Open 144 - Near-Vanilla - GAME OVER!

[MadCrawdad]

/confirm

[MadCrawdad]

vote: zer0

for being number 13

[MadCrawdad]

dejkha: Yeah, well, that's why I attempted to start up some discussion out of more or less nothing. Thanks for ruining it.

@ODDin

In the post above, you claim to have been attempting to start discussion (out of more or less nothing) when you said:

OMGUS so early in the morning?

The thing is, though, what I notice most is the 'winking' smilie... it implies to me that you weren't really being serious. If you were trying to start discussion, doesn't the smilie undermine your attempt?

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad: First of all, I put an emoticon on both posts. They both haven't been terribly serious. (:))
That being said, Zer0 has a somewhat dubious record of getting annoyed and claiming scum on D1, so I didn't want to start off on the wrong foot.

I've not played with zer0 before. Are you saying that, when annoyed, he claims to BE scum?

[MadCrawdad]

I haven't played with him either, but I check out the people I'm playing with (at least some of them), and I skimmed through those games where he claimed scum.

What prompted you to select zer0's past games to investigate?

[MadCrawdad]

In looking at the profile on wiki, it seems like claiming to be scum has become his shtick....IMO, it makes it kind of a null tell.

So why would you think that zer0 claiming scum here would be starting off 'on the wrong foot'?

MadCrawdad: First of all, I put an emoticon on both posts. They both haven't been terribly serious. (:))
That being said, Zer0 has a somewhat dubious record of getting annoyed and claiming scum on D1, so I didn't want to start off on the wrong foot.

[MadCrawdad]

Somebody saying "I'm scum" isn't a null tell, no matter how you look at it.
What I meant was, I didn't want to make it seem like I'm specifically attacking him.

If it's not a null tell, what is it?

[MadCrawdad]

It's a lynch, right then and there, no questions asked. Game impossible to play with a player who claimed scum alive. It will become a steaming pile of WIFOM and twisted logic.

If you're so worried about that happening, why say anything to the guy at all at this point? If you're SERIOUSLY concerned that someone may flip out and screw with the game, it seems a little odd that he'd be the guy you'd start with (smilie or not), doesn't it?

[MadCrawdad]

Based on your stated concerns about zer0, it's a little unusual that he'd be the

first

one you'd try to start a 'fake' argument with. Even with nothing else to go on...

[MadCrawdad]

^ post 115 is response to ODDin's post 113

[MadCrawdad]

Lots happening already, nice to see. Though first of all hohum, you don't tell me when I should read back because you don't no my schedule .

Now, ODDin I believe it was made a good post on page 5, post 101. Good explanation, tbf.

I'm getting the vibe that hohum is a chicken with its head cut off. However, you're not jumping ship on your votes or anything, just the approach that you are taking to the game.

hohum is on the verge of earning my FoS, but I'll keep an eye on him for the next day or so and see what he does to decide whether or not he truly strikes me as scum.

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on what to make of AndyTony. I might make a case on him later to see if I notice anything particularly anti-town about his play thus far.

Pitstop, below is the post from ODDin that you liked. What makes this such a good post that you would feel the need to comment on it? Also, you obviously

know

that the post is by ODDin (as you point out the page and post number), so why say that you 'believe' the post was by ODDin, as if you're trying to recall from memory?

*sigh*

Pressuring someone is when you actually attempt to get a lynch against said someone, accuse him much more seriously than the arguments would otherwise demand etc.
When adding a vote against someone in order to create a small bandwagon isn't pressure - I am not attempting to get a lynch against this someone, and I am not even making serious arguments most of the time. It's not done to get specifically

him

drop tells - it's done to make everyone drop tells and get the discussion going. See who else joins the wagon. Things like that.
Are you attempting to suggest that pressure tactics are the only possible tactics in a game?

Another thing: I'm not making excuses, I'm answering your questions. The fact alone that you phrase your questions such that my answers sound like what can otherwise pass for excuses is a different matter. What you're doing right now is exactly said pressure tactics - you're focusing your strength on me just for the sake of focusing it on someone. I can live with that.

That being said, nobody has contributed to this game much at this point, and I probably contributed more than most, so I haven't even got what to make excuses for.

Also, you might make a case on AndyTony later to see if you notice anything anti-town about his play thus far? Why wait?

[MadCrawdad]

So we ask ourselves, do we want to approach him for a false claim, or a scumtell - - and we now know how best to get it. Scum will use his emotions against him for a potential mislynch, no? - - I'm suggesting we appreciate there are otherways to catch scum (part of that new thinking I was trying to spread - that I mentioned earlier) - world of possibilities, guys.

AT, you seem to keep coming back to how to deal with a scum claim by zer0. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait and see if that actually happens, and handle it then?

[MadCrawdad]

Nobody's chasing any tell at this point, so why dwell on it? Watch how the guy plays the game and then react to it. You keep coming back to it...kind of like picking at a scab, trying to make it rupture. I'm starting to wonder if you're not trying to help

make

it happen...

[MadCrawdad]

--I haven't said anyone has chased a tell
--The only thing I've dwelled on is that every circumstance is different and we should play it out

*hohum's remark about exploiting Zero's emotions suggested it needed mentioning at how that could hurt the town.

Mentioning hohum's remark, fine. You've also tried to jump in deeper than that...here in post 130. Where are you going with that?

I'm not defending anyone, I'm not persecuting anyone - - what I am doing right now is saying we should have a clean fair game here - -

For example - What is everyone's opinion of Zero right now?

And don't say you haven't developed any because between preconceiving how to vote him in the future based on his meta, and suggesting he's not participating because activity occasionally picks up more than usual in a real time day.

[MadCrawdad]

Btw, I tend to get lazy and not make a lot of posts so I wouldn't look into that too much for those of you who were stating that I should be doing things ASAP.

I'm just never interested in games on this site because everybody is too damn serious, yet I still sign up and treck my way through the best I can.

But yeh, I might post some stuff later

Pitstop, where else do you play?

[MadCrawdad]

FYI, posting will be limited for the weekend.

[MadCrawdad]

@Pitstop

Please address the 1st question I asked of you in post 145. Thanks.

@Cephrir

What made you think that AT was starting to look like an easy D1 lynch target?

I agree with Odd. AT was starting to look like an easy D1 lynch target IMO and I think Pitstop was trying to push the potential wagon there. Good catch. This could be you chainsaw defending AT but there was that little jab thrown in at him at the end. And I don't think AT is scum anyway. Definitely the most solid thing I've seen.

Unvote
Vote: Pitstop

[MadCrawdad]

@Cephrir

What made you think that AT was starting to look like an easy D1 lynch target?

Well, it's pretty common that the guy who starts talking a lot and who several people are loudly disagreeing with ends up being the D1 lynch. And as the only one who had said anything really controversial, he was pretty much the only one anyone could consider building a case on. If he continued like that and nothing else significant came up he probably would have been lynched today IMO.

Did you think that any of those 'loudly disagreeing' with AT were making particularly compelling arguments?

[MadCrawdad]

Good point. But you also don't want a debate on a action 6 days ago lasting 30 pages.

Why not?

[MadCrawdad]

@Cephrir

@Cephrir

What made you think that AT was starting to look like an easy D1 lynch target?

Well, it's pretty common that the guy who starts talking a lot and who several people are loudly disagreeing with ends up being the D1 lynch. And as the only one who had said anything really controversial, he was pretty much the only one anyone could consider building a case on. If he continued like that and nothing else significant came up he probably would have been lynched today IMO.

Did you think that any of those 'loudly disagreeing' with AT were making particularly compelling arguments?

At first, yes. I don't think I would have actually lynched him at that point and maybe the rest of us mostly feel the same way, but the arguments wouldn't have to be that great if they were the only ones... D1 lynches are often subpar and there comes a point after which people tend to accept anything remotely reasonable.

Cephrir, who was making particularly compelling arguments that you feel could have led to AT being an easy D1 lynch?

This post is to remind me to mention something in a few days and/or a lot of pages.

Also, are we there, yet?

[MadCrawdad]

Cephrir, who was making particularly compelling arguments that you feel could have led to AT being an easy D1 lynch?

IMO, no one. I guess I wasn't giving everyone else enough credit and assumed everyone was a sheep. At the other site where I play, everyone is a sheep, so y'know. Carries over.

Ceph, it has nothing to do with what you assumed about everyone else. You said that at first, some folks were making compelling arguments against AT that could have made him an easy lynch target. Kind of says to me that you were claiming someone was saying some good stuff...at least enough to make YOU (not your assumed sheep) think that AT could be scum. Maybe not good enough stuff for you to want to lynch him, but apparently good nonetheless. So who was saying ANY good stuff that had you thinking AT could become an easy lynch candidate?

Did you think that any of those 'loudly disagreeing' with AT were making particularly compelling arguments?

At first, yes. I don't think I would have actually lynched him at that point and maybe the rest of us mostly feel the same way, but the arguments wouldn't have to be that great if they were the only ones... D1 lynches are often subpar and there comes a point after which people tend to accept anything remotely reasonable.

unvote

[MadCrawdad]

Ceph, it has nothing to do with what you assumed about everyone else. You said that at first, some folks were making compelling arguments against AT that could have made him an easy lynch target. Kind of says to me that you were claiming someone was saying some good stuff...at least enough to make YOU (not your assumed sheep) think that AT could be scum. Maybe not good enough stuff for you to want to lynch him, but apparently good nonetheless. So who was saying ANY good stuff that had you thinking AT could become an easy lynch candidate?

Like I said. Never thought T was scum. In fact I'm quite certain he isn't.

Well then, who was making an argument that the sheep were likely to follow?

[MadCrawdad]

ABWOP:

@Ceph

Did you think that any of those 'loudly disagreeing' with AT were making particularly compelling arguments?

At first, yes. I don't think I would have actually lynched him at that point

and maybe the rest of us mostly feel the same way, but the arguments wouldn't have to be that great if they were the only ones... D1 lynches are often subpar and there comes a point after which people tend to accept anything remotely reasonable.

Ceph, for NEVER having thought AT was scum, can you please clarify what you meant in an earlier post? Note the highlighted portion... you don't sound as sure of yourself there.

[MadCrawdad]

posting limited until Tuesday.

[MadCrawdad]

I'll catch up the next day or so..

[MadCrawdad]

@Ceph

Ceph, here's the explanation you gave of your 'Note to Self'.

Fine, it's being blown so far out of proportion it doesn't matter. I'm not being manipulative, I just didn't want one specific player (you) to be aware of something.

Which is the meta I have of you as scum. Basically in our game as scum together I noticed that you were carefully calculating every move and did every little thing with some purpose behind it. I don't feel that you're playing that way at all in this game and you're being much less careful with your opinion, hence I think you're town. Obviously I would have preferred to have a few more game days on which to base this, but then I stupidly went and reminded myself inthread.

In before anguished cries of how that wasn't worth being secretive followed by votes.

Now here (from earlier in the day) when you didn't want to divulge the intent behind the note, you said that you'd 'like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious'. Can you explain how you could have possibly hinted at your explanation above, that would have been obvious (or even obscure, for that matter)?

It's the same thing. When I talk about it, you'll see why I didn't want to, I promise.

I'd like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious.

If everyone really insists I'll do it now. It's not as big of a deal as it appears to be, but I'd still rather save it.

[MadCrawdad]

I'll believe it to the point where I don't think it effects his alignment. There have been plenty of times that I, as town, intentionally lurked while following the thread, just because I didn't feel like posting. As long as Pitstop doesn't make a half assed post when he does post, it doesn't matter to me. Obviously I'd prefer it if he's fairly active though.

Going days without posting, while being active elsewhere, will raise suspicion.

Dejkha, it looks like you've been really active elsewhere, but not posting here...should that raise our suspicions?

[MadCrawdad]

Any hint I would have given would have made it obvious to AT what I was talking about IMO. For instance, if I said it was meta he'd probably have known it was him since the game in question had just ended and I'd made a few comments about his thought process in our conversations. If I said I just didn't want AT to know about it, same situation.

Your 'note to self' was completely out of the blue....I doubt that saying 'meta' would have tipped off AT, or anyone else.

[MadCrawdad]

@AT

AT, earlier you spent lots of time explaining that due to Zero's past play you wanted folks to 'be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly.' Also went on to say that Calculation and Intelligence would lead to Prosperity for the town. You also talk in another post about using other methods for catching scum, as applying pressure to Zero could lead to a scum claim....

I felt that right after I expressed the distinction between hunting scum and hunting lynches - - hohum understood that we now have a person (zero) that will crack under pressure whether he's scum or not - -

hohum actually states that if zero gets emotional, he will lynch him for it - - - we don't lynch for people being emotional (because townies can be so as well) we lynch for being scum - -

My observation is to stress that we should be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly. Hohum is aggressive, which in all fairness is just as emotional as Zero.

Calculation - - Intelligence - - Prosperity for town

It can totally happen

Understandable - - We know that pushing this particular player will make them do something nonsensible (since it's happened as both scum and town) hence I'm pointing out that there are otherways to discover scumtells.

Scumtells can be in general actions, and yes, they can slip under pressure -- scum indeed slip under pressure - - however, this player tends to false claim under pressure - -

So we ask ourselves, do we want to approach him for a false claim, or a scumtell - - and we now know how best to get it. Scum will use his emotions against him for a potential mislynch, no? - - I'm suggesting we appreciate there are otherways to catch scum (part of that new thinking I was trying to spread - that I mentioned earlier) - world of possibilities, guys.

So what the heck is with the quick knee-jerk pressure vote? Where's the calculation and intelligence that you rambled on about earlier? You're the one preaching being crafty (vs. getting tough) with Zero, and then you're the 1st one diving on with a pressure vote after he votes Dejkha.

You spent a lot of time talking about Zero and how you thought he should be approached. Then you seem to pounce with a pressure vote. Kind of a disconnect, isn't it?

Vote: Zero

What are you playing at? Did you not read?

Stop trying to confuse the game - - and considering we're past random and in a lull, I would suggest having more reasoning behind your voting.

[MadCrawdad]

Fine. But your 1st pressure vote came BEFORE 'his impatient hypocritical logic toward just wanting a lynch already, and his dare of bad logic...'

And your first vote HAD to be a pressure vote, or you wouldn't have confirmed your vote afterward, right?

[MadCrawdad]

Kind of a double post here, but my original response to AT popped onto a new page. As I didn't quote AT in my original post above, I thought doing so might be clearer...hopefully it is.
--------------------------------------

I see where it can look a little one sided to you, but that's just the thing - - I gave Zero plenty of open mindedness and opportunity, and I feel like his carelessness and hypocrisy is almost a slap in the face for trying to be understanding, you know?

The moment he got hypocritical and redundant, any form of understanding or open mindedness offered would be nothing short of favortism and a bias based on meta.

His vote on Dej (including the weak reasoning), his impatient, hypocritical logic toward "just wanting a lynch already", and his dare of "Here's my bad logic, what are you going to do about it" puts me RIGHT off.

Understanding and open mindedness is a two way street, otherwise I'm giving an unfair bias and buddy nature that shouldn't be there.

I saw Zero demonstrate hypocrisy, narrow mindedness, and a hunt for a lynch over scum - - that merits my vote

Fine. But your 1st pressure vote came BEFORE 'his impatient hypocritical logic toward just wanting a lynch already, and his dare of bad logic...'

And your first vote HAD to be a pressure vote, or you wouldn't have confirmed your vote afterward, right?

[MadCrawdad]

I've twice before voted myself on Mafiascum - - I worry that he's read it and is manipulating my opinion seeing as both times I did it, I was frustrated towny.

Unvote

Zero - This is not immunity by a long shot

*Ceph - Emp and Zwet play the "Slayer's Gambit" - - they intentionally make themselves appealing for a lynch in an effort to lure scum on the wagon and signal such to the town

Zero hasn't demonstrated that thusfar - -

**Zero - unvote already and stop hurting the town

Sorry, forgot to unvote. Pretty much completely agree with Ceph here. Zer0 is likely town, but as it is, he will be more of a problem as the game progresses, and practically a disaster during endgame. If we decide he's town and lynch other people, he'll constantly be there for WIFOMs - plus, I don't want any serious decisions lying in his hands.
Zer0 - no, the arguments against you weren't based on your meta. They were based on your anti-town behaviour and stupidity in this game alone.

And,

unvote, vote: Zer0

So the two people who expressed the most apprehension about pressuring Zero were the first to do so, and are now can't get off fast enough when he apparently starts to wig out.

@ AT

So you claim to REALLY believe that Zero has taken time to read through your past games, and is now using them against you? And that's what caused you to unvote?

@ODDin

Why did it take Zero challenging you to do so before you actually voted for him?

[MadCrawdad]

First of all, he didn't challenge me specifically, he challenged everyone, pretty much. I was considering whether to vote him or not ever since he brought up the issue about attempting to confuse town. I still thought he's likely a stupid townie, however, and considered it might be better to attempt to lynch scum after all. As discussion progressed, however, I realised that even as town he's extremely dangerous, and should better be lynched ASAP - something like the special role of a townie who needs one less vote to lynch.

You considered "it might be better to attempt to lynch scum after all." There's a novel idea.

@MadCrawdad - Considering he would only have to look at the very game before this? Yeah, completely possible, it's my most recent - - but regardless, I have personal experience of that scenario as a towny

What exactly have I dont wrong that isn't fair or justified? It's pretty straight forward

What have you done wrong that isn't fair or justified? You spent a lot of time going on about Zero's history, mentioning how he needs to be approached differently, not pressured, etc. Remember? 'Calculation---Intelligence--Prosperity for Town.'

Then the minute he does something 'illogical,' as you put it, you're the first one on with a vote. WTH? Seriously. What do you expect of this guy? He claims scum when pressured, regardless of affiliation. Do you think that's just a little oddity in his gameplay, and that other than that, he'd be a solid, logical player?

The fact that he's apparently claimed scum so frequently tells me a couple of things: 1) His play often gets him into trouble 2) He can't argue his way out of a paper bag 3) He doesn't give a crap whether his team wins or loses.... Not a real solid player there, at least not yet, anyway.

Now obviously Zero can't get a free ride because he might crack at any minute. Seeing that you were the one preaching 'Everyone be careful around Zero,' though, it seems more than just a little odd that you'd be the first one on him (and on him so quickly) for his illogical dejkha vote...

Anyone else hopping on wouldn't have raised as much suspicion, but you did exactly what you were telling others not to do.

[MadCrawdad]

Cephrir, what good does bringing up that meta info bit do several days later as opposed to mentioning it on day one? It would be useless unless both of you are still alive which you would have no way to predict unless you are not town, and if you died your "secret" would have died with you.

Well it's not so significant that it would be a tragedy if I died with it, but I didn't think it would be terribly useful without several days' worth of his actions to base it on. And if he died then it wouldn't really matter would it.

Then it wouldn't have been a tragedy if you had forgotten it, either. So there really was no point in posting the 'Note to Self' in the thread. Right? Everyone has little thoughts about players, but nobody really puts their little notes in the thread...especially when those thoughts are as unimportant as you're making your 'Note to Self' appear now.

What concerns me, Ceph, is that it seems like you could be posing as a scum hunter, but not really hunting anything... Posing as the good townie/voice of reason when you single-handedly stopped the fictitious runaway lynch wagon on AT. Posing as the wily mafia hunter who was so crafty and deep under cover that you couldn't share your thoughts (but instead decided to leave little messages), lest you blow your important investigations.

