit us? I don't quite see how that works. I am sure you are have mixed up somewhere, but what were you trying to say?

[vollkan]

The case on Doom is not that strong. It mostly stems from him putting BM at L-1, with BM and Dio seeing that as a massive scumtell.

One though, BM wrote at [322]:

ill respond to anything else later. note also that your last comment implies that you want scumbuddy Dio to return and hammer me. if Doom comes up scum tomorrow, be wary of Dio.

Then Dio posted at [324] against Dr Doom
SC unvotes me and votes BM at [329], BM accuses this of being SC trying to save his "scumbuddy Dr Doom" at [330]

After all of the statistics and stuff, at [355] BM writes:

if i die today, you gotta kill Dr Doom tomorrow. the scum are almost certainly out of the following 3: Jack, Scarecrow, Dr. Doom.

My point from these quotes is this:
Earlier on Gossip noted that Dio emerged from the woodwork only after BM was put at L-1. Something else here to think about is that BM seemed convinced that Dio and Doom were scum buddies. Then Dio goes against Doom and suddenly the scum are "almost certainly" out of Jack, SC and Doom. BM's suspicion of Dio suddenly flew out the window once Dio joined BM against Doom. Furthermore, BM maintains that Doom should be lynched tomorrow (in view of the fact that BM thinks he will be lynched today).

[vollkan]

BM, Doom wrote:

Dr. Doom wrote:
Plus you dodged this entirely:
Dr. Doom wrote:
Your scumminess (as I see it) stems from the fact that I just can't really see why you see SC as scummy. You say he plays like you do if you are scum (I don't see any similarity in the playstyles of you two, btw), and that his remark about your aggressiveness and that his reasons for it relied partly on wrong Logic is a class A scumtell. I just don't follow - It was an Offhand remark, and he did not vote or attack you for it. When you reacted like it was huge thing, he attacked you more, but it was you who first shifted into high-gear.
Plus, when vollkan grossly misrepresented SC, you agreed with him 100%, which does not speak protown to me.
and
Dr. Doom wrote:
Battlemage wrote:
its posts like these that convince me Vollkan is town. ive unwittingly defended scum like this many times, and the typical scumbag response is to tie themselves to me, so i get lynched tomorrow. Instead, Vollkan is showing genuine suspicion of me. Im still happy killing Scarecrow.

Care to explain that one further, please? I don't really get what you mean here - vollkan defends someone you think is very clearly scum, yes? Who would that be?
Say something in regards to this, because that is why I accuse you.
You still dodged this, despite answering to my posts twice, and both times you claimed that there is nothing that is hold against you.

Can you please answer these questions? (Though I already said this way back in [319])

Also, I don't see what you mean by "backtracking". Doom's most recent post before you raised that issue stated:

I voted BM to put him under heavy pressure, to see who would come out to maybe defend him, what reactions it provoked. And, last but not least, I voted him because he made such silly accusations against SC, because he said yes to the crass misrepresentation of SC that vollkan delivered, and that I donT follow his reasons at all. But there isstill some doubt in me, and that bugs me.

I see no evidence for your accusation. Again, much like the anti-Doom thing you and Dio have been running of late, this accusation of backtracking smells like an attempt to throw suspicion off yourself.

Oh, and to re-iterate, BM answer the questions!

[vollkan]

I've been wanting BM to answer those questions for some time also, since he has been avoiding it. I figured he wouldn't be able to avoid it again if I jumped in after you and demanded he answer. I knew you had already asked him to, but I wanted to make sure he couldn't avoid it again.

Also, I read his backtracking accusation and wanted to make up my own mind as to whether there was any substance to it. I quoted your post prior to his accusation to illustrate what BM said was unfounded. You asked him for evidence, I presented evidence to the contrary.

[vollkan]

I just explained myself then.

Unless you (Jack) were attempting to be funny by basically repeating Doom's querying of me.

[vollkan]

In the post by BM that you are referring to Gossip, BM quoted me at the bottom. Hence, I think BM was addressing me when he said "your arguments make little sense, and the fact that you are repeating Dooms comments to make yourself appear useful is dubious in itself.", in reference to my post [368].

[vollkan]

BM did answer the questions:

lol im pretty sure i already answered that, but ive lost most interest in this game, so its possible that i didnt. anyway, the reason i thought Vollkan was town, is that if he was scum, he would have tried to tie himself to me, so when i died, he'd look town by defending me, or when he died, his buddy could convince others that i was the other scum. he did neither, so i dont think he is scum. comprende?