The fact that you were third on Zero is also somewhat suspect to me. With all the heat having been on you, Zero could have represented a diversion. Getting on 1st or 2nd might have made you appear too eager, but jumping on the wagon 3rd could give it the nudge you might be hoping for.

[MadCrawdad]

Yeah, well what concerns me is your obnoxious playstyle of asking tons and tons of questions, waiting for someone to slip up and say something objectionable, while not actually contributing anything you can be attacked based on.

Gee, Ceph. Why don't you tell me how you really feel?

Then it wouldn't have been a tragedy if you had forgotten it, either. So there really was no point in posting the 'Note to Self' in the thread. Right? Everyone has little thoughts about players, but nobody really puts their little notes in the thread...especially when those thoughts are as unimportant as you're making your 'Note to Self' appear now.

I don't keep physical notes, and it would be slightly better for me to remember than to not.

The thing is, though, if your 'Note to Self' was truly to remind you to mention AT's meta, you didn't have a few game days to do so. And you knew it. So why would you wait? Your information would have been much more urgent (and important) than you're claiming.

Posing as the good townie/voice of reason when you single-handedly stopped the fictitious runaway lynch wagon on AT.

Way to exaggerate. I just got the feeling it was going to happen... if I didn't say something, it seemed to me that AT would have been lynched over it. And sitting back and watching AT get lynched- which is what I thought inaction would amount to- is obviously the wrong decision.

Here you mention that you got the feeling that AT was going to be wrongfully lynched on D1, and had to act. So what's with the note to mention something in a few days? You strongly believe that AT is being lynched D1 (TODAY), but you're going to share a tidbit of info in a few days? It doesn't make sense.

When you posted your 'Note to Self,' you must have already had your feeling that AT was going be railroaded, as nothing much happened in the ten-or-so posts between your note and the revelation that you thought AT was going to be wrongfully lynched on D1:

Post 177 - Your 'Note to Self'
Post 178 - Kdub responds to Pitstop regarding lurking
Post 179 - AT responds to Pitstop and Zero
Post 180 - Me going V/LA for the weekend
Post 181 - You commenting on AT's sensitivity regarding his gameplay
Post 182 - AT responding to your comment regarding his sensitivity
Post 183 - Zero says 'Probably'.
Post 184 - ODDin defends AT and votes for Pitstop
Post 185 - ODDin asks that Corp be prodded
Post 186 - Corp says 'Here'.
Post 187 - You say that AT was looking like an easy D1 target, being pushed by Pitstop and you then vote Pitstop.

As you can see, nothing happened between posts 177 and 187 that should have made you any more convinced that AT was getting closer to a lynch. You would have had to have been concerned by post 177, and therefore your 'Note to Self' makes no sense, as you were worried that AT was being lynched today. Waiting a few days would accomplish nothing.

vote: Cephrir

I would encourage everyone to reread posts 177 through 187 to see if they think that any of those posts made things appear more dire for AT, and if Ceph's final explanation (clearing AT based on his meta) makes sense.

[MadCrawdad]

When you posted your 'Note to Self,' you must have already had your feeling that AT was going be railroaded, as nothing much happened in the ten-or-so posts between your note and the revelation that you thought AT was going to be wrongfully lynched on D1:

Yeah, absolutely, but it's not like he was going to get 7 votes without me having a chance to say something.

Okay. So you're concerned that AT is going to be wrongfully lynched

today

. Therefore you post a note to yourself to say something about AT's meta in

a few days

. But if votes should happen to pile up, you'll say something then.

If that's the case, it kinda looks like you had thought about this a bit, and had a plan. So why would you have to remind yourself to say something?

None of it makes much sense.

[MadCrawdad]

I forget things.

Maybe I didn't think it all the way through but is that really good enough grounds for a vote?

The best thing I've seen all day. Illogical/inconsistent actions frequently equals scum.

I stress again - -

-I think a stronger point was the notion of Ceph asking for a role claim from Zero when things built up -


What are thoughts on that?

IF his intentions were to push Zero to claim scum, then yes, that would be bad for the town... Regardless, if Zero is town (as Ceph believes), I don't see how Zero claiming anything would benefit anyone but the Mafia.

I still find the illogical explanation for the 'Note to Self' more damning, however.


On a side note, I'll be

V/LA for the weekend

, but it sure would be nice to hear some other voices soon.

[MadCrawdad]

Not replacement. I meant dejkha. I just assumed that's who he replaced.

Ceph, apparently you originally thought that Replacement replaced dejkha. What made you realize your error?


Mod, please prod hohum, khamisa, Corp and OccamR

[MadCrawdad]

I probably should have bolded this above...

Mod, please prod hohum, khamisa, Corp and OccamR

[MadCrawdad]

All what useless lurkers....I've only counted 8 or so this game.

[MadCrawdad]

I won't hold my breath....

[MadCrawdad]

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.[/area]

AT, what are your thoughts on OccamR's apparent role fishing from earlier on Day 1 (post 255) below?

It's the same thing. When I talk about it, you'll see why I didn't want to, I promise. I'd like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious. If everyone really insists I'll do it now. It's not as big of a deal as it appears to be, but I'd still rather save it.

Are you talking about a role ability you have?

[MadCrawdad]

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

AT, which of Ceph's posts might require clarification by asking about his role?

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad - You'll have to re-word your question for me, mate - not sure what you mean (thanks!)

Sorry if I don't get back too hasty - out and about today

Okay. Which of Ceph's posts do you think OccamR could have been asking for clarification on when he asked about Ceph's role? Also, which post of Ceph's do you think someone could have misinterpreted as a role claim?

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD -
You presented me with post 255 did you not?

*****In that post, I expressed the interpretation/impression I was left with. It could have been asking for clarification just as much as it could have been asking about roles - - it's a variable, and the circumstances (because of how early it happened) suggest it would be more than irresponsible and risky - - - it's far too reliant on interpretation.*****

Then there was Ceph's situation.

Circumstance is what made his scenario all the more substantial.

The circumstance was this:

A player with a meta of claiming scum under pressure (whether true or not) had pressure on him.

This is valuable to scum. The ingrediants to this valuable occurance is three things:

1. Pressure
2. Votes
3. Claim

Zero had 1 and 2 on him - - and in that circumstance,

mentioning

a role claim is asking for trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, it's just my opinion (and asked for, at that)

Is your question leading, or do you just disagree with the opinion?

I agree that Ceph is a better vote than OccamR. On a few occasions, though, you've pointed out that, in your opinion, you made the 'best' case on Ceph based on possible role-fishing. If that's the case, I'm trying to figure out how OccamR's possible role-fishing made it past you without a word...especially as you've decided to FoS him, since I've brought it to your attention.

I do not believe the Cephrir lynch is inevitable; his current case is poorly reasoned. And you seem very sold on the fact that a Zer0 lynch is a mislynch.

How can you say the case on Cephrir is poorly reasoned when you haven't even been able to locate the posts people have been referring to? At least familiarize yourself with the thread. A case has been made against Ceph. You can either agree or disagree, but at least know what you're talking about first.

What's poor logic is to start a sentence with 'I can't find what you're talking about, but' and then proceed to give an opinion.

[MadCrawdad]

Khamisa, who do you like for scum at this point?

[MadCrawdad]

I still don't like how Zer0ph34r voted dejkha immediately after he requested replacement; his "reasoning' could have been easily fabricated.

Why does Zero voting for dejkha seem scummy to you? Also could you please clarify what you mean by "his 'reasoning' could have been easily fabricated"?

[MadCrawdad]

The Corporation and OccamR both need to be replaced.

[MadCrawdad]

I think Seryna (the replacement for Hewitt) may need to be replaced also. She only has one post on the site, and that was back on June 1.

[MadCrawdad]

Taking over for The Corporation is pablito!!!

Current Phase: Day 1
Votes Needed for Lynch: 7

Current Vote Count


Zer0ph34r - 3 (pablito, Cephrir, hohum )
Cephrir - 3 (MadCrawdad, Alduskkel, AndyTony, ODDin)
Khamisa - 2 (Kdub, The Replacement)


Not Voting: Seryna, Khamisa, OccamR, Zer0ph34r

FYI, limited availability until Monday/Tuesday.

Also, just wanted to point out that the vote tally in the most recent count is incorrect. Based on who is voting for him, Ceph has 4 votes NOT 3.

Pablito's vote then puts him at L-2 with 5 votes.

[MadCrawdad]

Vote: Zer0ph34r

Since I don't believe in the Ceph case, I going to go with what I think is the best lead so far.

Khamisa, why did it take so long for this to happen? Based on your reasoning, you could have done this a month ago, right?

[MadCrawdad]

Ugh...

The Replacement and MadCrawdad haven't posted since my last post and neither picked up their prods either. Looks like I'll have to do some more replacement-hunting.

I'm still here, and will try to be more active.

V/LA indeedy.

I read in iso to see if any of the big wagons were worth my vote. I must say that I don't like hohum's vote on Cephir in PS 617/618. It reads like a joke-vote, which is far from appropriate since Cephir claims it was L-1.

FoS: hohum
Major FoS: khamisa

Zer0 says that dejkha is his brother, but you (khamisa) are making it out to seem like some weak bussing technique made by a frustrated scum. I'd be more willing to believe the RL brother claim than your theory.

I won't be voting today because I've only read pages 25-27, and some iso.

@Kise

Now that you've informed us about your sexuality, and have begun questioning Khamisa about some of her more recent posts, is it safe to say that you're all caught up in reading pages 1-24 of the game? If so, what are your thoughts?

[MadCrawdad]

When you get a chance, try to do a more thorough read through and answer some of the questions you yourself are asking/give opinions.

It would be the difference between me seeing you as a new comer trying to contribute and calibrate to us/ and a new coming scum trying to appear town and establish an instructor/leadership role.

Be sure to give a thorough read and ask us anything that needs clarification when you let us know your thoughts on the cases/presented suspicions. Happy to help.

Welcome to the party!

@AT

Why would you give Kise any instruction on how to avoid your scumdar? Wouldn't it make more sense to see how he performed first, and then go from there?

[MadCrawdad]

Can I join?

post in the new player thread that you're interested in joining a game...
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11148

[MadCrawdad]

MCD - - I don't regard it as instructing someone to avoid my scumdar at all, I regard it as keeping them away from a mislynch at my hand. In my last game, there were multiple incidents of people not considering their actions fully, and rightfully striking me as scum - - My weakness on this site is "tunnel vision" and I don't want to risk it in this game.

So then obviously you would consider Kise scummy if he were to conduct a crappy review of the game, right?

ANY scumtell can lead to a mislynch. Personally, thought, I'd still prefer that players throw those tells, and then let me sort through the information myself. Mislynches are bad, but scumtells can be good.

Telling someone 'Hey, don't do that, or I may think you're scummy...' is kind of an odd way to go about catching scum, isn't it?


Additionally, I'm still comfortable with my vote on Ceph...

[MadCrawdad]

I don't see how you guys can say I was being over defensive. hohum voted for me, I defended. That's not over defensiveness, that's a natural reaction to being voted for.

You defended against what? It was a single vote on you. Given the fact that no real reason was given by hohum, nobody else was likely to even follow, right? Why even worry about it?

hohum, you still haven't justified your vote for me.

Admittedly you weren't just looking for a reason out of curiosity, but because you felt the need to defend yourself. Why? Once again, it was a single vote that nobody was likely to follow.

[MadCrawdad]

@AT

In looking back at D1, something that I found interesting is how many separate times you pointed out that you had the ‘best’ reason for voting for Ceph.

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment regarding Ceph's "Note to self"

Perhaps he indeed had special knowledge that I would be alive in days to come - the same knowledge scum would have if he chose to keep me alive until he could later point at me and say "meta!"

That's not as weak as what I feel he did most recently, though.

He asked Zero to claim - - Zero had a bit of pressure against him, he was in the spotlight, he even got a little snappy at us - - asking him to claim was fishing for one of those "meta scum claims" - and that earns:

FoS: Ceph

For asking Zero to claim

EBWOP
What's not as weak*

Here above, you mention that you think Ceph’s desire for Zero to claim is scummier (ie, not as weak) than the ‘note to self’.

I stress again - -

-I think a stronger point was the notion of Ceph asking for a role claim from Zero when things built up -


What are thoughts on that?

Here again, Ceph’s request was scummier than ‘note to self’.

Ceph, stating that "Rolefishing is stretching it and we know it" isn't going to erase any opinions.

I think everyone is primarily voting you over the note to self. I know my reason is for the circumstance by which you tried to coax Zero into digging his own grave with a role claim.

Your defenses can't be limited to "It's not that way and you know it", emotional appeals, ignorance, or throwing in the towel.

I'm more than happy to hear anything that will broaden all our scopes on the situation - - I only express wanting them to be more substantial

Again, you’re not voting based on Ceph’s ‘note to self,’ but on his request for Zero to claim.

Sorry, guys, I had limited access when I came to the site and saw a prod was sent - I quickly posted that I was in the game still but only had a chance to sit and read now.

- - I feel that Ceph's gameplay has been questionable, ansy, and scummy (all in that order).

Questionable ........
He displayed willingness to please the town when it came to being for or against me out of the RVS - - there were grr's and Arg's going my way, and he joined in (yet remindedhimself infront of us to later point out I might be town?) seems like he commited to being for or against me based on majority opinions - - - People pleasing always strikes me as suspicious, and planting reminders like that seems like a attempt to suggest to the town that you're a hard at work towny playing his cards close to his chest

These things were only enough to raise an eyebrow and are interpretive - it's unfair to vote for that, so I remained suspicious.

Ansy............
His defence was very full throttle and was at a level of desparation that I've only seen in L-1 suspects later in the days (I don't mean desperate in a negative way, I mean "heated, more so). It seemed suspicious, like nervous scum REALLY not wanting negative attention so early

Who would, though? - only enough to be a tad more suspicious.

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.

Here again (above), you’re claiming your reason for voting Ceph was the best.

@Ceph -
They were wrong to lynch you for that - - what you did was a Wiki recognized tactic that attempts to lure scum out to an obviously easy wagon - - it's like a third party "Slayers Gambit" by turning someone into bait.

I feel the two instances (that one and this one) are different.

As you know, my only issue is with mentioning the claim at an extremely sensitive time in the game within circumstances that would have hurt the town.

The "Note to self"? - - I'm gonna make my final statement on that after some thought until this moment and say that: No. It was not scummy.

It's only scummy for you to have held out on an opinion on a player being SCUM.

You held off on stating that you felt someone was TOWN - - that would only be scummy if the person was near lynch which was not the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**I have to agree in general that we should wait for the replacements**

I'm trying to remain active as much as anyone else, but there's a lot we can learn from the people being replaced in, and one of the beauties of this game is that it doesn't press us for time

I'm happy to keep waiting, but my vote stays on Ceph.

Now here you make your

final statement

on Ceph’s ‘note to self,’ and declare it’s not scummy. Okay…. But who even asked? Obviously in the game all opinions are welcomed/discussed, but you’ve really gone above and beyond to differentiate yourself from most of the others on Ceph. Really going out of your way to cover your ass

before

the Ceph lynch. It seems really odd. Making this point over and over again might make more sense

after

the Ceph lynch IMO. Don’t you agree?

Also, if the ‘note to self’ was such a crummy reason for a vote (ie, not scummy, as you said), didn’t that make you at all uncomfortable in pushing for Ceph’s lynch? After all, according to you, you were standing all alone with the

real

reason to vote.

Additionally, you seemed a little inconsistent on D1. I haven’t pulled all the posts, but

1. In the most recent post above you point out that we should wait for replacements to proceed, and point out that the beauty of the game is that we’re not pressed for time. Even go on to say that you’re ‘happy to keep waiting.’ A little later, though, you request the deadline be shortened.

2. Early on D1 you discuss at length how Zero needs to be approached differently (without applying pressure willy nilly), and you’re then the first one jumping on and voting him for apparently carelessly voting for Dejkha.

3. Also early on in D1 you’re the one advocating diplomacy, but end the day continually calling hohum ‘ignorant’.

What’s up with that?

[MadCrawdad]

I thought about unvoting, but really I can't be arsed.

Why did you think about unvoting, Pablito? Why couldn't you be arsed? How hard is it to type the word 'unvote'?

[MadCrawdad]

I can't really [at this point] think of why a no lynch would be a good idea.

Zero, when Ceph was at L-1 you posted this. If this was your thought, why didn't you hammer? On top of that why didn't you vote for anyone at all? Day 1 was certainly long enough to have some suspicions of your own.

[MadCrawdad]

MCD -

The restating of my case was to keep it fresh in mind.
I repeated that having a case based on the note to self was poor/weaker choice (and it wasn't out of the blue - in between where you quoted me, people were talking as well, and suggested they felt the Ceph case was the note to self.

If you found it odd, why say nothing then? Why save it for the next day when it's way after, and people are looking for a new suspect?

Fine. Restate your case as much as you'd like...but to continually be going on with the 'my case is the most concrete' is odd. Could be viewed as a preemptive defense in the event Ceph's lynch were to go south.

As far as calling you on your actions, I chose to ask you about them today.

After

Ceph's role had been revealed.

Inconsistent? There have been different circumstances when waiting was more appropriate, and other times when it was best to get moving/active.

I always explained my reasoning/it was suggested in the topics discussed around each quote.

Why not point things like that out when they happen? Cricumstances changed as often as my statements to wait/get active? It surely happened ealier than the top of the new day

I'm 100% for diplomacy and civility. It is, however, a two way street. hohum's rationalization, attitude, and gameplay is potentially harmful to this town. He was being ignorant, and I acknowledged that.

Me "jumping on Zero" first?

This is something irrelevent for today unless you've forgotten that you not only asked it already when it happened, but I explained that I did NOT show malice of "jump down his throat" - my actions were explained.

Something that I noticed, is that your early game was very theory-heavy. So yeah, these 'inconsistencies' are interesting. They can possibly reveal whether your theories were just hot air to fill space in the thread, or whether you really believe what you wrote. So the fact you went from:

Calculation--Prosperity--Prosperity for town (post 140) to throwing a quick vote on Zero (post 337) is inconsistent, regardless of the fact that it was asked and answered.

You say that it's irrelevant, as it was already asked and answered. Nothing that happened on D1 is irrelevant. As more information becomes known on subsequent days, past actions (regardless of whether they were already asked about) remain relevant in helping put the puzzle together.

[MadCrawdad]

MCD

You admit you intentionally held off on mentioning any concerns until after Ceph's allignment was revealed to all of us.

Is there a reason you wanted to wait opportunistically? Did you have information the rest of us did not, that made you know for certain he was innocent? (otherwise, all your points would have been useless had he flipped scum, no?)

I am always confident in my choices. There is always room for doubt, and often different ways to regard every circumstance.

My confidence in my case was just and reasonable. If there was indeed a better case than Ceph's, or a more reasonable/stronger one - can you please enlighten us as to what that case was?

And my position on theory within gameplay hasn't changed at all during this game. You once again poke at the "quickvote" on Zero.

Please do another re-read where I more than once explain my vote on him, and illustrate the logic behind it - - - I'll not do your job for you

Misrepresenting that old and null scenario once after being told about it's nature is one thing, but needing clarification three times is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fos - MCD

I'm truly taken aback and disappointed. I had been genuinely looking forward to your input, only to see it unfold as seemingly scummy, opportunistic implications.

1. It seems scummy to have held back issues to be brought up, and questions to be asked until AFTER Ceph flipped. All of your points would have been worthless had he been scum - - - this suggests you had special knowledge of his allingment at the time you decided to withold content, queries, etc. Scum would have known for certain he was innocent, no?

2. It seems rather opportunistic to be defending Ceph the day after his lynch. Why did this defense not come sooner? Would it have made today's offense weaker for you?

3. I find the whole event rather opportunistic on your part. I was confident in my vote, I was clear on my reasons, and I've maintained a willingness to explain my actions upon request. In other words, I haven't made it hard for people to know where I'm coming from/what I'm doing.

Opportunistic? Right. How am I defending Ceph? I felt really good that he was likely scum. Just because he flipped town and I was helping push his wagon doesn't mean I can't examine the wagon, though.

Note that I'm not questioning your reason for voting Ceph, just the fact that you seemed intent on continually pointing out that yours was the

best

reason, and seemingly tearing down the 'note to self. Looked like you might want to distance yourself from the note voters for some reason.

As far as me waiting to mention anything, it was just a 'Hmmm?' at the time, versus being a concern, as I felt Ceph was a good candidate for scum. Now that Ceph's alignment is known, it's become a little more interesting to me.

How do you think we should play D2? Just start fresh and disregard anything that happened on D1?

[MadCrawdad]

AT, it's possible that I was unclear. I said that your actions only got a 'Hmmm' from me before Ceph flipped town. I find them more interesting now. That being said, you are correct in saying that I am not willing to vote, yet. It's still early in the day, and I'd like to hear lots more discussion first.

As far as questions being 'delayed, and in a scummy way no less', how? I suspect that most players have thoughts on other players that go unmentioned until events unfold.

[MadCrawdad]

I'm going to have to side with AndyTony on this one. He's been very verbal and very upfront about all of his decisions and actions. It seems very opportunistic for three people to simultaneously jump on him.
What about the Khamisa question? Would it be too scummy for the three of you to pick up that case considering she's not here to get boxed in by your ignorance?
I think you should refocus your efforts on some of the quieter players who just gliding along, like pablito...and whatever happened to Kise?

So what are your thoughts on how to handle D2? Seriously.

In your few short posts on D2 so far, you've twice called out other players for not posting, and continued to mention Khamisa (who is never here). Is is your plan just to wait for Khamisa to show up, or might it be a good idea to dig a little elsewhere in the meantime?

If you really want to talk to Khamisa, why are you withholding your vote until you hear from her? A little pressure may bring her around more frequently.

[MadCrawdad]

@AT

In being accused of an OMGUS reaction to my questions, you've gone on to explain why your reaction couldn't have been OMGUS... 1) No votes were involved, and 2) You gave reasons for your suspicion. Okay.

Further below I've included an interaction between yourself and Pitstop. During the interaction you accuse Pitstop of an OMGUS reaction several times.

Based on your current defintion of OMGUS, can you explain why Pitstop's reaction was OMGUS? A main crux of your OMGUS defense has been that no votes were even cast, yet with your Pitstop interaction, no votes were cast and you still accused him of OMGUS.

(AT OMGUS Definition)

1. There is

no

OMGUS. OMGUS is person A votes person B, to which person B responds with an assault on the other person wiht

no other means or evidence other than the retaliation to being voted

. - I've had no OMGUS actions, and made nothing but

valid

poins in my observations toward hohum.

What's the case and what are my crimes?

-OMGUS (you seem to suspect anyone who comes even remotely close to attacking you)
-What MCD said about you constantly reminding us that your case on Cephrir is the best case.
-Trying to shorten the deadline.

1.

- OMGUS - - please show me being voted, and retaliating to that person with NO logic, quotation, or valid suspision, or stop using the phrase all together. Are you suggesting I'm interrogating, and challenging people for NO reason, or do you truly ignore my posts?

When it is for NO reason other than THEIR act against me, and I DON'T spell out for you all WHY I suspect people - then say OMGUS - - - -

So try again.

2.

Saying my case on Ceph was strong is a reason you're voting me? - -
are you aware you were on that wagon?
are you aware that when I outined it in that massive post, you responded with "What AT said"?

That's a MENTAL reason to be voting me - I'm truly disappointed

3.

Trying to shorten the deadline?
You didn't want three weeks either!
Did you also miss the mass post where I explain my mentality on shortening it and why it would be inaccurate to label it scummy?

That post is there - - maybe you missed it when you were "Reviewing the thread"
---------------------------------

So you've reviewed the thread.

1. Omgus (

False

. I've given

valid reasons and explanations

for my suspicions at all times)

2. My Ceph case (

False

.

You supported it, was on the wagon, and even "What AT said" when I mass posted about the case

. You supported it and was on the same page, hypocrite - - - and please, enlighten me - - even though you're now against it, and were on the wagon,

WAS there a stronger case?

)

3. Deadline shorter? (

False

. if you really did "Review the thread" - you would have seen my

explanation and fair mentality

(somewhere after you were also on the same page about not wanting a longer day. Re-read it and see how I felt more time could

also benefit not only scum, but misguided townies

looking to end the tedious day with ANY lynch - - that's irresponsible to me)

Really a hell of a case Alduskkel.


------------------------------------------

And for everyone's benefit.

OMGUS :

A

: Vote: "B", you were very scummy for these three points (

1,2,3,

)

B

: Vote "A" - - Oh my God, you suck! You're going down, scum.

Not OMGUS (what I'm doing):

A

: I suspect/Vote: "B".

B

: Well you yourself don't look any better in light of these three poins (listed)

I'm not even VOTING!

All my suspicions and queries are SUPPORTED and not out of thin air.

---------------

(Pitstop/AT Interaction)

Btw, I tend to get lazy and not make a lot of posts so I wouldn't look into that too much for those of you who were stating that I should be doing things ASAP.

I'm just never interested in games on this site because everybody is too damn serious, yet I still sign up and treck my way through the best I can.

But yeh, I might post some stuff later

@Dejkha - Pitstop's meta shows that when he gets active, he never misses more than a day for the most part.

Do you feel the above quote is an honest statement about the player's schedule, or an attempt to diffuse suspicion of lurking - to get away with it.

For the sake of variety in conversation

Critical? I apologize if you feel likeI'm coming down on you, but you have to understand my position - - you just played catch up, and in your most recent posts, tried to do so while pointing an incredulous finger at me.

I haven't made any solid decision on anyone yet, nor have I voted seriously - - which means everything is an opinion/thought of mine, yes? I feel like you're interested in having a head a tete over difference of opinions.

If something is unclear - just ask - don't tell me youre pretty sure it's wrong - I'm more than happy to discuss with you.

A tad bit of lurking going on from at least four players - how's everyone doing? lol

K, well I can understand why you haven't voted seriously since it's so early, but what good will it do us if everything you post is just a thought? It's great that you're letting us know everything that's on your mind, but at the end of the day, I don't think it's going to get Mafia lynched so we need a different approach than just posting our opinions.

I'm also looking at you as scum due to Post 166 where you actually considered me lying about being busy and lazy and lurking. Personally, I think that would be an absolutely pathetic scum tactic to attempt, and considering it is even funnier.

If you want a detailed explanation, I'm currently hosting a Mafia game on another site, am starting an Amazing Race game tomorrow, have school everyday from about 7am-4pm, music lessons and music groups, plus I would like to include a social life. Maybe I shouldn't have signed up with so much on the go but I'm doing the best I can.

Btw, the above paragraph isn't for you to empathize or sympathize or whatever you may take it because AndyTony will probably think I'm pulling out the sympathy card to not get lynched. It's just the truth, but this is a Mafia game so believing things is something done cautiously.

Notice how your

former definition of OMGUS

is applied a little more loosely to other players here.

I'm also looking at you as scum due to Post 166 where you actually considered me lying about being busy and lazy and lurking.

Personally, I think that would be an absolutely pathetic scum tactic to attempt, and considering it is even funnier.

I offered some food for thought to change the subject we were on - -

You just said you want to consider me scum for innocently questioning you.

That's dangerously close to

omgus - - "I suspect you for thinking I'm suspicious"

- are you serious?

Also - sharing my thoughts and observations can lead to others helping to contribute and point things out and help me past mental blocks - it's teamwork and a safer method than "forget sharing thoughts and ideas, lets toss a vote and see if it sticks"

I'm very unsettled at your omgus reaction to an innocent question - I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

I only mentioned it because it was worth conversation - - I typed such at the bottome of my post - - and though

Pitstop says the omgus attitude is actually a build up

, I can only hope it gets pointed elsewhere next time around, because I'm usually apt to respecting someone's schedule!! lol

The fact is, with you simply stating your opinions, you may be feeding info into our heads that we don't need. Doing this without actually voting is a lot safer for scum because stating different opinions is nowhere near as scummy as changing votes and jumping on bandwagons.

the point of the opinions are to be regarded and you yourself choose whether to disregard or not - - it's healthy.

as I tried to illustrate when I unvoted earlier (to get out of RVS) - this is not the time to vote, not enough has happened - so of course thoughts and discussion will occur.

[MadCrawdad]

@Khamisa

I'm here

No kill means jailkeeper was successful or mafia didn't kill. Not going to delve into the folds of OMGUS there.

I think Kdub's case on AndyTony is a bit weak.

Whoever mentioned that we look for relationships with Cephrir: IMO, that seems pointless: he's town, so what would any relationships mean?

Zer0: I promise I was honestly V/LA, lying about it just goes against the boundaries of fairness. Speaking of which

Sorry again, but I will be V/LA M-F this upcoming week. But that's it for big chunks of V/LA!

I would agree with you on Kdub's case on AT being weak....especially since I don't believe that he even made one. As a matter of fact he said he thought AT was town at this point.

FoS: Khamisa

--------------

@AT

MCD -

In your quotations on OMGUS, in your large post, you'll notice the first time it's even

mentioned

that I don't flat out call it such.

I introduce it into the conversation, first, as

"Dangerously close to OMGUS "I suspect you for suspecting me" are you serious?"

The entire event was a discussion of behavior and

not evidence for a case

You do say, at first, 'dangerously close,' but then proceed to just use OMGUS in mentions that follow.

As far as being a discussion of behavior, and not evidence for a case, what did you find 'unsettling' about Pitstop's behavior?

I'm very unsettled at your omgus reaction to an innocent question - I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

-----

@MCD
- Please show me where I Fos/Vote someone for "OMGUS"
- Can you elaborate on what your

point

is? I'm having trouble seeing what was accomplished by going that far back and having nothing to show for it. Were you leading somewhere?
- Post 892 proves that my personal definition (in relation to the wiki) of OMGUS holds true. I was not voted or voting.

You didn't FoS/Vote, but IMO a vote need not be present for OMGUS. As far as leading somewhere, yeah... Once again, I find your behavior inconsistent. You use a loose definition of OMGUS when you accuse Pitstop, and then greatly tighten your definition when defending yourself.

That being said.

Do you

really

care about this topic, or are you scratching at the bottom of the barrel? Because after a fruitless large post like that about justice to OMGUS, what are your thoughts on Alduskkel and hohum (the few people who tried to use it in a case as evidence).

Do I care? Yes. Do I think you're scum? I don't know. I do want answers to questions, though.

FYI, I've begun rereading the game from the beginning, so to your dismay, I may be asking various folks about older events from D1...which apparently are all now irrelavant to you, seeing we're on D2. Get used to it.

As far as hohum and Alduskkel, hohum was on you first for reasons I don't really understand, and Alduskkel was quick to move, which makes me wary. Doesn't mean that I'm not going to continue to ask questions of you, though.

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD - I will find time to answer your questions regarding clarification with Pitstop - - you're asking me what put me off about her?

I will find time to answer tomorrow night or later - - but I do not want to find out this is yet another thing you're having me repeat. I'm sure I've already explained this once before.

Nope. You haven't explained it once before.

The fact that you've very quickly gone from asking (and apparently valuing) my opinion to trying to paint me as simply repetitive, when questioning you, has been noted. I'm thinking that I'm on to something here...

[MadCrawdad]

ABWOP:

@MCD - I will find time to answer your questions regarding clarification with Pitstop - - you're asking me what put me off about her?

Just to clarify what I'm looking for, AT...

You claim that you didn't really accuse Pitstop of OMGUS, and that in your interaction you were just discussing his behavior and not really building a case, right? So when you said this to Pitstop, below, what made you so

very unsettled

? For something that you say you didn't really consider an OMGUS, and were just discussing, it apparently left you a little shaken. Why?

I'm very unsettled at your omgus reaction to an innocent question - I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

[MadCrawdad]

You just said

you want to consider me scum

for innocently questioning you

. That's

dangerously close to omgus

- -

"I suspect you for thinking I'm suspicious" - are you serious?

..............

I'm very unsettled at your [/u]omgus reaction to an innocent question[/u]

- I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

MCD - -

In the very post in quesiton, I indeed answer the question you're asking me, so either you didn't see it (unlikely), you're playing a game (scummy), or you're wasting our time.

Since you're apparently not getting the gist of the question, let's try it this way... In response to an earlier question, you claim that you didn't really accuse Pitstop of OMGUS and weren't necessarily building a case. So being 'really unsettled' is kind of a strong reaction to something that was only

almost

OMGUS, and something you were just talking about over the hedges, isn't it?

We all know what omgus behavior is - - I've displayed none of it.

I've been accused by hohum and Alduskkel of genuine acts of omgus - - I've displayed none of that either (with no votes)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing I have done is omgus.

It can only be omgus if I say I suspect someone simply because they suspect me.

So are you now dropping the FoS/Voting requirement from your definition of OMGUS?

In the meantime, have we really no other leads, or has the attempt to use me as a distraction been successful? (unless of course there's finally evidence on me, and not empty suspicions, invalid accusations of omgus, and suspicious fingers pointed at me by followers).

My week is freeing up more and more every day. With calculation, intellect, and unbias/objective regard (that one has been void today) - - I'll have more to offer than this sad excuse for a case on me.

I'm certainly willing to listen, and am interested in seeing who you like for scum, in addition to just those currently looking at you.

*And to answer the other question - - absolutely. I did value MCD's opinion. Until he and others degraded the sanctity of what I thought was an understanding about hunting scum vs. manufacturin cases. I'm truly disappointed, I was excited when I thought we were all on the same page.

Back to Pablito's earlier post. Disappointment is kind of a strange emotion to drive an FoS, isn't it?

At this point, it's a desperate attempt to make me fit the bill, and try to look at things in whichever scope one can to TRY and see me as scummy.

Scum evidence sticks a lot better than thin manufactured accusations.

Manufacturing cases like this only lead to mislynches. Hunting and tangable discoveries are more valuable. *

I disagree. If anything, your put-on display of exasperation is making you appear to be the desperate one.

[MadCrawdad]

Since you're apparently not getting the gist of the question, let's try it this way...

MCD

Nice tone...

And your question? Take another look at it.

You claim that you didn't really accuse Pitstop of OMGUS,

and that in your interaction you were

just discussing his behavior and not really building a case

, right? So when you said this to Pitstop, below,

what made you so

very unsettled

?

For something that you say you didn't really consider an OMGUS, and were just discussing, it apparently left you a little shaken. Why?

I'm very unsettled

at your omgus

reaction

to an innocent question

- I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

1. I did not build a case on Pitstop.
2. Having no vote on him. Having no case on her. I also NEVER stated she had exercised "OMGUS"
3. I had a disussion about her being dangerously close to omgus behavior.

I not only introduced it in that post as not omgus, but omgus behavior - - I also continue to call it such throughout the game (check post 179 for instance)

I only mentioned it because it was worth conversation - - I typed such at the bottom of my post - - and though

Pitstop says the

omgus attitude

is actually a build up, I can only hope it gets pointed elsewhere next time around, because I'm usually apt to respecting someone's schedule!! lol

So what the heck then is 'dangerously close' to OMGUS? Did you think that Pitstop almost voted for you? And what's the difference between OMGUS and OMGUS behavior?

You asked why I was unsettled
I had already stated why I was unsettled
You suggest I had a case on Pitstop?
I had not such case on Pitstop.

My definition of omgus hasn't changed. I know what omgus is, and make it very clear that I have done no such thing. hohum and alduskkel had wanted to connect me to it.

I have also in this game, early, with pitstop, made mention of omgus behavior - - I haven't been accused of that either.

In fact, nothing I've done has been omgus. I've had a reason applied to all of my suspicions.

Can you explaine why in light of that, you're still obsessed with that topic?

I'm not obsessed with whether or not you committed OMGUS. I'm obsessed with the fact that your definition of OMGUS seemed to change when accusing Pitstop vs. defending yourself. It seems a little convenient, and somewhat inconsistent.

@ MCD

There seems to be a lot of tunnelling coming my way from you, with very little evidence. Can you explain that?

Tunnelling is "case manufacturing"'s best friend.

@ MCD -

- Do expalin your tunnelling (please)

- And to refresh this in our midns so I better know where you're coming from:

Any tunnelling, on my part, is unintentional. If you could take as much time to answer a simple question, as you do to feign exasperation and/or flick scum, things would probably move along more swimmingly.

Can you list once again any evidence or valid suspicions on me from you?

Right. And then you can say, 'You've already said that!'

It basically boils down to your repeated 'I've got the best case' and the multiple inconsistencies that I've already pointed out.

Based on that, let's say that you're a person of great interest to me, at this point. I'm certainly not willing to lynch you, yet. Your emotional responses (at least IMO) to any of the questions I've posed to you on D2 is quite interesting, though.

Also, I've seen your suspects from post 910. Okay.
What happened to your earlier plan on how you would find scum on D2?

I think your approach was a little more than "hm", MCD - but I understand the frustration of establishing a new day's lead.

As far as an approach is concerned:

I'd like to re-examine the people who contributed nothing to the wagon except a vote. The people who hid under the safety of just agreeing with the active player's.

I'd like to take a closer look at people who had my confidence, with no process. I want to see who hunted a lynch and not scum.

And I would also like to hear from everyone else.

That's how my D2 would go.

[MadCrawdad]

Any thoughts on anything, Zero? Early in D1 you claimed that you generally don't post much on D1. It's D2 now, and it would be nice to hear more from you (other than just when people are talking to/about you).

What are your thoughts on the interaction between myself and AT?

[MadCrawdad]

******
To finalize. Better said than lurking - I feel you have less to say, and no steam or drive to investigate or do anything when you are not agreeing with people (buddy buddy) or changing your mind (hypocritical, as we've now come to the same understanding).
******

Vote: Aldukkel
Fos:MCD

Whether you only realized it was hypocritical because "it needed to be pointed out to you" as you say or not, I feel that voting you is the best choice right now.

I'm happy to hear you out, I'm happy to better undertand. That's the fairness that should be given in the game, but surely you can see my hands being tied when you won't even make the effort (too much time??).

When you HAVE the time, please clear up what you can.

I feel the vote on you will inspire you to TAKE the time you feel isn't here to participate, think for yourself, and defend these scumtells. I want you to know I'm serious about this Al.

I hope you hustle.

I am feeling more confident that MCD is scum for his tunnelling. though, you could be his partner

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Hypocrisy
-Buddying
-Anti-town ignorance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do more than point and go "what he said".

*You've been asked to in detail/point form list what you agreed with (and ideally what you had to bring to the table) in the "case" against me.*

Please list what you agreed with. Why. And whether you still agree.

I don't think you truly know what's going on lol - - I'm sorry if that comes across as a slur, it's not, but I feel there are no points or evidence on me, and your inability to list them and simply point to the leader that's investigating me only proves it further.

It seems scummy you would agree with thins you can't name.

AT, I'm confused. You say that you're feeling confident that I'm scum, and Al could be my parnter. Okay. So why the vote for Al and only another FoS for me? Seems to me if you really believed your statement, that you'd have that reversed (ie, vote for me & FoS for Al).