[vollkan]

Dio, if one person obtains 50% of the vote they will die early. You just unvoted Doom. Doesn't that mean that BM has 3/6, as in 50% going by the most recent vote count.

[vollkan]

"Feck" sums it up rather nicely. I'll have to read over this all again to try and get some clue as to what is going on.

[vollkan]

It really is just a gut feeling that ever since he came he's been trying to direct towards where the town was going. I do not blame him for BM's death though because I killed BM by omission.

You didn't kill by "omission" - "omission" being the failure to do something. BM died because of the unvote, which was a direct action and definitely not an omission. Not that I think you bear the fault for BM's death, everyone on the wagon is responsible, but I find your choice of words in describing the unvote rather interesting.

[vollkan]

vollkan what do you think of dr.doom?

Well, most of BM's arguments against Doom seemed fairly conflated but I think there are other reasons to suspect Doom.

Firstly, he expressed doubts and reservations about the BM lynch. He justified the keeping of his vote on the basis that a BM Lynch is better than a No Lynch but, in hindsight, I wonder if it was just a convenient excuse for when BM's role was revealed.

Also, he persistently maintained a willingness to lynch Dio, Jack or myself in addition to BM which raises a concern in me that he was just trying to cover all bases should the mood suddenly shift so that he could avoid a no lynch.

At any rate, none of these suspicions are conclusive and I suspect Dio somewhat more than Doom, given the whole "omission" and "gut feeling" stuff recently, but Doom is definitely on my radar.

[vollkan]

Welcome. Hopefully you'll find something to spark a bit of discussion, since the rest of us seem incapable of achieving that.

[vollkan]

No this is not at all true. I thought the argument between vollkan and kabenon was really scummy, but on rereading it I realized it was only vollkan who was making it scummy. I've repeated my case on vollkan so many times you'd have to be blind to misinterpret it like this.

Earlier on it was distancing by myself and kab, but now it is just me? Given the lack of specificity in your post, it looks to me like you didn't do a reread at all and are just saying that I made it scummy to accommodate for the fact that your earlier accusation of distancing against kab and myself has been rebutted.

[vollkan]

Jack in [123]:

I swear, neither kabenon nor vollkan are making ANY SENSE to me. Does anyone what the hell they are talking about?

I'm going to assume it's distancing, especially from vollkans list of points against kabenon which is just bizarre vote:vollkan

Jack in [125]:

Both of their arguments appear fake and insincere to me, I think they are distancing scum.

Now you quote [161]:

I reread vollkan a bit and he made the same sort of ridiculous arguments against tendril so I don't think I can make the claim that he and kabenon were distancing. But I do think his arguments are contrived. Contrived arguments are a sure sign of scum, because scum are the only ones who know that the people they are accusing are innocent.

Who agrees with me?

My argument against Tendril stemmed from him putting ElKabong at L-1 with little or no justification other than to put pressure on him. Then I was critical of his use of the newbie defence in justification. Jack, you felt it was valid; I wanted to question him about it. In any case, kab did exactly the same thing as me in that regard. My point is that I don't think my arguments against Tendril were contrived.

Jack seems to drop his problem with kab's arguments and instead focuses on me solely.

[vollkan]

I did a bit of a re-read after reading your post Romanus. These are my thoughts on it:

Dio's two posts prior to the unvote post were:

Dr. Doom,

I want you lynched

because of how crazy you are. You vote BM, and yet you don't want him killed? Why wouldn't you want someone killed who you think is scum? Isn't that better then a no lynch? Maybe night would be good for the town because obviously if some does get lynched it means that the town generally think he is scum. I do not think any ones votes on BM were not without reason or thought so we can not just consider them following someone else. Dr. Doom, what was the point of using that pointless gesture of FOSing on me? Trust no one in mafia is generally something everyone uses when they play, so wouldn't your finger be on everyone?

Dr. Doom, I understand why you think my lurking is scumtell, but very rarely do I actually see any scum that' not a newb lurk. More often then not I find that the scum are the ones that attempt to take control of the town's mind questioning everyones actions.

Now that I reassess my reasons for voting it seems as though there isn't really much evidence for my thinking your scum, but just a gut feeling of my own.

Vollkan, I was saying that it would expand the knowledge of the town for the next day,

even if two of the townies die

. I'd expand on this but I have to go take finals. I'll try to finish it later tonight.