[MadCrawdad]

And on that note guys, I'll be honest and admit that I still have not read the entire thread. I went on V/LA at the end of last month and when I came back, there were just too many pages. With that said, I currently have been going off of D2's activity, and here & there I will iso read anyone who antagonized Cephir (those on his wagon).

If anyone thinks there is something important from D1 that I should go back and check up on, let me know. Otherwise... 36+ pages is a shitload to read and as you can imagine, I really don't have the motivation to look through it all, especially considering I may not live long. So again, if there is anything something would like me to look at, point it out and I'll have a looksie.

Then how can you possibly be tunneling on Khamisa from D1, as you claim, when now you mention that you haven't even really read through D1?

[MadCrawdad]

@AT

I found something else interesting while re-reading the thread, and am hoping you can clarify...

If you remember back to D1, after you claimed that you had the most concrete case on Ceph based on possible role-fishing, I asked you why you hadn't called OccamR on his possible role-fishing (when Ceph was being pressured about the 'Note to Self')

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.[/area]

AT, what are your thoughts on OccamR's apparent role fishing from earlier on Day 1 (post 255) below?

It's the same thing. When I talk about it, you'll see why I didn't want to, I promise. I'd like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious. If everyone really insists I'll do it now. It's not as big of a deal as it appears to be, but I'd still rather save it.

Are you talking about a role ability you have?

In your response to me you mention that it was hard to tell whether OccamR was role-fishing or seeking clarification whether Ceph had claimed. You then go ahead and FoS OccamR for possible role-fishing.

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

In my response to a question of yours, I mention that I thought it was odd since you found role-fishing to be such 'concrete' evidence for a vote, that you apparently missed OccamR's possible attempt.

I agree that Ceph is a better vote than OccamR. On a few occasions, though, you've pointed out that, in your opinion, you made the 'best' case on Ceph based on possible role-fishing. If that's the case, I'm trying to figure out how OccamR's possible role-fishing made it past you without a word...especially as you've decided to FoS him, since I've brought it to your attention.

In response, you mention that you hadn't really been paying attention, early on, but when brought to your attention that you were certainly interested.

@MCD

It's exactly that - - This game had been moving rather slow and I hadn't given earlier posts proper attention until you pointed that out to me. I didn't miss the post/not read it and then make an opinion on it like Khamisa, but I certainly had an opinion (with the FOS) when you brought it to my attention parallel to Ceph's situation.

But yeah, in light of both, those are my feelings.

So now, on to my questions...

Here's the post where OccamR appears to be possibly role fishing. Ceph is under a lot of pressure at this point to divulge the meaning behind the 'Note to Self,' when OccamR asks if the Note is regarding any role ability of Ceph's.

It's the same thing. When I talk about it, you'll see why I didn't want to, I promise. I'd like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious. If everyone really insists I'll do it now. It's not as big of a deal as it appears to be, but I'd still rather save it.

Are you talking about a role ability you have?

You

then respond to OccamR by saying that 'if it were a role, you would definitely want to know.

If it were a role, that would constitute a big deal, so I definitely want to know.

Ceph, what's the big idea/secret?

A few questions:

1. If it actually were a role that Ceph were talking about, why would you want to know? He probably wouldn't be claiming Scum or VT.
2. Obviously, in hindsight, you thought OccamR's post was possibly scummy. What about your response?
3. How is your interest in Ceph's role different than his in Zero's?

[MadCrawdad]

AT, the post numbers are as follows (in the order they appeared):

470
471
502
503
255
256

As far as indicating OccamR's post might be scummy, you FoSed him in post 471. You don't just hand those out to anyone, do you?

Regarding your statement, "Someone suggesting that they have special knowledge on D1 as a result of a power role is suspicious and nothing but scummy (seeing as it would take one night for them to gain intel as a pro town power role). Hence, I would want to "know" as in I would want concrete clarification that it was NOT the situation we were dealing with. "

As Ceph NEVER mentioned anything about his role, wouldn't that be a topic better left untouched at that point?

[MadCrawdad]

As requested, AT. Reasons for suspicion:

-Continuous claim that you had the most concrete case on Ceph. Could be a possible preemptive defense for when Ceph flipped town.
-Post 728 - Instruct Kise how to conduct his review of the game to avoid appearing scummy to you. Regardless of the fact that you're preemptively afraid of tunneling Kise, letting him throw any tells would seem like a better scum hunting strategy to me than telling him not to.

Multiple inconsistencies:

Post 256 - You expressed an interest in knowing Ceph's role.

Post 457 - You vote for Ceph for wanting to know Zero's role.

Post 140 - Mention that due to Zero's meta, folks should be careful about applying pressure willy-nilly. Calculation--Intelligence--Prosperity for town.
Post 144 - Claim that there are other ways to catch scum than just by applying pressure.

Post 337 - You immediately cast a vote for Zero three minutes after he votes for Dejkha without reason. Note that you don't ask any questions first, just fire off your vote and then proceed to ask questions.

Post 528 - Agree that we should wait for replacements before proceeding with lynch. Also claim that the beauty of the game is that it doesn't press us for time. You then go on to mention that you're happy to keep waiting.

Post 734 - You request a shorter deadline to 'jump start' things.

Post 179 - You claim to be an advocate of diplomacy
Post 773 - You ask hohum to stop being hypocritical and aggressive toward Alduskkel. Also claim that 'people are more than happy to be civil.'

Post 773 - You begin referring to hohum as 'ignorant' (and continue in following posts). Not very diplomatic or civil.

For me, the inconsistencies come down to whether you believe what you say, or are just filling space in the thread. The fact that you don't practice what you preach is suspicious.

FoS: AndyTony

[MadCrawdad]

I've also been carefully watching the interaction betwee AT and Alduskkel (dejkha's replacement). On my reread, I came across something interesting. As I felt it was very speculative at the time, I didn't plan on mentioning it until later. However, as two other players (Zero, hohum) have brought up an AT/Alduskkel pairing, now may be a good time.

This was from pretty early on D1, between AT & dejkha (Al's predecessor)

Here, AndyTony is saying something. What he's saying isn't necessarily important, though.

Just as a homicide detective doesn't see the forest from the trees and looks at a crime scene as "how can this be homicide",

I'm suggesting that in the process of sifting - one might fall into the (more than understandable) trappings of:

"How can this be scumm"

rather than

"This is scummy more so than innocent"

That's where the difference between hunting scum, and hunting lynches fall.

And I feel the mind of someone who utility lynches relies heavily on those trappings. It's unsafe for town (and a rather unfortunate thing none of us can help at time! Doesn't mean we don't try)

Afterward dejkha posts, and references AT's post. However,

note that he refers to AT as AA

... As we all know now, AA23 is AndyTony's alt identity who, later, accidently posted in the thread. Pay attention, though, that AA23 hadn't posted in the thread yet, when dejkha made the reference.

AA wrapped it up pretty nicely though =P

Now here is AT's slip, where he accidently posts as AA23.

ODDin - means a lot that we're at an understanding, I feel the exact same way - - the distinction I was trying to draw is that we shuld be cognizant of when it goes from something valid to discuss to some sort of plan, you know?

Dej - Because his meta states that he has claimed scum when he was, and was not such means that we cannot trust he is or is not - Hence we shouldn't just plan to lynch him willy nilly in the event of such.

Whe at I was suggesting is that we take it a step back from his meta on claiming and see if there is a consistency (unlike the consistency in honesty with his claims)

The consistency is that he claims when pressured by ignorance. Now - based on his meta, we can feel (hopefully) comfortable that none of us will be ignorant, and don't have to get worked up. (simply: the reason he claims in his meta are all the same, the outcomes were all different (his role) - so to use meta in its useful way, we can rightfully conclude that a suicide claim from him is preventable and forseeable (sp?) - )

Zero - - A lot of players get frustrated at other's ignorance because they buckle under pressure and have trouble articulating their thoughts -- we're not here to babysit your feelings if we're not getting you logic but I for one can relate to said frustration and won't be so ignorant.


Now there's about 4/5 people who have posted little to nothing as of yet.

Looks like we're moving out of the RVS, so I will

Unvote

for now.

What made you feel we were officially out? (I'm not being sarcastic)

AT catches his mistake here, and acknowledges that he is actually AA23.

Everyone, I have an alt I use for personal reasons and occasionally forget to sign out of it - I'll keep on top of it.

Dejkha says 'You're AA?'

But dejkha already referred to him as AA earlier.

You're AA? I thought he looked a little shady >_>

Well, now that I think of it, we wouldn't have to lynch him right away, but if he claimed scum and wasn't gone by lylo, then we'd have to get rid of him. I think the only person that would make him claim (that I've played, with which is about 5) is hohum, due to his aggressiveness and general demeaning attitude.

Now it is certainly a possiblility that dejkha meant to type 'AT' and just accidentally typed 'AA'...I'm not sure how much history dej and AA have. Or it's possible that dej actually knew that AA and AT were the same person from pre-game discussions and slipped up. As I said, pretty speculative.

What I do find interesting, though, is that when Zero voted for dejkha, AT jumped on him pretty quickly.

Vote: Zero

What are you playing at? Did you not read?

Stop trying to confuse the game - - and considering we're past random and in a lull, I would suggest having more reasoning behind your voting.

He may have also been defending dejkha in a couple of follow-up posts by claiming that dej hadn't lurked. IMO dejkha lurked. Not saying he was scummy, but he did lurk.

That happens in games - - your scumpartner bails, so you try to lynch him/the replacement in an attempt to gain immunity and say "hey! I got scum, lay off!"

And Dej as well as others haven't necessarily lurked - we had hit an understandable lull in the game

Also - Dej was no different than hohum are MANY others on this board that weren't posting, your reason doesn't single him out as scum, it just fits him - - you can't single him out because everyone is doing it, and you can't call it scummy because - - it isn't - - the game wasn't going anywhere.

The fact that after voting for each other early on D2, AT & Al are both now seemingly finding common ground in Khamisa is also interesting, seeing that she hasn't been here to do anything differently than she's been doing.

[MadCrawdad]

"Claiming that he had the best case on Cephrir repeatedly": Going over it it seems natural enough. Basically a lot of people were voting for Cephrir over the note so AT probably felt the need to clarify that he wasn't. Although it seems kind of weird that he didn't mind the people who still went after him for the note to self.

By continually placing his case above the rest, it's possible he was preemptively defending the case for no reason. If I suspect someone and have a case on them, and others are voting him (for whatever reason) I don't see a logical reason to continually be telling people that I think 'mine is the most concrete case'. Who cares? Seriously.

"Telling Kise how to not appear scummy to him": This only works if AT is Town so...

Wrong. It shows a possible lack of interest in true scum hunting. If you're interested in catching scum, why broadcast how someone might evade your scumdar?

I'll quote MCD for this one:

Post 256 - You expressed an interest in knowing Ceph's role.
Post 457 - You vote for Ceph for wanting to know Zero's role.

Only problem is the assumption that 256 was asking for Ceph's role. (go check it, he's talking about the note to self)

You might want to check it again...OccamR asks if the note is about a role ability that Ceph might have. AT responds that if it were a role ability, that he definitely would want to know....so yes, the post is about the note, but whether the note is about Ceph's role.

Changing your mind about someone is acceptable, Al, but the fact that you're now seemingly defending AT on at least one point that you previously agreed with, is more than a little odd.

FoS: Alduskkel

[MadCrawdad]

One pattern everyone will once again see with you is that you are taking old news and trying to make it new, nonstop.

Gee, funny. You keep asking me to relist points and then keep saying that I've already asked that. Kinda odd how that works.

As far as me pointing out things from conversations we had on D1, so what? You say that we 'settled' these things. How?

Obviously I questioned you on things I found interesting. Just because you answered, doesn't mean anything. As everyone knows, scum will lie. So even though you've answered questions and explained your behavior, I've still got to decide whether I think you're being truthful. If it would make people happier, I could end every exchange with an IGMEOY so people don't necessarily assume that all is peachy.

As was pointed out by hohum, just because something is asked and then answered doesn't necessarily reset the scumdar to null.

As far as why I haven't voted you, yet, I'm not nuts about the company on you ATM. Not that I necessarily find them scummy (possibly Al), but the fact that nobody else on you has expressed any interest in doing any digging on their own is a little off-putting.

@ODDin

I saw your post requesting thoughts on other players, and don't want to necessarily give much this point.

I will say that I'm not getting a real town read from anyone, yet. That's not to say I think everyone is scummy, just that with all of the replacements and/or lurking, getting a good read is difficult. With that said, since you did ask about hohum and Kise:

- I wish hohum would be more cooperative with others. I don't mind his intentional abrasiveness, but simply cooperating by answering others questions would help greatly in getting a decent read on him.

- I'm glad that Kise has been persuaded to read through D1. Based on his sig, he's quite proud of his scum-hunting ability. So the fact that he seemed to be unwilling to read through D1 seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Based on his sig, I would have expected him to want to tear thru D1 all on his own.

@Kise

Regarding your question about having caught AT in a bold-faced lie...I don't know at this point. Obviously nothing that's been confirmed, but I do find

lots

of his behavior questionable, and although he's answered for it, I don't know if he's being truthful or not.

[MadCrawdad]

FYI, posting limited thru the weekend

[MadCrawdad]

Same here*


MCD - There's a lot more to that post.

Re-read everything under "MY POINT"

This is about you on your end, not me. You conveniently miss the point and observations that prove you are hunting a lynch and not scum.

Unless you had a good reason to "save" my investigation for today so that you could see Ceph's lynch through. (Which is also scummy)

Remember - I didn't just answer and clarify - - You sir accepted those answers and stopped investigating. You settled. You chose not to identify any of those events as points of interest or evidence after we had our in depth hash outs.

***The rest of the town will see. They'll read it and understand - I don't expect you to be upfront about something like that (understandably) - but it's a valid point.

You're tunnelling me, hunting a lynch and not scum. You clearly decided I was a target, and then went back to see what you could use (hunting a lynch) - - - It's the other way around.

If I did actually choose you as a target, and then went back to see what I could use, it would be pretty lucky that there was such a jackpot, wouldn't it?

############################################

MY POINT

All of your "evidence" and "issues" were talked IN DEPTH and existed on D1.

You passed them off as null tells after (considering you settled, and didn't ask furhter, FoS, Vote, or even make a simple statement)

Once again, we settled nothing. When I saw something interesting I questioned you and gave you a chance to explain. Usually there were follow-up questions involved and then we moved on. Just because I never said IGMEOY does NOT imply "Good answer, AT. Let's get some coffee now that you've provided such a wonderful explanation."

Which means bringing them up again is illogical.

It means you did not:

SEE EVIDENCE - INVESTIGATE - FIND SCUM

It means you:

DECIDED I WAS YOUR TARGET - READ THE THREAD FOR WHAT YOU COULD USE.

Wrong again. As was clear on D1, I saw lots of things and investigated plenty. Just because I didn't jump up and down screaming 'Scum!' doesn't mean that things can't be looked at again later. Making any information gathered on previous days off-limits on subsequent days would be a pretty silly way to play the game.

And tragically, you can't use any of it, can you? You already investigated it and found dead ends and my forwardness and honesty.

Thus - - You sir are hunting for a lynch. Not scum

Can't use any of it? Sure thing. Why not?

If they're such weak points, why are you continually pushing back so hard? You've been going bananas from the get-go for such weak points that can't be used. Why not let the weak points speak for themselves? Clearly everyone else would see that they're not usable, right?

Scum hunt for lynches.

Why did you settle D1? Because the Ceph wagon, the wagon you were on, was promising enough? You figured you'd save it for D2 when you'd need a new target?

Stop tunnelling me.[/b][/size]

Once again, nothing was settled. And yes, the Ceph wagon looked promising. Ceph looked scummy. Now that he's flipped town, it does make your D1 behavior more interesting, even though you claim that it doesn't.

And why are you telling me to stop tunnelling you? Seriously. If I were scum (as you claim to be convinced that I am) and acting scummy (as you claim that I am) why tell me to stop?

[MadCrawdad]

Post 1023 is good enough for me to stay out of the AT/MCD argument. I see no scum-driven logic from either, but I can understand that when someone believes that their right about something, they'll stick to it.

@AT - As previously said, I think you negated MCD's case on you. If I were to vote for you, it wouldn't be based on his case. I think you & him should move on because 1023 shows how MCD let everything slide D1, and also shows that his change of opinion (after Cephir was lynched) comes out of nowhere.

Kise, these somewhat conflicting opinions confuse me.

In the first post above you hint that, in post 1023, AT & I may be 2 townies going at each other, each having misguided beliefs about the other.

Then you say in the second that we should just move along because AT negated my case on him and on D1 I let things slide and changed my opinion of AT which came out of nowhere.

Questions:

1. When you claimed that AT negated my case, are you saying that you found the case believable, and then based on AT's response, that you no longer do?

2. You say that if you were to vote for AT, that it wouldn't be based on my case. Are you claiming to have found other reasons?

3. If you believe that 1023 "shows how MCD let everything slide D1, and also shows that his change of opinion (after Cephir was lynched) comes out of nowhere" why would you urge AT to move on? If you believe your statement about me, that would be something that AT might rightfully be interested in, right?

[MadCrawdad]

3. I suggested that both of you move on because I don't see one as scum on either side, as I also mentioned. So why would I continue to urge two guys I don't think are scum into a continued debate? (Are you trying to say you & I are buddies and I'm covering for you? WTF?)

In your first post you don't think that either of us are scum, but in the second post you say this..."shows how MCD let everything slide D1, and also shows that his change of opinion (after Cephir was lynched) comes out of nowhere," which IMO seems to possibly paint me as a little bit scummy. My point was that if you still thought AT was town, and that I was possibly scummy, I was wondering why you were calling AT off.

Based on your response, though, you apparently still find neither of us scummy.

[MadCrawdad]

@Pablito
-I'm finding your gameplay extremely uncharacteristic when compared to the last game I was in with you (as AA23). You were fair, calculated, positive, and very helpful to the town. Hence I'm a tad put off by your mentality to simply "meh" - throw a vote willy nilly somewhere.

Whichever game that was, it must've been months ago. Congrats on remembering. I have abilities stored up, but I have no motivation for this game at this very moment in time. Part of it is that there's walls of text and a strong game mentality for logic. I tend to rely on gut and genuineness. There are a few people I see as not having genuine language: Kise, Khamisa, and KDub.

Anyway, I feel like unmotivatedly doing this.

unvote, vote: Kise

Pablito, when we last heard from you in post 1000 you had issues with ODDin's language that you planned to address at a later time. What has since eased your mind on ODDin, as he is not on your list of those not having genuine language?

[MadCrawdad]

MCD targetted me D2 and had to backtrack in order to FIT an idea around me.

Just keep repeating that, AT. Someone's likely to believe at some point, right?

If they're such weak points, why are you [AndyTony] continually pushing back so hard? You've been going bananas from the get-go for such weak points that can't be used. Why not let the weak points speak for themselves? Clearly everyone else would see that they're not usable, right?

Right. So you can accuse him of ignoring questions.

Al, that's multiple times that you've popped in to defend AT. It wouldn't be so odd if it weren't for your early vote for him (based on your blanket agreement with my earlier points against him). Since the potential link has been pointed out between the two of you, you seem to have almost gone out of your way to draw AT to you.

I can't think of a logical reason why a townie would do this, but can think of a couple why scum might:

1. Player A (scum) draws in Player B (town) hoping to secure Player B's mislynch should Player A be lynched.
2. Player A (scum) draws in Player B (scum) actually hoping to muddy an existing link (through WIFOM) should Player A be lynched.

Both create a muddy link that the town needs to sort through after Player A is lynched and flips scum.

Thoughts?

Strong FoS: Alduskkel

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD
- Thoughts? Sounds like you're unhappy people aren't dancing to your tune.

You're tunnelling is making it very hard to appreciate the idea that you're aggressively confused town. Stop tunnelling me, it hurts towns more than you'd think.

- What are your thoughts on the ODDin ideas from Pablito?
- What are your feelings to Khamisa sitting on the fence, avoiding confrontation, not bringing anything new to investigations/conducting any of her own? What are your feelings to her little activity with no active V/LA?
- What are your feelings toward hohum's narrow mindedness toward a case that came after his prejudice to me? What are your feelings to his lurking?
===============================================

Well, you've gleaned quite a bit of information from one word there, eh? What did you think of the post, though...in terms of Al's behavior (ie, regardless of the fact that you're the one he might be drawing in)? Note that I mentioned two possible options for Player B's affiliation in my post.

With regard to other players, as I told ODDin, I'd prefer to keep some things close to the vest for now. Based on what you asked, though:

- I agree with Pablito that studying the genuineness of language can be helpful in finding scum...I'd prefer to let ODDin answer the case first, though, before wading in further.
- Khamisa is suspicious to me. I don't like her style of play (or non-play, actually). However, I'm generally not a big fan of lynching lurkers. Lurking is not a strong enough of a scumtell. It's been shown that she's actively lurking, but so is Zero. I wouldn't feel good about taking either one into an endgame situation, but I'm also not willing to just lynch them one after the other.
- Hohum? As I told ODDin, I'd like to see him play better with others as it would help to get a better feel.

And yet you haven't actually addressed my point. You just OMGUS'd me here (and screw you Andy, I have a looser definition of OMGUS ); you didn't respond to my point, just twisted it into something scummy and attacked me. You're essentially saying that if the points against AT were so weak then he shouldn't have bothered with them at all. If AT had done that I guarantee he would have taken flak.

Regardless of whether your points were actually weak or not, what matters is that you were able to get a decent wagon going against AT, indicating that there were others who did not think they were weak. If he doesn't defend himself, he looks bad since it appears he doesn't have good answers for your questioning. If he defends himself, he faces accusations like this one. It's not a good way to catch scum (attack a player, then accuse them of being too defensive when they respond) because if you think they are suspicious, you will subconsciously change your threshold of what is "too defensive" such that you will conclude they are scum far more often than is warranted. I think you should take a step back and look objectively at your case before you continue to push forward after he has addressed your points.

It was more of a rhetorical question question, guys. Obviously he answered the case, so it couldn't be undone. And yes, he would have been spanked had he not answered it, but the point was that he came out pushing back pretty hard on what he claims was such a weak case (versus just laughing it off)...

But agreed that the questions asked have been answered.

This is just a longer version of what I've been saying in 1083 and 1097.

Unfortunately for you, Al, you're kind of a weird one to be saying it. After jumping in head-first with a simple blanket agreement with the points against AT, you argue with AT, then say you might just get off him later (but acknowledge that would look scummy), then get off him, then defend him, then start to question him about copying Kdub's case right after d3x casts his vote for AT. You appear to be a little too opportunistic.

vote: Alduskkel

In your first post you don't think that either of us are scum, but in the second post you say this..."shows how MCD let everything slide D1, and also shows that his change of opinion (after Cephir was lynched) comes out of nowhere," which IMO seems to possibly paint me as a little bit scummy. My point was that if you still thought AT was town, and that I was possibly scummy, I was wondering why you were calling AT off.

I used that example to show why I view AT as more in the right. But just because I view 1 as right and 1 as wrong doesn't mean wrong = scum.

If you really believed that someone let everything slide and just pulled an opinion out of nowhere you'd feel comfortable in thinking that they were just wrong, and not likely scum?

[MadCrawdad]

So what would you summarize the case as being? She is no longer V/LA, are you still so comfortable with her wagon moving along so briskly with her being inactive?

Khamisa was pretty absent most of Day One, but when she did appear, she tended to side with Cephrir to the point where it seemed like buddying. Cephrir made some pretty adamant points assuring the town that they were not scum partners and Khamisa was mafia. Since he's flipped town I'm inclined to believe him. That in addition with her almost constant V/LA is why I'm voting Khamisa right now.

Explain why you're voting AndyTony.

Because Ceph flipped town, 'you're inclined to believe him'? You can trust that his intent wasn't to deceive the town, but just because he flipped town doesn't necessarily make his judgement any clearer.

[MadCrawdad]

I don't intend on acting anti-town. I just seem that way. I'm not though. It has not worked in other games because it wasn't a strategy nor is it working in this one. I'm developing info to myself. [Yes, that IS lurking. DUH!] And it's working to my advantage... as of now.

How is lurking working to your advantage, Zero? By keeping you from being lynched? That's not your main job, if you're town. Your job is to hunt for scum (and try not to get lynched in the process). Your main goal currently seems a little self-centered, though, as you don't appear to be looking very hard.

Who do you suspect?

[MadCrawdad]

Count how many people have switched votes today. The number is less than five probably. I cba to look back. But there's a strange inflexibility in this game, and I think it's gonna hurt us come deadline.

Strange inflexibility? Count how many people have actually made cases today. Kinda hard to get people to switch votes when there's not a lot of cases being put out there.

Mod: Prod MadCrawdad.

No prod necessary. I'm generally V/LA on weekends...just failed to post it in advance for this weekend.

[MadCrawdad]

@ODDin

I saw your post requesting thoughts on other players, and don't want to necessarily give much this point.

Why didn't you want to say more on the other players? Do you not find anything worth mentioning about their opinion that might help the town?

If I've got an opinion about somebody's opinion I'll say something.

Also, @town: do you not find hohum not answering questions directed at him (which could, depending on answer, form quite solid evidence against him) scummy?

It ain't pro-town

During the discussion with AT, while I mostly agree with d3x, he (d3x) seems to be very angry for some reason. Reading his post 1090, I felt like "where the hell did that come from?" He was all cool and calm, and suddenly he's completely pissed at AT, though I didn't see anything in AT's words to get that pissed about. AT's note on using the word "inference" seemed like mostly a joke to me, not condescending and certainly not something to get wound up over.

I disagree with your assessment of d3x in that I'm not seeing the anger. I see him clarifying things when AT tries to flip any scum accusations back on him. If folks haven't noticed, if anyone even looks at AT cross-eyed he hits them with a scum label.

2) I was, indeed, quite frustrated with a few players. I was frustrated and annoyed by hohum not answering my questions, and I was frustrated and annoyed by you "not being arsed" to play normally. Maybe I'm taking stuff too personally, but yeah, I'm annoyed by people not paying attention, not playing the game and thus ruining the fun for others. I'm in this for the fun. When others ruin my fun, I get frustrated.
D1, with lots of stalling and tons of replacements hardly helped. After waiting for replacements for so long, seeing someone finally replace in and then not actually paying attention and not giving a damn about the game is annoying.
So that's why I was pissed and frustrated.

As you asked for my opinions on other's opinions, and AT asked for my opinion on Pablito's post, now that you've answered, here it is. I agree with Pablito that studying language can be useful. As far as any odd underlying anger in ODDin's posts I don't really see it there. I see some frustration, but that makes sense to me. The lurking and frequent replacements are making the game frustrating. Whether ODDin's frustration is genuine I can't say, however, it doesn't seem out of place in Pablito's example.

[MadCrawdad]

@lobster

Here's your earlier D2 post where you give your reasons for voting Khamisa. Apparently Ceph's thoughts played a big role in your decision.

So what would you summarize the case as being? She is no longer V/LA, are you still so comfortable with her wagon moving along so briskly with her being inactive?

Khamisa was pretty absent most of Day One, but when she did appear, she tended to side with Cephrir to the point where it seemed like buddying.

Cephrir made some pretty adamant points assuring the town that they were not scum partners and Khamisa was mafia. Since he's flipped town I'm inclined to believe him. That in addition with her almost constant V/LA is why I'm voting Khamisa right now.

Explain why you're voting AndyTony.

Here's a post from late in D1. Yeah, old shit, I know... Here you ponder that Kham and Ceph may be scum buddies, but eventually say 'I do not see Khamisa anywhere near as scum-like as I do Cephrir.

Ceph also makes a lot of comments paraphrased to: "Well, it's either Khamisa or me." If they are both scum, then he's trying to set up an alternative lynch and hope the town goes for it. If we lynched Khamisa and she turned up scum, he would use that as his defense Day Two.

I do not see Khamisa anywhere near as scum-like as I do Cephrir.

As far as I can tell, Cephrir is at 4 votes, so I will

Vote: Cephrir

. I think this will be the most informative lynch for the day.

It's weird that if you don't think she smells strongly of scum toward the end of D1, that you'd look only at her on D2. Would you say that your reason for voting Khamisa is based more on her own behavior, or more on Ceph's statements?

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad: What you bring up in your 1183 post is exactly why I took my time to vote Khamisa today. When I came into the game at the end of Day One I was suspicious of Cephrir and Khamisa. It seemed as though there was a good chance they were scum partners due to their awkward interactions. However, we now know Cephrir is town, which threw a wrench in my theory. But based on Khamisa's comments and actions alone, I feel like they are justifiable of a vote.
I'm not sure I understand what your question is, so hopefully this explanation helps.

You say that you took your time to vote Khamisa as if to imply that you were being careful, but I'm not necessarily seeing that. To me it looks as if you were just waiting for her to show so that you could cast a vote. Here (early D2) you urge caution with regard to Khamisa:

I don't think we should immediately jump on Khamisa. Most of the reasoning, as far as I thought, was that she was scum buddies with Cephrir....I think after a mislynch I'm going to re-evaluate her case before I place a vote.

I don't think voting for someone being an active lurker when they are mod-confirmed V/LA is a good plan. If you feel Khamisa is scum due to active lurking, why don't you take this time while khamisa is gone to analyze the rest of her playstyle and build a case, or at least some questions for her to answer when she gets back?

I'd still like to hear her response/opinion to the lynch and the night actions before I vote for her.

But here you toss your vote seemingly based only on D1 behavior. If this is your reason for voting, why even bother waiting? It's not like you were looking at other candidates for your vote, and you didn't ask any questions of Khamisa.

Whoever mentioned that we look for relationships with Cephrir: IMO, that seems pointless: he's town, so what would any relationships mean?

It was Cephrir who mentioned several times he though you seemed to be buddying up with him on Day One. If you were scum, it be smart to try to align yourself with a townie, especially if he's going to get lynched a flip town.
At this point I feel confident in typing:

Vote: Khamisa

As you were the one urging caution with regard to voting Khamisa on D2, it didn't seem to take much on D2 (other than time) for her to get your vote. What would you say was the tipping point that pushed her from your cautious stage to being worthy of receiving your vote?

And a few final questions about the following post (also listed above):

I don't think we should immediately jump on Khamisa. Most of the reasoning, as far as I thought, was that she was scum buddies with Cephrir....I think after a mislynch I'm going to re-evaluate her case before I place a vote.

Apparently Ceph flipping town threw you enough to make you take a step back with regard to voting Khamisa, but later, Ceph flipping town helped move you forward with a vote, as now you claim to believe Ceph's comments with regard to Khamisa. So which is it, really? When and why did you start 'believing' Ceph?

[MadCrawdad]

After a quick read of her posts in isolation in that game, there does seem to be similarity to this game.

Khamisa, I noticed in the Jungle Republic game that you incorrectly named the person who actually hammered on one of the days, and were subsequently called out on it. In this game you've also incorrectly named the person pushing a case at least once (twice, I think). Do you have any examples where you've done this as town?

[MadCrawdad]

@ lobster

So you felt 'confident' in casting a pressure vote?

Look at the post below. Notice in the first part that you tell me that you're interested in seeing how Khamisa plays on D2...all after urging caution several times early in the day. Then

in the same post

you vote for Khamisa based soley on D1 behavior (and apparently Ceph's ghost).... It's odd.

Once again, why didn't you ask any questions of Khamisa on D2, as you suggested others do in an earlier post?

So what are your thoughts on how to handle D2? Seriously.

In your few short posts on D2 so far, you've twice called out other players for not posting, and continued to mention Khamisa (who is never here). Is is your plan just to wait for Khamisa to show up, or might it be a good idea to dig a little elsewhere in the meantime?

If you really want to talk to Khamisa, why are you withholding your vote until you hear from her? A little pressure may bring her around more frequently.

Khamisa was my top suspect after Cephrir on Day One.....so that's why I keep mentioning her.

I'm interested to she how she plays on Day Two

.
Also, in my opinion it would be stupid to vote for her while she's V/LA. How would that be productive or make her return from her vacation (or wherever she is) sooner?

Whoever mentioned that we look for relationships with Cephrir: IMO, that seems pointless: he's town, so what would any relationships mean?

It was Cephrir who mentioned several times he though you seemed to be buddying up with him on Day One. If you were scum, it be smart to try to align yourself with a townie, especially if he's going to get lynched a flip town.
At this point I feel

confident

in typing:

Vote: Khamisa

[MadCrawdad]

MCD: Mistaking names isn't really a scumtell. That's just poor brainpower.

It's sloppy scumhunting. Shows carelessness on your part. IMO town players are more likely to care about who gets lynched, and therefore likely to pay closer attention (ie, be less likely to just use names interchangeably).

ODDin and lobstermania : lurkier versions of MCD and Kdub.
MCD , d3x, and Kdub: Active, scumhunting folk.

So you think that lobstermania appears to be scumhunting (albeit lurkily)?

[MadCrawdad]

@Chinaman

MadCrawdad

, why are you voting Alduskkel

see quotes below:

"Claiming that he had the best case on Cephrir repeatedly": Going over it it seems natural enough. Basically a lot of people were voting for Cephrir over the note so AT probably felt the need to clarify that he wasn't. Although it seems kind of weird that he didn't mind the people who still went after him for the note to self.

By continually placing his case above the rest, it's possible he was preemptively defending the case for no reason. If I suspect someone and have a case on them, and others are voting him (for whatever reason) I don't see a logical reason to continually be telling people that I think 'mine is the most concrete case'. Who cares? Seriously.

"Telling Kise how to not appear scummy to him": This only works if AT is Town so...

Wrong. It shows a possible lack of interest in true scum hunting. If you're interested in catching scum, why broadcast how someone might evade your scumdar?

I'll quote MCD for this one:

Post 256 - You expressed an interest in knowing Ceph's role.
Post 457 - You vote for Ceph for wanting to know Zero's role.

Only problem is the assumption that 256 was asking for Ceph's role. (go check it, he's talking about the note to self)

You might want to check it again...OccamR asks if the note is about a role ability that Ceph might have. AT responds that if it were a role ability, that he definitely would want to know....so yes, the post is about the note, but whether the note is about Ceph's role.

Changing your mind about someone is acceptable, Al, but the fact that you're now seemingly defending AT on at least one point that you previously agreed with, is more than a little odd.

FoS: Alduskkel

If they're such weak points, why are you [AndyTony] continually pushing back so hard? You've been going bananas from the get-go for such weak points that can't be used. Why not let the weak points speak for themselves? Clearly everyone else would see that they're not usable, right?

Right. So you can accuse him of ignoring questions.

Al, that's multiple times that you've popped in to defend AT. It wouldn't be so odd if it weren't for your early vote for him (based on your blanket agreement with my earlier points against him). Since the potential link has been pointed out between the two of you, you seem to have almost gone out of your way to draw AT to you.

I can't think of a logical reason why a townie would do this, but can think of a couple why scum might:

1. Player A (scum) draws in Player B (town) hoping to secure Player B's mislynch should Player A be lynched.
2. Player A (scum) draws in Player B (scum) actually hoping to muddy an existing link (through WIFOM) should Player A be lynched.

Both create a muddy link that the town needs to sort through after Player A is lynched and flips scum.

Thoughts?

Strong FoS: Alduskkel

This is just a longer version of what I've been saying in 1083 and 1097.

Unfortunately for you, Al, you're kind of a weird one to be saying it. After jumping in head-first with a simple blanket agreement with the points against AT, you argue with AT, then say you might just get off him later (but acknowledge that would look scummy), then get off him, then defend him, then start to question him about copying Kdub's case right after d3x casts his vote for AT. You appear to be a little too opportunistic.

vote: Alduskkel

---------

V/LA until Sunday/Monday

[MadCrawdad]

will post later today

[MadCrawdad]

@All (lobstter, kbub, mcd, kise)
There have been developments from more than one angle on different people. What are thoughts, opinions, etc?

I like ODDin's assessment of your play, AT. Your attempt to discredit your attackers' play, while defending points against you is scummy.

If I were to vote for my #2, it'd be pablito, but then it'd be labeled as OMGUSy. If I had a #3, it'd be hohum, but he's pulling a stunt (which I feel is a gambit) by offering himself as a lynch instead of khamisa.

With that said....

Unvote; Vote: pablito

Kise, the timing of your vote switch here seems a little odd to me. Your peel-off of Khamisa helped put AT in lead to be lynched. Did you notice that there was pressure building on AT when you went off to chat with Pablito? Did you notice that the once that pressure subsided that you put your vote back on Khamisa? As already mentioned, it seems a little opportunistic.

AndyTony and ODDin seem town to me. Same with MadCrawdad, though he has been a bit silent on Khamisa, despite her being the largest wagon. I think MC has been the most motivated scumhunter in the game so far, so I'd be interested to see how Khamisa would respond to detailed questioning from him.

I already mentioned that I generally don't like lynching lurkers. As far as any questioning of Khamisa by myself, she's already ignored at least one of my questions (maybe more) so that's how she would likely respond...

lobstermania

, looking forward to your responses to my earlier questions...

[MadCrawdad]

Did you notice that there was pressure building on AT when you went off to chat with Pablito? Did you notice that the once that pressure subsided that you put your vote back on Khamisa? As already mentioned, it seems a little opportunistic.

So by unvoting khamisa, I helped take heat off AT?

No, it actually dialed it up a notch. Interesting because you spent D2 solely on Khamisa, and had also mentioned that you thought AT was town. Your timing was pretty odd. Especially seeing that once the heat on AT died back some, you hopped back on Khamisa.

[MadCrawdad]

@ Kise

Shortly before nightfall, your list of suspects (in order of suspicion from greatest to least) seems to have been Khamisa, Chinaman, Pablito and Hohum. You even go so far as to say that 'hohum would be the last person on my list that I'd pursue.'

I could narrow it down to khamisa, hohum, chinaman or pablito as scum.

Unvote; Vote: khamisa

I was giving khamisa the benefit of the doubt since I know [via experience] that mafia like to defend/buddy up to a player (note hohum's little stunt). So, by giving her a chance, I elected you & hohum as the mafia who have tried to detract from her lynch or in some other manner influence others to vote elsewhere. If she doesn't flip scum, I've still got good suspects to look at, IMO.

Originally, no,

I did not intend to revote khamisa, but chinaman's actions lead me to believe that I should. hohum would be the last person on my list that I'd pursue..

but I would like for him to name who he thinks is voting khamisa & accusing her of lurking, because I don't see them.

I was on pablito due to a theory I mentioned earlier that also somewhat implicates hohum (regarding their references about khamisa).

I'm back on khamisa due to the Chinaman's posts.