Dio's attitude to Doom seems to fluctuate an awful lot. First Dio wants Doom lynched, then it is a mere "gut feeling" without evidence, then Dio unvotes Doom since he has lost most suspicion (apparently) and now we are back to Dio being very suspicious of Doom.

As for Doom, BM certainly saw a strong case against Doom; it's rather frustrating that BM's own behaviour meant that most of his arguments were dismissed at the time.

I think Dio and Doom being a scum pair is quite interesting. Up until now, I had really only recognised them both as being suspicious on an individual level, but there is a suggestion that they could be together.

I can give one reason why I don't suspect Jack highly. He didn't hammer BM on the basis that he was more suspicious of me, despite the circumstances being such that he could have easily managed. I disagree with his arguments against me and some of them seem a bit conflated, but I don't suspect him for them in light of his actual conduct.

[vollkan]

Speaking of speaking up, what happened to teh argument between Jack and vollkan? I'd like to see some interaction there...

I had the last word in [431]; I don't quite know why it has died.

[vollkan]

I posted my thoughts to this point in [439]. Since nothing has come up since then, I am finding it pretty difficult to post anything substantial. With any luck our mnowax will say something to start discussion again.

[vollkan]

As much as I suspect Doom, the case you have provided mnowax seems pretty slight. I mean:
1) The ISP excuse could be valid; could be a lie also.
2) The fact he goes against you and you say you are town.
3) Trying to coax your replacee to talk.

If that is the entirety of your case, I don't think a vote is a good idea. There were other, more substantial arguments which were raised earlier and which form the basis of my own suspicion of Doom, but I don't think you can justify a potential loss on the basis of those 3 points.

Likewise, I don't even think a set "24hr vote" is warranted on the basis of those past arguments without further discussion.

[vollkan]

Like I said, mnowax pulled this stunt in another game. I was the scum and he was town. It won me, the scum, the game. All we needed was one person to vote for mnowax then drop the hammer, and we did. It strikes me as odd that he would attempt it again as town. However, there is another possibility that I just now considered, and I will be keeping to myself.

I have no idea what the other possibility is, but won't it be just as dangerous for us?

I mean, even if mnowax has a clever plan to make some good use from this, the risk is still there so I don't see how another possibility could be any safer.

Also, Jack, respond to my last post in that argument since you never made any comment at all; if ever you return to this thread that is.

[vollkan]

Mhm - Distancing/bussing scum, perhaps?
Why would I have prodded Dio so often if he were my scumbuddy and noone else seemed to mind his lurking?

What does "Mhm" stand for? It's probably nothing, but I just want to make sure I understand.

[vollkan]

As long as there was no spotlight on him, it would make zero sense for Doomscum to go after him, and thus bring attention to my partner - and maybe even back on my self, as bussing/distancing is a widely recognized tactic. Why wake sleeping dogs?

Isn't that pretty much a WIFOM? You are basically saying: "Why would I do this if I was scum with Dio?"

[vollkan]

1) both mnowax and I are scum, and all this is just to cause a huge smokescreen and a mislynch. This would mean that vollkan, Jack and Romanus are town - At least one of you knows this isn't true, and I do too.
This also would require some substantial planning during the night, but remember that Dio was replaced early morning Day Two - Doomscum would have had no chance talking to mnowax, so that we play along this well is highly unlikely (imho).

I don't think it is as unlikely as you suggest, though I don't mean that it is likely; just that I don't think it should be dismissed outright. I mean, mnowax did telegraph his intention to vote you which would give you time to prepare how to deal with it. I can't imagine it being too difficult for you to play along.

3) mnowax is scum with someone else. I dunno, I don't think that this is true, but it is possible. It's crass how he risks the game, but if it was a gambit, it might have paid out - see point 4.

4) mnowax and I are town, and Jack is scum with either vollakn or Romanus. Because Jack has not yet checked in, I'm still alive (actually, all townies are), and this game has not yet ended.

What does your point 4 have to do with the "gambit" "paying out"?

[vollkan]

You really don't make much of a contribution.

Two questions:
Why do you think it is more likely to be Doom?
What happened to your case against me?

[vollkan]

Agreed. I feel like a win.

Vote: Dr Doom

[vollkan]

Oops. I forgot the full stop in Dr. Doom.

Let me try that again

Vote: Dr. Doom

.

[vollkan]

Good game all. *returns Jack's high-five*

I thought I was about to be lynched for certain on Day 1 since there was no suspicion at anybody else; BM really saved me.

It was very frustrating at the end knowing that we would win as soon as Jack arrived, but being unable to do anything.