I thought

maybe

she could be town that was being defended by pabscum & hoscum so they could earn town points after her mislynch, but now Chinamaf' is replacing hoscum as #3 on my suspect-list. khamiscum is back on the list as well.

So, on D3, how did hohum end up jumping to your first suspect over Chinaman (whose posts, you continually claimed, got you back on the Khamisa wagon)? You already thought that Kham was scum, and her lynch didn't tell you anything you didn't already suspect, so why the shakeup on your suspect list?

Nobody was voting khamisa for her active lurking..

Vote: hohum

@ Chinaman

Here you acknowledge that there may have been bussing on the Khamisa wagon. Even go on to say 'at least 3 of the 4 (voting Khamisa) are most likely town.' That kind of says that you're unsure about one of those voting Khamisa....likely Kise, as he voted for Khamisa last. So why is Kise on your list of town players?

thirdly, kdub, lobster, kise, and AT were all on the vote for kham. correct me if I'm wrong, but unless there was some serious busing going on, at least 3 of those 4 are most likely town. I would say that if any of them weren't town, it would prolly be whoever voted last for her. even then though, AT had an equal number of votes so unless AT is scum and bussed kham, then AT is most town.

After d2's lynch and flip, here's where I stand.

Town players left:

Myself
AT
Kdub
Lobster
Kise
d3x

Possible scum:

Ald
Hohum
Pablito
MadCrawdad

People who haven't posted since d2 and need to: Hohum, Madcrawdad, pablito

Lobstermania hasn't posted, either. Any reason that you don't care to hear from him?

At those I listed possible scum. What have you done so far in this game that warrants a more townish kind of play? Some of you are only on there for lack of comments in this game and because you weren't on the wagon for the kham lynch.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask... I don't respond to general "Tell me why you shouldn't be lynched" questions

@all: Is there anyone on the town list that shouldn't be there in your opinion (and why)? Don't say that I shouldn't be there, this is my list and I know my own alignment. I am more interested in your reads on those in my town list that I don't for sure know their alignments.

In addition to yourself (but your addition makes sense as you're the one posting), I don't like Lobstermania or Kise on your list of town players. While both were on Khamisa, neither seemed to be there firmly. Lobster expressed and preached caution with regard to the Kham wagon early on D2. He claimed to be anxious to hear from Khamisa on D2 before placing a vote, but then dove on the wagon for behavior solely from D1. He urged caution, but seemed to really want to be on the Kham wagon all along.

As far as Kise, I don't like him hopping off of Kham when the pressure built up on AT. Pressure builds on AT, and Kise just goes off to argue with Pablito? Pressure dies down on AT and Kise hops back on Khamisa... Note that Kise's vote was not necessary to kill Kham. Khamisa was dead at three votes...Kise hopped back on late with number 4.

I have nothig to add.

Vote: hohum

Hohum is going to have to be lynched sooner or later if he keeps playing this way. If he is town, the scum would never kill him while he is such a huge distraction, and I don't like the town's chances if he were to survive to an endgame lynch-or-lose scenario, regardless of his alignment. Plus I think there is still a better than random chance that he is scum.

Hohum is playing a game here, but it's not Open 144. If participation (or replacement) doesn't happen soon, the situation will need to be dealt with.

Kise, I felt that your vote was opportunistic, but to place your vote on khasmisa the time that you did and to not remove it...well that pretty much clears you from my thoughts.

Why? Kise's vote didn't kill Khamisa. That doesn't mean he's scum, but it could, right? Why are you comfortable clearing him from your thoughts so easily?

Mod, please prod lobstermania

Prodded.

[MadCrawdad]

Also, I see you're making the Chinaman-Kise link here.. it's cute, but just for reference, remember that I voted khamisa D1 and then carried over that vote (twice) on D2. In other words, I was comfortable with lynching her D1 when she wasn't even that big of a wagon. And while it is true that 3 votes instantly made her the D2 lynch, keep in mind that I was one of those 3 that voted for her before I went off to vote for pablito.

I'm not making a Chinaman-Kise link. I'm asking questions.

As far as you voting Khamisa on D1, so what? You admittedly hadn't even read most of the thread at that time. On D2, you parked your vote there for most of the day, and then kept wondering aloud whether you were tunneling Khamisa.

And the timing of your move to Pablito is suspect. Here's where you made the move:

If I were to vote for my #2, it'd be pablito, but then it'd be labeled as OMGUSy. If I had a #3, it'd be hohum, but he's pulling a stunt (which I feel is a gambit) by offering himself as a lynch instead of khamisa.

With that said....

Unvote; Vote: pablito

Could care less if it's viewed as OMGUS. I have this theory that scum always go out on a limb to defend a player they know will be lynched, be it a mislynch or their partner being lynched. If it's a mislynch, they look good by proclaiming how they knew so-and-so was town.

You didn't really build a case, just stated a hunch. Didn't look like you were trying to bring anyone else on board, either.

If I'm scum, why would I tunnel her for 2 day phases instead of exploit other viable lynches? I could have easily made AT or Al hit 3 votes and lock them in as the D2 lynch.

IMO you simply voted Khamisa, then wondered aloud whether you were tunneling. I don't recall you trying to bring others on board like Kdub and AT were.

As far as locking AT or AL at 3 votes, you already mentioned that you thought AT was town, so that would be suicide, on your part. Putting AL at 3 wouldn't have mattered, either, as Khamisa got to 3 votes first and would have been lynched, per the rules.

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD: At the end of d2 your vote was on Ald. Are you no longer suspicious of him? Also, why are you looking at Kise who, as he explained, was voting kham d1 and ended on kham d2, to be scum? Like I said previously, my list isn't perfect, but of all the people that had votes on kham end of d2, why would you think Kise is the one who is the possible scum of the 4 who were on her train? Not attacking, just asking.

Also, what do you think about the Ald case thus far? As I stated above, you had Ald voted d2. I would assume there was reason behind the vote and not something that you just left there.

I still like Alduskkel, but it's early in the day. Plenty of time to kick some other bushes.

As I said on D2, Alduskkel's hopping around seemed opportunistic...his late battle over semantics with AT seemed opportunistic, as well. Looked like he was looking for any reason to get back onto an AT wagon.

Additionally, I don't like Kise coming off of Khamisa late on D2 when the votes started piling up on AT. His trot off to argue with Pablito really amounted to nothing, and him pulling off of Khamisa would have been a good way to contribute to an AT lynch without casting a killing vote himself. Had Kise remained on Khamisa there wouldn't be an issue...but he didn't, so there is.

[MadCrawdad]

In looking back through the thread, I came across this earlier post from hohum...

You have a strange attitude. There's no reason for a pro-town player not to want to comply with the social norms of gameplay as conducted in a particular (and in this case well established on MS) manner.

Vote Zer0ph34r

He was willing to cast a vote (although the vote never counted due to the botched bold tags), based on the fact that he thought Zero wasn't complying with the social norms of gameplay.

Therefore hohum absolutely knows that what he's doing is not pro-town. And as he tells Zero, there's no reason for it (if he were a pro-town player).

So, unless he's scum, there's no reason to play like he has. Even as scum it doesn't make much sense, but a little more than as a pro-town player.

[MadCrawdad]

Saw your post, Kise...tried to post a response, but lost it due to some issue on the site. Will post response later.

[MadCrawdad]

Out ill, folks. I'll probably be V/LA for the next day or so. Possibly through the weekend.

[MadCrawdad]

I'll post later tonight/tomorrow.

[MadCrawdad]

@Kise

I'm not making a Chinaman-Kise link. I'm asking questions.

Erm... I read the stuff you had for Chinaman as well. You're trying to see whether him & I are connected. No?

I'm asking China if there is a reason that he felt comfortable listing you as town. Doesn't necessarily mean you're linked. I've actually caught scum who were leaning innocents toward town for bad reasons...therefore I was curious why China (and Pablito) apparently were comfortable with you as town.

As far as you voting Khamisa on D1, so what? You admittedly hadn't even read most of the thread at that time.

But what I did read was good enough at the time. When I came in the game, I reviewed the most recent 2 pages. Khamisa just so happened to slip-up with her comments towards Zer0/dejkha and I never let that go.

Yeah, you 'never let that go,' until the pressure built on AT, and you decided to just walk off and chat with Pablito.

And the timing of your move to Pablito is suspect. Here's where you made the move:

If I were to vote for my #2, it'd be pablito, but then it'd be labeled as OMGUSy. If I had a #3, it'd be hohum, but he's pulling a stunt (which I feel is a gambit) by offering himself as a lynch instead of khamisa.

With that said....

Unvote; Vote: pablito

Could care less if it's viewed as OMGUS. I have this theory that scum always go out on a limb to defend a player they know will be lynched, be it a mislynch or their partner being lynched. If it's a mislynch, they look good by proclaiming how they knew so-and-so was town.

You didn't really build a case, just stated a hunch. Didn't look like you were trying to bring anyone else on board, either.

What was I suppose to say? -- "HEY, yall, vote pablito NAO!" (???)

Rallying sheep is not my style. I wasn't sure if my meta of khamisa was accurate enough to tack onto my suspicion of her, and she recently told everyone what her time was like. In the same post that you just quoted, I even go over some of my doubts about how well I know kham's meta.

Rallying sheep isn't your style? What is? Just quietly voting on a hunch, crossing your fingers, and hoping that others follow? Seriously.

At that point you had already leaned AT as town, and now were completely rethinking Khamisa. As Pablito was your new #1 suspect, wouldn't you want to rally the sheep off of two people you were now thinking were probably innocent, and onto your new target?

----------

@DRK

Also, I had a town read on our two useless players (hohum and Zer0). Therefore I have a town read on chinaman at the moment (since someone mentioned suspecting him).

By town, are you saying that you just have no reason to consider hohum or Zero scummy, or there are certain posts of theirs that you view as pro-town?

What do you think of my pressure on Lobstermania regarding his apparent hesitance/caution to vote Khamisa. Claiming that he wanted to hear from her on Day 2 to make a decision, and then in the same post simply voting for her for a Day 1 reason?

----------

@hohum

Yes, but

what

will you post later?

I'll post another "I'll post later" post.

I really think you guys are doing a decent job. I'm hesitant to interfere with that too much at this point.

I like the adul case.

Okay. So you were apparently gun-shy when it came to scum hunting.... it still doesn't explain why you refused to answer any questions that people sent your way.

----------

@ Al

There's not much to say. Although I'm pretty sure I never unHoS'd AndyTony, thus I can't have backtracked on it.

Then please explain the meaning of this post. Sure seems that you think AT's town now, and are concerned that he won't change his opinion of you. Kind of a weird post if you still thought he was scum there.

I'm actually pretty sure that no matter what I say at this point AndyTony will not change his opinion of me.

[MadCrawdad]

I haven't been sick since September 9th, but I sure haven't cared about mafiascum at all since then. I'd actually much rather be replaced, if you all are going to yell at me. I don't respond well to pressure. And it sure as hell won't make me look at things rationally.

But maybe I should just get replaced instead.

What is this? Scum-hunt in my direction and I'll ask to be replaced?

There's not much to say. Although I'm pretty sure I never unHoS'd AndyTony, thus I can't have backtracked on it.

Then please explain the meaning of this post. Sure seems that you think AT's town now, and are concerned that he won't change his opinion of you. Kind of a weird post if you still thought he was scum there.

I'm actually pretty sure that no matter what I say at this point AndyTony will not change his opinion of me.

Well, first off, the second quote is more me saying "This is futile," than "AT is pro-Town,". In the event that Chinaman were to flip Town I would be highly suspicious of AT, thus the FoS. I don't think Chinaman is Town, so you could say I think AT is pro-Town and be right. The HoS is there in the event that I'm wrong about CM.

That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard....FoSing people down the line, dependent on how others flip?

P.S.: No, don't get replaced, I think your posts are good. (inb4 AT/CM say "ZOMG buddying")

I don't want to see pablito replaced either, but by saying that his posts are 'good,' are you saying that you have a town read on him?

[MadCrawdad]

Not scum-hunt toward me and I'll ask to be replaced. plenty of people have done that including Kise yesterday. I'm asking you guys to stop F-ing yell at me for not posting. I'll post at my own schedule, unless the deadline is imminent. Otherwise just stupidly wait and I'll get to it. I still don't like that you don't care that I simply didn't want to post. Yea, it screws you over, but this is PARTICULARLY why I was against the whole khamisa wagon. IF someone's gone, if you yell at them, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO POST ANYMORE. Again, this was more a gripe about the process, not the scum-content level.

To my recollection, China is the only one who has really 'yelled' at you. Was there someone else that I missed?

[MadCrawdad]

There's not much to say. Although I'm pretty sure I never unHoS'd AndyTony, thus I can't have backtracked on it.

Then please explain the meaning of this post. Sure seems that you think AT's town now, and are concerned that he won't change his opinion of you. Kind of a weird post if you still thought he was scum there.

I'm actually pretty sure that no matter what I say at this point AndyTony will not change his opinion of me.

Well, first off, the second quote is more me saying "This is futile," than "AT is pro-Town,". In the event that Chinaman were to flip Town I would be highly suspicious of AT, thus the FoS. I don't think Chinaman is Town, so you could say I think AT is pro-Town and be right. The HoS is there in the event that I'm wrong about CM.

That's one of the craziest things I've ever heard....FoSing people down the line, dependent on how others flip?

I don't see what's wrong with it. Are you actually going to back up your opinion with reasons?

Yeah. You issued your FoS (or HoS) of AT

now

. But according to you it actually depends on future events (ie, how China flips). Even though you've got an HoS on AT, you apparently think he's town until CM flips...it's weird. You've really got all bases covered there, huh?

I'd appreciate if you could explain how AT's status is contingent upon how CM flips. Is it just a process of elimination, or are there other reasons?

P.S.: No, don't get replaced, I think your posts are good. (inb4 AT/CM say "ZOMG buddying")

I don't want to see pablito replaced either, but by saying that his posts are 'good,' are you saying that you have a town read on him?

Yes.

Which posts did you find most helpful in coming to that conclusion?

[MadCrawdad]

limited access thru the weekend

[MadCrawdad]

I'm not the jail keeper. Will have more to say later today.

[MadCrawdad]

AT, what are you doing? You've unvoted, nobody else has counter-claimed Al, and yet you are still attacking Al. While I agree that Al's play has been inconsistent, in the absence of a counter-claim, the argument should be over.

It goes back to what ODDin pointed out on D2....when you defend yourself, you don't just defend. For some reason you find it necessary to paint those looking in your direction as scummy, crappy players, and try to make sure that when you're done, nobody will listen to

anything

that the person has to say. It's scummy.

As mentioned, now would be the time for a counter-claim. You've pointed out that the

real

JK may be choosing to keep quiet, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a CC would be more helpful. Are you setting yourself up to claim JK at a future time?

I agree with DRK, in that any future claims of JK will not be believed (at least by myself). Speak now, or forever hold your peace...

[MadCrawdad]

Kise chimed in post 1585 which leaves hohum and pablito yet to speak.... so I'm pretty close to believing Al's claim, and see no reason to keep attacking him in the meantime.

As far as your interaction with Al being an offense vs. defense, if Al didn't have you as a potential suspect, I'm wondering if your offense would still be as vigorous.

Recently your behavior toward Al, after voting him, seems to have been to sit back a little and wait for him to be lynched, while poking at him occasionally. Since his claim, though, your claws have come out again, and I'm trying to understand why. We're not at lylo here. If Al is lying, at this point in the game, he will be caught. All we really need to do is see if anyone else counter-claims. Right?

[MadCrawdad]

^ post 1601 is response to AT's 1599

[MadCrawdad]

As already mentioned, hohum's timing in asking for a replacement is extremely suspect. The guy's basically been asking to be lynched for the past 2 game days, and refusing to replace out. Then when the votes actually start to pile on, he bails. What's with that?

Earlier in the day when AT voted him, the kid says:

andytony: fine by me.

Apparently he was lying...it wasn't fine by him. And based on his timing, in asking for replacement a few days before deadline, hohum has really screwed the town.

His actions make absolutely no sense to me. As I said earlier, though, they do make slightly more sense if hohum is scum. Could be a case of WIFOM that finally blew up in his face.

I agree with Kdub that it makes sense to hear from dcorbe before lynching him. The only problem I see is that there's only a few days for dcorbe to read nearly 70 pages and give his thoughts.

FoS: dcorbe

@ Al

Before you claimed, I asked you why you were getting a town read on Pablito. Unless I missed it, I don't believe that you responded. So, what about Pablito's actions is giving you a town read?

@ AT

I'm a little surprised by your interaction (or lack of interaction) with Pablito. The guy names you as a suspect and then says he'll need to dig further to make a case on you. You then claim he hasn't read your wall of text posts, and call him 'unfair' for suspecting you without fully reading your posts. You then just kinda move on. What gives? No shotgun to the forehead?

Also, early on D2, Pablito was one of those who voted for you, but he was pretty much the only one who didn't receive a club to the back of the head from you for doing so.

Why is everyone else who looks your way being scummy or opportunistic, but Pablito's just being unfair? Why are you giving him so much room?

[MadCrawdad]

@ AT

Have you seen no inconsistencies in other players, MCD? You seem pretty passionate about inconsistencies (at least when it's me)

Also -

Is this not a lose/lost situation, MCD? Would you not have made some comment toward me had I geared at Pablito? I don't think you're through with tunnelling me, and I think you would have had something to say no matter what I did with Pablito

IMO you had a better reason to go after Pablito than you did with any of the folks looking at you early on D2. Pablito kind of implied that he just had a gut feeling about you being scum, without really giving many specifics. Then said he'd have to go do some digging to try to build a case. And you say he's being 'unfair'.

It strikes me as odd. Here Al is pretty much confirmed town and you're still slugging away at him, while Pablito names you as a suspect without much backup, and you say he's being 'unfair'.

@ Pablito

Oh my god. I'm so lame. I totally didn't even correlate the deadline with the recent date. Here I am thinking that it's still like 15th of september. My apologies for not knowing what the day is, despite the timestamps. I will start contributing daily post-haste. I wanna take a look at kise, but my vote will go here for now

vote: chinaman

Which one are you planning on looking at first...AT or Kise?

@ mod

Just curious as to why we didn't receive an extension of the deadline due to the hohum replacement.

Dcorbe told me that he was following the game, so I don't think it's necessary.

[MadCrawdad]

Which one are you planning on looking at first...AT or Kise?

Are you kidding me? I'm not even going to bother to ever post my case on AT. I'm going off of gut with him and that's based on those who wagon jumped on and off of him and what he's done to push. I refuse to ever look at the walls of text that AT posts, and whenever someone even bothers glance his way, he'll post more walls of text - ALL to the point where it debilitates discussion for the group. That's why it's not worthwhile, if AT is scum, he's the one I'd save for last. Because even if he might be misleading, he has to keep talking to keep up a scum charade. But my thoughts on AT would mostly depend on chinaman turning up scum really. AT even doubting ald for one second mainly exacerbated my thoughts on AT. Before that sequence, AT would've remained in mid-radar for me. Therefore, I find it not convenient to look at AT right now.

Trust me, I get the not wanting to get bogged down in the walls-of-text. Been there, done that. But you said that Chinaman and AT were your favorite suspects. So it seems strange to go after everyone else first and then save AT for last.

Also, why do you now think AT's affiliation hinges on China's? In this earlier post you said that your case on AT would revolve mainly around his choice of actions in relation to Al and Khamisa. How does Chinaman now factor in?

At the end of this read, my favourite two suspects are AT and chinaman. However, I know my case on chinaman, whereas I'd have to read more on AT to make a case. And the fact that AT posts walls of texts means that

I'll never build a case on AT based on his posts alone - but more on his choice of actions in relation to others (specifically Ald and khamisa I suppose)

. I still can't get over how quickly he was willing to push my case on ODDin yesterday when even I wasn't on board with it. I still feel more comfortable with my own case on chinaman, but I'd say that AT has struck me with an interesting chord throughout the entire game, and it's more amplified knowing Ald's role.

[MadCrawdad]

China, where on your list would you put DRK?

[MadCrawdad]

MCD
Your vote on the new guy, is that for pressure? Or will new guy be lynched at this point no matter what, I'm confused as to this. I

completely

understand your logic - - hohum flipping scum/town will be much more informative and enlightening, but this new guy is a fresh set of eyes - - does he still have time to chime in?

I don't have a vote on dcorbe, but am looking forward to hearing from him.

[MadCrawdad]

Whereas someone like ODDin and AT, I didn't get that feeling. When AT asks me a question it's direct. It's not pandering to an audience. This is also why a lot of his posts bore me, they're directed at someone s
pecifically and the strong majority aren't pointed to me. Hence I had lower investment to read it in depth. (Also this explains why I feel like I'm reading and investing more when people are reacting to me at this point). While I've mentioned ODDin, you can see that that's my style of looking at people.

What's up with the back-tracking on AT's posts, pablito? Now they just bore you because they're not directed at you? Here's what you said:

I read your posts, and sir, they suck.

AT, actually I never read your posts. I've only skimmed them. If I ever said I read them, I meant I "read" them. Does it look like I've ever paid attention to your walls of text? No. I've never once referenced them. I haven't referenced any of your justifications for anything. Therefore my inconsistency is my tone in what words I use. And I will misuse the word "read" because you make me illiterate.

As we all know, I don't read AT's posts. His style is not conducive to reading. As I said, he makes me illiterate.

It's not the point you make, it's how you convey it.

Seems like you had a bigger issue, other than the fact that AT wasn't directing many of his posts toward you. Right? Why the change of heart?

[MadCrawdad]

MCD
- Are you having an issue with his inconsistency, or an issue with him not being negative toward me?

The inconsistency. He came out with a pretty strong opinion on your posts, which he appears to be backing off of. He's all over the place, and I want to know why.

Is he less useful to you bored?

Please explain.

[MadCrawdad]

Also - being someone that focuses on inconsistencies, were there none in regards to Kise that were valid/worth my time? Have you done an iso read on anyone else and spotted anything?

No iso reads on anyone. While others may find them useful, I generally don't do iso reads, as posts can lose some context.

With regard to Kise, I already liked him for possible scum for a couple of reasons. Mainly the late move onto Pablito D2 (looked opportunistic) and the refusal to read D1 until prompted to...a complete disconnect for someone who prides himself on being such a great scum-hunter (as evidenced by all the awards he's given himself in his sig).

The only thing that's made me slightly rethink Kise is his reaction to hohum's lurking where he said something like 'If hohum keeps playing like this and doesn't get lynched, I'm going to do the same.' While the statement seems anti-town, the frustration with hohum could be genuine, as I know I was becoming irritated with hohum's play at the same time.

Also, just did a Google search on dcorbe & hohum, and they both popped up as names on a single photo sharing site. http://www.stickam.com/viewMedia.do?mId=174305641

vote: dcorbe

[MadCrawdad]

nevermind...

[MadCrawdad]

I actually pictured hohum looking kind of like that.

Lemme guess.... You're his brother, right?

[MadCrawdad]

As an afterthought: While I understand your thought process, mostly, the part I'm a little vague on is why wouldn't we look at EVERYTHING scum do/did? I mean, it could be that scum NK'ed DRK for no other reason than he wasn't super active, or it could have meaning. I think it would be good to at least discuss the meaning or lack thereof behind DRK's death. Moreover, I think it would be good to look at why others are still alive. AT for example has been posting in a very town fashion to me and to others. He headed up the Meta case on known scum and dropped the case on Ald once he was confirmed. Well, not right away, but eventually. Why would scum leave him alive and kill of DRK. Of course nothing is provable, but discussion leads to slips which leads to lynching scum. So yeah, what are your thoughts on why scum killed DRK and also, and maybe more importantly, why they left AT alive? Since d3x and Ald are the only ones to post thus far, this if for you. Everyone else may of course add their 2 cents.

I disagree that examining the NK can be useful. There's all kinds of reasons that scum target who they do, and with WIFOM, that number doubles.

Discussing who got killed and why (along with who didn't get killed and why) only serves to confuse the town as it's all speculation, and such discussion IMO can also help direct future scum kills/strategy.

I've also been getting a feeling that maybe MadCrawdad has been getting too much of a free pass. I think he has asked a lot of good questions and his play seems pro-town enough, but he was fairly silent on Khamisa even when she was the largest wagon, and his targets (AT, lobstermania, Kise) have all been players that I felt are/were town. I (and others) probably need to start paying more attention to him.

That's fine, but IMO, you've kind of given easy passes to a few folks. I can see the reasoning for you feeling that AT could be town, and lobstermania is now confirmed town. But Kise?

Maybe I'm too suspicious of others when I play the game (I find it a more sensible way to scum hunt), but how could you possibly get a town vibe from Kise? Even if you're not getting a scum vibe, how can you possibly say town?

[MadCrawdad]

will post later tonight or tomorrow morning...

[MadCrawdad]

MC:

While I don't favor pablito, I think you're trying to hard to convict him and others. If you're going to grill hohum & pablito, then what's the point of getting upset (or whatever you would call it) towards Ald for saying that he'll find AT more suspicious if Chinaman flips town [Post 1540]? Let Ald and others have their suspicious, so long as they explain themselves. I get the feeling you're either paranoid townie, or... a very slight possibility of being scum that was muddying the waters on Ald (pre-claim), Chinaman, pablito/saberwolf, AT, myself, and hohum at the time. Nothing is wrong with interrogating others, but convicting so many people is not helping matters. If you're going to point your finger, narrow it down so that you don't come across as paranoid. Not everyone is mafia, so be careful when using words that express certainty.

Here's the thing, I'm not trying to

convict

everyone I question. Pressure, yes...but not necessarily convict them. People can have all the suspicions they want, but if something seems odd to me, I will question it. Obviously everyone can't be scum, but as far as narrowing down who to pressure/point fingers at, like I said, if something is interesting/unclear to me I'll question it. If that seems paranoid to you, so be it....IMO we've already got enough people in this game who are just sitting back and watching.

Perhaps you are right about giving passes to others, but I got the feeling that sometime during D2, when you were asking a lot of probing questions and suspicion was focused on AT and Khamisa, the town (myself included) started to assume you were town and never really considered you in our suspicions. I feel that assumption has carried over into D3 and now D4, when maybe it shouldn't be such a foregone conclusion.

But isn't that how you're supposed to play the game? As you clear people, it generally carries over into subsequent days

unless

they do something scummy. You can't absolutely know one's status, but based on play, you put those people into 'not really worried about,' 'suspicious of,' and 'unsure/neutral' pots. Makes it easier to focus your hunt. Obviously you continue to watch everyone, but only revisit your 'not worried abouts' if they give you reason to.

For the record, if I had to bet on your alignment, I'd still say town. For now, can you explain why you never really said much about the Khamisa case? You made some comment earlier that she wouldn't respond to your questioning anyway, but shouldn't that have been more reason to pressure her?

I did say that I was suspicious of Khamisa and even questioned her at a couple of points. But I wasn't convinced that she would flip scum. She did say some scummy things, but when she was around, many of her posts were just incoherent ramblings. IMO there was a good chance (at least 50%) that she would simply flip town fool.

With regard to her not answering one of my questions, the question wasn't regarding the case on her, but her opinion on Lobstermania, so it wasn't a pressing issue. The only reason that I brought it up in my response to you, is that for some reason you implied that I would have had better luck in questioning Khamisa than other folks had. The point was, I disagreed. I'm not sure what you think I could have asked (that hadn't been asked already), and why you think she would have been more forthcoming with questioning by me.

On several occasions you've mentioned Khamisa being the

largest

wagon, but even though many were watching Khamisa, she was lynched with only 4 votes....and it would have likely been only 3 if Kise hadn't hopped back on. Not exactly a landslide.

As for Kise, I don't see anything especially suspicious about him. When he unvoted Khamisa and went after pablito, Kham was still in line to be lynched. Had his unvote actually caused AT to take over as the vote leader, then I would probably find that move more suspicious. Also, if he really wanted to save Khamisa, he would have voted AT instead. Another reason is that I am suspicious of pablito, and I think it's unlikely that both pablito and Kise can be scum because of their interactions throughout the game. Obviously if pablito/saberwolf is proven to be town, my opinion could change. If there are other specific aspects of Kise's play you think are suspicious and would like me to comment on, please bring them up.

So because you don't find Kise to be scummy ATM, you're willing to say he's town? Maybe he doesn't seem scummy to you, but what has he done (either through questioning others or his behavior) to make you feel comfortable in declaring him town? Keep in mind that I'm not pushing a Kise case here...I'm more interested in understanding your threshold for declaring someone town.

[MadCrawdad]

I'm actually kinda upset that Pablito got a replacement. He was my number one suspect. It's really hard for me to pin someone else's posts on their replacement. Granted, a role is still the same role no matter who occupies it, but look at Zero before me. Lot's of you didn't really like his posts and some have gone back to his post's in order to try and add to a case about me. So yeah, although it can never really be a fresh start for the new guy, it's not really fair to continue to go after him before he has had a chance to post something useful (either to town or toward his lynch).

So yeah, that's kinda why I'm stuck here. Plus I'm not buying in the whole Kise case at this time either.

If it's your intent to appear like you're running around in circles, you're doing a pretty good job. Not only do you contradict yourself every couple of posts, but you're now also doing it within posts.

It's fine if you're all over the place with your thoughts, but the fact that you keep making posts highlighting that you're all over the place with your thoughts is weird. Worries me that you're intentionally trying to appear confused, and that you're throwing out as many ideas as possible to see what actually sticks.

--------

On a side note, posting will be limited thru the weekend.

[MadCrawdad]

A scumtell or something? I dunno.

Does throwing lots of ideas out to see what sticks, and then passing the blame for any bad ideas seem scummy to you?

[MadCrawdad]

I did say that I was suspicious of Khamisa and even questioned her at a couple of points. But I wasn't convinced that she would flip scum. She did say some scummy things, but when she was around, many of her posts were just incoherent ramblings. IMO there was a good chance (at least 50%) that she would simply flip town fool.

Town fool? This is an open set-up. I don't see a fool/idiot role here. I'm not following this.

Yes, it's an open set-up. Based on some of her incoherent ramblings, I was referring to Khamisa actually not seeming to be the sharpest tool in the shed, overall, not her actual role.

[MadCrawdad]

It's interesting that saberwolf has been threatening to quit since joining the game. But what interests me most is the quick shift in attitude from 'I messed up, but I hate to quit....' to 'Screw you. I quit, find me a replacement'. The guy seems determined to make sure that everyone knows he wants out, and isn't afraid to leave the town in the lurch.

It doesn't make sense. Saberwolf has played in other games, so he knows how it works. It really hasn't taken much (if anything, really) to push him to this 'screw you' attitude. It doesn't seem right. Seems like it has to be an act.

Note that in 1811 he threatened to quit at L-1. He's now at L-1 and knows it (as he's posted since being put there), yet he's still here. I think if he was really that into quitting and screwing the town, he'd have been long gone at L-1.

AND just to be a bitch, I'll wait until L-1, replacement out so it don't count on my games, and still show up for the bah post.

FoS: saberwolf

Based on pablito's play and saberwolf's bizarre entrance, there's a good chance that saber is scum. And what are the chances that we'd end up with a third player in the game (after hohum and zero) who wouldn't mind screwing the town if/when things didn't go their way? It's got to be an act.

[MadCrawdad]

oh SW, if I met you irl, I would punch you for this, but then I think we would be friends. I don't trust you, don't agree completely with your play, have a hard time getting any sort of read from you (as I have already said I can see your play recently coming from either side/role), but

all in all, you bought more time than Pablito had. So kudo's for that.

Plus, it's not out of the realm of possibilities of things I would do....just ask d3x.

China, how do know that saber has bought more time than Pablito had? Because you (then he) unvoted, everyone else is likely to change their minds on saber?

This whole claim to have been acting like an ass in order to help the town by being mislynched as quickly as possible is absurd.

@saberwolf

If you really wanted to be lynched, there were probably better ways to go about doing so. Rather than acting like an anti-town ass, which might cause some people to hesitate and question whether to lynch you, you could have intentionally thrown other scumtells right? But you didn't. You just pulled some really anti-town crap the day after hohum was lynched as VT, for also pulling some really anti-town crap. Kinda convenient.

Interestingly, you claimed that you were going to bail at L-1, but that didn't happen. Also claimed that your vote wouldn't move off yourself, but it has. Doesn't look like you really want to be lynched now, does it?

For a claimed VT who believes that his own mislynch is the best way to help the town (absurd), you sure have gone back on those promises.

Have you not figured it out yet? I refuse to co-operate, and I want myself lynched. How hard is that to understand? There is no positive outcome to keeping me around, so it is best to get rid of me as soon as possible. This is the best move you can do.

My vote will not move.

OMG, I can't even get myself lynched?

The whole thing was a charade, trying to antagonize you guys into lynching me, as I felt it was best for town. I said anything I could to piss you off and gain your vote. I really feel that keeping me around is a mistake, because if I made it to final three, you'll lynch me for sure. I feel that I'm too scummy to keep around and that town would function better with my absence and win.

If you guys refuse to lynch me, I have no choice but to remain and start scumhunting then. Give me another day, day and a half and I'll start posting some actual content.

unvote

@Kise

I think it's a rather shitty deal for everyone to gang up on you like this instead of putting attention on everyone equally. The deadline is not even close, and we can still focus on other things rather than pablito/saberwolf.

Would you mind making a list of your thoughts on each player, or at least your top suspects? (me, AT & zer0/Chinaman if I remember correctly)

Shitty deal for everyone to gang up? Don't you think saberwolf had a hand in bringing this upon himself?

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD and Kdub. If you think he (SW) is playing scummy and thus is scum and think his ploy was never to be lynched and etc...why are you not voting for him? He has now pulled his own vote off himself and is no longer at L-1. If he is trying to stay now, would pressure on him be bad if nothing more than to see how he reacts? Do you think he will up and hammer himself if he is at L-1 and not voting? Just saying...

It's still early in the day. Why rush the lynch?

For some reason you seem to want to rush the lynches. This is the second day in a row where, early in the day, you've asked me 'Hey, if you suspect them, how come your vote's not already on the leading wagon?' Both times you were 'Just saying...'

Why are you in such a rush to lynch?

[MadCrawdad]

ZOMG! seriously????? wow. d3x put him at L-1 just 2 pages ago! Was d3x rushing for a quick lynch? No! of course not. I was "just askin" why no vote on him. Wanna know what I got back from AT and MCD? Questions to my effing questions (yeah, trying to not curse here...pretty difficult). Just answer the question to the best of your ability! I didn't ask you to vote him, I didn't say you should! GTFO! Answer questions directed at you and THEN ask your questions. Ask your questions in the same post for all that matters. Jeebus! Also, quit smoking dope before you read this thread, it's making you paranoid.

Here's how I answered your question.

It's still early in the day. Why rush the lynch?

Since it seemed to confuse you, how 'bout we try it this way:

ANSWER:

It's still early in the day.

FOLLOW UP QUESTION:

Why rush the lynch?

I also find it amusing that the guy spewing '

Oh, I definitely think A. No wait, I meant B. Did I mention that it could be C?

' is the one telling others to stop smoking dope before posting.

MCD has lynched town D1 and then been able to skip voting for last 2 lynches and was not on SW.

I haven't skipped voting for the last 2 lynches. Do a quick re-read. On Day 2, I was on Al. And who says I'm not on saberwolf?

If I were to read zero posts made by players, I would say MCD and d3x are scum. I'm not saying they are or they aren't, just pointing it out.

Oh, okay. Now go read posts.

Also, I find it very unlikely that the 2 remaining scum have not been part of a lynch.

Knowing what I/we know, one of the following basically must be scum.

Could be 2, but at least 1.

saberwolf
d3x

Kise

Kdub

AT
MCD

For my purposes, I italicized who I think are least likely to be scum as of now.

Now I'm pretty much stuck.

China, of your list of possible scum here, you've named everyone except yourself and Alduskkel. You also say that there's at least 1 scum in that group (possibly 2). If it is only 1 scum in that group, would the remaining scum then be you or Alduskkel?

FoS: Chinaman

You claim to know that you're innocent, and mentioned earlier that Alduskkel is 99% clear, yet you say '

one

of the following basically must be scum' and you've named the

rest of the town

. I would think you'd feel pretty good that there were likely two scum in that list of yours.

That's a pretty big goof if you're really thinking hard and putting people into piles. Isn't it? Has something made you suddenly suspicious of Alduskkel?

[MadCrawdad]

vote: Chinaman

I think it's likely he ignored my question because he slipped up, and doesn't have a decent explanation.

[MadCrawdad]

2. Why should I respond to him if he doesn't feel the need to respond to me? I will anyway....but not right now.

China, based on your answers (to both myself and d3x), it looks like you're no longer claiming that I've been ignoring you. Can you confirm? Is there anything that you deem to be outstanding that you would like addressed?

And even if I had been ignoring you (which I hadn't), I would still think you that you'd want to immediately clear up your goof regarding 1 or 2 of the remaining scum being in your

rest of town

(RoT) list. It makes you look like possible scum. Why play games and refuse to answer that?

You've said to d3x that it's not a major point (1 v 2 in the RoT list), but I think it is. And your explanation isn't a particularly good one.

Even though you claim to not re-read your posts 4 times before submitting, when you typed the post, you were putting your actual thoughts down. And for some reason, you were really only searching for a

single

scum in that list. That doesn't make sense, as you were looking to be very analytical in that post. You should have realized from the beginning that, if town as you claim, there was an

almost guaranteed

chance of two scum being on your RoT list (vs. just a maybe).

[MadCrawdad]

I didn't see a response to my post 1778 from you. We went back and forth there and then you left me hangin. We have started back up now but 1778 is still not addressed. I can't decide if it matters at this point though, but if you feel like going back, I wouldn't mind an answer to it tbh.

Response below. Most of the questions seem rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway.

I never said I would pass the blame. Why are you trying to predict the future? Would you rather me just sit back and look scummy? Would that be easier for you to try and build a case on me? Also, isn't the throwing out of ideas to see what holds water and what doesn't the whole idea of scumhunting? This is town vs scum, not me vs scum.

Note, I'm not trying to fight with you, I'm trying to get you to see where I'm coming from. On that side, let me assure you that I see where you are heading with this. The problem is, I haven't passed the buck so to speak and there is no way for you to know if I would or wouldn't pass the proverbial buck. So yeah, if I passed around ideas, jumped on the one that most people tended to agree with, lynched town, then tried to say that it was someone else's idea and that I was just voicing ideas of which non were really what I thought (or something to that effect).....yeah, THAT would be very scummy and I can agree with you 100% on that.

So now that I see where you are coming from, can you try and take a look at it from my point of view?

You didn't specifically say you would pass the blame, but said if one of your ideas screwed the town, that you would then be able to pursue the person who pushed the idea the hardest. What about the guy who threw out the idea? What's his culpability with regard to said idea?

With regard to your claim that your 'brainstorming' in the thread may prove to be of value... How can it be? You NEVER take a real stand on anything. Not only do you appear to be tossing out any thought that pops into your head, you then toss out the exact opposite view....qualifying every statement you make. Then usually ending with 'I don't know'. What do you want people to do with that? Which side do you want them to take? Much of the time, you don't even appear to be taking one.

Here's a recent example:

It is entirely possible that all the votes on me right now are all from town of course, so I will not be accusing anyone right now, but it is a very real possibility that since 3 votes were cast on me in 3 posts (4 really, but 2 were from the same person), that a scum wanted to get on the wagon earlier than later to avoid the L-1 vote and the hammer vote on someone that would flip town. This has everything to do with the speed of the votes. If I am lynched, please remember this part for next day. I would say that one of d3x or MCD is scum. I will be going back and looking for a connection between pablito and MCD and pablito and d3x when I get a chance. Still plenty of time to sort this out. Again, it IS possible the wagon on me is all town, but with this speed at which the votes came, I am inclined to say that one is scum vs all being town are, the chances are higher that one is scum. No way of knowing 100% though...but I guess that's what scumhunting is all about.

In this post you surmise that of the 3 votes on you, one is possibly coming from scum. Then you point out that it could be all town on you. Then you point out that you think that one vote on you is scum, but mention that there's no way of knowing 100% though. But you're asking people to pay close attention to all of this, in the event you're lynched and flip town?!

Btw, I have a feeling you are not going to buy anything I say. You really really want this to be a scumslip and nail me for it. That's ok, but I expect an apology when the games over if you're town

Dude, if you're lynched and flip town, you're the one who owes the town an apology.

I suspect either d3x OR MCD are scum. I explained this as being due to my wagon gaining 3 votes so fast and one of the 3 having a high likelyhood of being scum vs all 3 being town. I would actually lean toward MCD more than d3x, but I suppose I prolly mention d3x more cuz I know him irl. As for as game goes though, MCD would be more likely to be scum. This is more due to a gut feeling vs specific posts made by MCD.

Like I said, that could wait until tomorrow.

What do you mean that could 'that could wait until tomorrow'? You're supposed to be fighting for your life here. Why would you leave anything for tomorrow?

@d3x: don't be happy with either lynch. be happy lynching the scummiest. Do you currently think I am more scummy than SW?

Same goes for Ald and MCD: Am I scummier than SW?

I think that you're 'apples' scummy and saber is 'oranges' scummy...both different, yet both delicious. I will very likely be on one of you at day's end.

MCD: Is there anything else you want me to address about the 2/1 thing? What are your thoughts about everything else concerning me? Also, what's up with SW posting crazy posts and getting an Fos, but CM gets a full vote from you for a mistake that was explained (sorry that you don't believe me, but it was explained non-the-less)? That one comment from me was more than all of SW's post's worth of scumminess? Honest questions here, I just don't get it.

Nothing additional you can say about the 2/1 at this point. It's just a matter of whether people believe the explanation.

As far as saber only getting an FoS, I already explained that it was early in the day. As Kdub pointed out, there was a chance of saber self-hammering (based on the claims in his posts), before everyone was ready to end the day. Very interesting to note, though, that even though Kdub (one of your

least-likely-to-be-scum

in a recent analysis of yours) pointed this out, you went ahead and put saber at L-1 anyway.

And although you mention that townies also make mistakes, your 2/1 seems more likely to come from scum than town.

Both MCD and d3x: Let's pretend that I am lynched today and let's pretend I flip town. If that were to happen, what are each of your thoughts about the other possibly being scum? Do you think my reason is logical due the the speed of which the votes came or do you think all 3 people on me are town?

If you flip town, I don't see that it will make me rethink my opinion of d3x. At this point, I think that all three votes on you are town. As far as the speed at which they came, it's not a surprise...you seem scummy. I don't think that anyone wanted to quick-lynch you, but the pressure is a good thing.

If you are not suggesting that I'm not scumhunting while under attack yet you think that it's a town tell, is it that my scumminess is outweighing anything I do towny?

IMO you're doing a lot more squirming than scum-hunting.

What happened to ya'lls Kise case? Am I scummier for continuing to defend myself while trying to prepare you all who are dead set on my lynch for tomorrow's scumhunt? Should I try this disappearing magic trick? Non of these need answers in the forum, they are something for you to think about. Rhetorical questions if you will.

Why are you pointing at Kise now? Last I recall, you weren't buying into the case on Kise (even mentioned that he was one of those

least-likely-to-be-scum

). Why would you want to deflect attention onto someone who you thought was likely town?

While looking into MCD I found:

FoS for Kham
FoS for AT
FoS for Ald
Strong FoS for Ald
FoS for hohum/dcorbe
Fos for SW
Fos for me
-----------------------------
Vote for Zero/me (RVS)
Vote for Cephrir
Vote for Ald
Vote for Hohum/decorbe
Vote for me

Note: All votes are on town players.

Here's the thing about your attempted analysis, China. IMO you'd need to do this sort of thing for EVERY player and then compare. Looking side-by-side (particularly against known town players) would be helpful.

Do you have some particular aversion to actually reading/pulling my posts and trying to pick them apart? I mean, it seems like forever-ago that you said you were going to do that. Please do, as I can't answer to these 'gut' feelings.

[MadCrawdad]

ok, if it comforts you any, im on page 57, and almost done my notes. i will post soon enough.

Are you claiming to be rereading the WHOLE thread again before posting?

[MadCrawdad]

MCD, I'm surprised that you didn't ask about the fact that I said I'd look at you if CM flipped Town.

I saw your post, but I was up way past my bedtime and was done for the night...

Obviously, if your suspect pool dwindles, you would be forced to look at others who you haven't really suspected before. I can accept that.

I'm not sure why you'd jump past saberwolf, as I disagree that he's not good enough of a player to actually save himself by his seemingly anti-town antics. I've never played with him before, so I'm not sure of his abilities, but I don't think that his anti-town talk was likely as much about strategy as it was about desperation. The guy's since had multiple opportunities to off himself, as he said he would, but failed to follow through.

With regard to the rest of your list, I wouldn't be as quick to discount AT as town. I can see a possible link between him and pablito/saber. I've mentioned this earlier, but early on D2 when myself, hohum, yourself, d3x, and pablito were looking hard at AT, pablito was the only one who walked away without being attacked by AT. Also, late on D3, pablito claimed to suspect AT, but refused to base his case on anything but gut. It looks like these two might not have wanted to go toe-to-toe for some reason.

Also, early on D4 (post 1816), after saber has been carrying on with his anti-town banter, AT advises the town to ignore saber and look at pablito instead, yet when a lot of folks go at saber, AT gets in on it as well (without having said anything about looking at pablito first). IMO saber was still spewing the same type of garbage, so I'm not sure why AT saw him as becoming more 'reliable' scum, as just a little earlier he was saying that he should be ignored.

@All
This guy is wasting our time and is hurting the town.

I say ignore him.

Let's read Pablito's gameplay in relation to known town and scum - that's more reliable than someone setting themselves up to be utility lynched.

Not saying that I believe AT is scum, as I think there are better candidates atm. I wouldn't discount him, though.

[MadCrawdad]

I still find it a little short sighted to assume that me not "attacking" someone for suspecting me says something about my relationship with them. I don't feel I've attacked

anyone

for suspecting me, I've come at them full throttle to point out why I feel their cases should be recognized as inconclusive, or faulty - - - - the reason I didn't have to do this with Pablito is because nobody was stupid enough to dance to his tune. Voting/suspecting me for no reason (admittedly?) - you guys were at

least

above that at the time.

Pointing out that it was notable that you ran head-first at everyone else (including hohum who only said 'more AT lynching please'), yet kind of side-stepped around pablito.

I'm rather disappointed in the lack of steam toward SW - - I'll have to scroll back and check (unless someone could please and thank you: retype it) the list of case comparrison between CM and SW?

I don't necessarily think that there's a lack of steam. I think some folks may be waiting to hear from him. I am.

If he doesn't say something 'good'

really soon

, I think there'll be more fire directed his way again.

@MCD
I was happy to see you had put a vote down and committed to your thoughts and speculations (don't let text make that sound sarcastic, I mean it) - but can you elaborate on your present speculations? I know you're nor saying I'm scummy, you've stated that, you're saying there's a possibility - - - while I'm sensitive to that: Your vote is on Chinaman, and I would have to be scum with Pablito/Saberwolf - - There's only two available scum, are you doubting the CM wagon and prefferring the SW (thus wondering if I'm a possibility?)

Not doubting the CM wagon, but also very interested in hearing what saber has to say. As I told CM, I'll likely be on him or saberwolf at day's end.

At this point, though, I'm not completely sold on CM being the better lynch over saber.

unvote

until saber decides to speak.

Additionally, although he claims to be busy, which is causing him to lurk more than normal, it would be nice to hear what Kise has to say about anything.

[MadCrawdad]

I'll be posting later today or tonight

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD
It was (once again) great seeing you put a vote down to follow through on the talk - - however (especially after the energy I saw come out of you top of D2) I notice a change in your play and I was wondering what the cause of it could be. Can you help me understand it? It seems you've audited the possibilities out loud this day, and don't have a vote down or any real form of responsibility for "actions" (or lack there of).

If I'm inferring the wrong thing, let me know - but your play feels "distant" - less pointed, direct, motivated. It feels as though you step back, watch things stew, and then step in to either spark a new train of thought, resurrect an old/lost one between two people to get them going at each other.

- Bottome line, aside from SW, my main scum target is Kise, full throttle Kise. I do

not

think you're scum and don't have any real evidence - I just have a discomfort in the gameplay shift you've had and hoped you could shed light on it (I need to be safe than sorry and ask around - think of it as me clearing air/eliminating useless thoughts about potentially town players) - - help me out?

Any perception that I am more 'distant' is off-base. I'm a lot more crunched for time now than I was a few months ago and unable to 'hog' pages, so that could be what you're getting at. But what's pretty funny is lately I had been wondering the same about you. While I was unaware of any 'shift' in my gameplay, yours has seemed more distant to me.

surprisingly enough, I can't put MCD on this list, dispite all the good things I've seen from him. The reason being is I'm aware that I'm pretty biased against AT, and have bound to have tunneled against him. Therefore, I'd hate to see us lose just because I hammered AT just because I really want to see him gone, although I do feel I have enough points against him to justify my vote. Because AT and MCD were major sparring partners, I conclude that they are not scumbuddies, and if AT isnt scum, I feel MCD would fit the bill just fine.

Huh? What bill would I fit just fine, and more importantly, how? Your logic completely escapes me. You claim to have seen many good things from me, but if AT is town, I'm suddenly scum? Please explain further, in detail.

CM: you were suspected after defending Kham near the end. Your predecessor was a bit scummy before you showed up. You don't come across as town as some of the others, such as ald and MCD

A couple of things. I don't think anyone playing for the town was getting a town read on Ald, who likely would have been lynched D3. And once again, I come across town....apparently unless AT is town. Go figure. Still not getting that logic.

But, I'm apparently not getting a lot of the logic used by saber & CM...

-saber wants to lynch AT (who according to his list is less likely to be scum than CM) but still has his vote on CM
-China seems to think that saber has a good chance of flipping town, but says that he's not moving his vote off of saber.

You two (China & saber) realize that you make it really hard to look elsewhere for scum atm, right?

[MadCrawdad]

China, with regard to your post (2004) as to what it means for tomorrow if you flip town...unfortunately, for me, it doesn't help with anything for tomorrow. You have pretty much made your own bed, which would make it hard to suspect anyone for lynching you.


While he's also helped to make his own bed (with pablito's help), saber flipping town could make Kise a person of interest on D5, as he was the one saying that saber was getting a raw deal from the rest of the town. IMO saber came out of the gate begging to be lynched (or mislynched as he claimed). For Kise to not find that interesting, is interesting itself.

[MadCrawdad]

At this point I'm seriously tempted to vote saber, which would put him at L-1. Given the chance (albeit slim) that he will self-hammer, as claimed, I will hold off. I definitely would like to hear something from Kise before this day ends.

[MadCrawdad]

I agree with d3x, except maybe about Kise being scummier. In general I find my Town reads are better than my Scum reads. I'm not as sure about MCD than he is, but that's just kind of a slight gut reaction... also I'm somewhat scared of the possibility of d3x scum so I don't think I'll ever be really confident in any read I have of him.

Also, I'm a bit concerned that Kdub is getting something of a free pass, even though it doesn't feel like he's done much more than be one of the first people on the Khamisa wagon.

If you have any questions about me, Al, just ask. But I completely agree with you on Kdub. I'm a little intrigued by his ability to somewhat easily call people town (Zero, Kise, AT, myself). And upon looking at his posts, I'm becoming more intrigued by how early he was on Khamisa. While the Khamisa case developed into more than just a lurker case over time, Khamisa originally drew Kdub's attention by being a lurker. Many of Kdub's posts regarding Kham had to do with her being a lurker, but in doing a quick reread of his posts, I found this one:

If AT was looking like an easy Day 1 target, that would mean he was looking suspicious. Why would I let someone who looks somewhat sus. just pass by?

You could say the exact same thing about lurkers. Simply because he's aggresive doesn't make him scum, infact I'd say lurking is far more scummy than putting your neck out and helping catch mafia. At least he's fostering discussion to flush them out.

His discussion hasn't really been aimed toward flushing out lurkers.

I think lurking is generally a null tell anyway

.

He thinks that lurking is generally a null tell, but it's lurking that leads him to Khamisa like a missile.

Here's just a few posts, but reading his posts in ISO you can find lots more where he seems to imply that he believes that lurking can be a scumtell.

ISO 19

Of the lurkers, I am most suspicious of Khamisa, who has basically said nothing but went after Zero for the same reason. I'd like to hear more from her in particular.

Will check in again tonight.

ISO 29

If I can't get anything going against Khamisa, there's no point in being the lone person voting for her, so I have no problem switching to another player I find suspicious.

I don't even think Khamisa is necessarily more likely to be scum than Ceph, I mainly wanted to get her to say something since I felt she has been actively lurking so far

.

ISO 42

Going back to my D1 vote.

Vote: Khamisa

She's been getting away with too much lurking

, even after she was called on it.

hohum, my comment about your argument was directed at you, AndyTony, and Alduskkel. Had any of them responded in the same way you did, I would have answered them in the same way. I did not defend AndyTony, nor did I push for a no-lynch (don't know where you got that).

ISO 42

@ pablito & hohum:
Do you not believe that there is at least one scum among the several lurkers in the game? I think there almost has to be. And if so, how do we pick the scum out when there is nothing to go by when analyzing them? Even if we successfully catch the scum among the active players, we're going to be in trouble on D3 or D4 when we have gotten no information on over half the remaining players. On D1, Khamisa posted very little until some pressure was put on her to contribute. Also, during the 10-day period before her recent V/LA (from 7/21 to 8/1), she made no posts in this game, but several in other games. The fact that she has active lurked to this extent, yet still wants to stay in the game is telling me that something else is going on besides her being a townie who is too bored to contribute.

Kdub, can you clarify your thoughts on lurking as a scumtell?

[MadCrawdad]

It's getting close to the deadline, so I don't know that anything will change, but I think it's a mistake to not lynch either saberwolf or Chinaman today. Maybe Kise will end up being scum, which I guess would make me look bad, but I do not find him particularly scummy. I'm sticking with my vote.

MadCrawdad:
Lurking itself is not really a tell to me, but Khamisa was active lurking, which is different. She was only posting after people requested prods or questioned her activity level, was posting a lot in other games but not posting here, and generally evading questions and accusations. It was her active lurking that caught my attention and made me go back and look at her more closely. Do you see the difference between that and simply not posting often? Hope that clears things up.

Somewhat, thanks. IMO Zero was also actively lurking, yet at one point you thought he was just bored town (posts 319 & 360). Why didn't his active lurking bother you as much?

Also, I don't know what you mean about me "easily" calling people town. I've also called several players scummy at various points in the game (Ceph, Kham, hohum, Al, Chinaman, saber). I'm not sure what you are trying to imply here.

Like the discussion you and I had re: Kise earlier, it seems to me that you're willing to designate people as 'town' without a lot of proof on their part. Zero and Kise were/are both lurkers but you kind of gave them an easy town card. Same with AT and myself...we were arguing away early on D2, and you felt comfortable stepping in and declaring us both town, even though we were the ones pushing Ceph's wagon the hardest.

It doesn't seem to take much for you to give someone a town nod, and that worries me. Kinda wondering if you might have a sixth sense.

[MadCrawdad]

@ mod

I know that deadline is tomorrow 10/17.... at what time will the deadline fall?

At about 8:00 PM EST, or the same time that day started.

[MadCrawdad]

With Zero, he didn't even attempt to pass himself off as a contributing player, even when there was some attention focused on him. On the other hand, I felt that Khamisa was intentionally trying to avoid attention. I just didn't see Zero's play being more likely to come from scum than town.

I'm still not really understanding your point with me saying people are town. I explained earlier that town-scum is a sliding scale with plenty of grey area, but you seem to be implying that I made a blanket "town" statement about some players that put them all at the same level. For example, I feel that Kise is slightly town, but to say that I "gave him a town card" is misleading because it implies a clear dichotomy between town and scum, which is not true. Is your issue with me the fact that I have had town reads on certain players when you felt it wasn't warranted, or that I have had town reads too often compared to scum reads?

My issue is that the reads may not be warranted. Some of the reads seem to come without a lot of information from the person that you're giving the town nod to (Zero, Kise). With Zero and Kise being lurkers, I don't really see how you could be comfortable claiming a town vibe when they haven't seemed to give enough information to warrant the vibe.

In my eyes, saying someone seems town is different than finding them not to be scummy. We've never played together, so maybe it's your style of play, but I haven't seen the expected caution from you in getting players over the hump from neutral to town.

[MadCrawdad]

vote: Chinaman

When under pressure, one of his defenses was 'See how much I'm scum hunting, I can't be scum...' Yet when the pressure's off, he goes quiet. As he's already expressed that he doesn't necessarily feel confident in his vote (saber) I would have expected to see more scum-hunting from him over the past 2 days, with the deadline looming. I've seen he's posted elsewhere over the past day, but not here.

Also not buying the 'I'm dumb, not scum' for his 1v2 slip.

[MadCrawdad]

MC:
I think getting "town vibes" is closer to calling someone neutral than calling them town. Maybe that's where we disagree.

If you consider 'not scummy' the same as 'townie vibes' maybe so. To me they're different.

At present, one could put a vote in a lot of different places without having to take responsibility for it, seeing as by default, Kise is lynched at deadline (no hammer needed).

That being said,

@MCD
What's your position on the Kise/Saber cases (though I'm more interested to hear your position on Kise).

You seemed to have had interest in him before his return. Now he's back, and I was wondering what you think about his "No Lynch" option, and what that says about him.

He himself is on the chopping block and hasn't come around to defend it, explain it, etc. I find the act very scummy.

(if you already gave an opinion on the matter and I've missed it, just let me know)

I agree with you that Kise seems scummy. He's lurked a lot, and used some really crummy logic in his posts IMO. Problem is, so have saber and China (crummy logic). Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough time to pressure or interrogate him sufficiently, so any vote from me for him would be based more on a gut feeling. I'm not willing to do that. Yes, Kise is greatly responsible for the fact that there's no time left to interrogate him, which means if by chance he's still around tomorrow he'll need to be pressured much earlier in the day.

I have no problem with others lynching him, but I'm not as convinced at this point that he'll flip scum. I wouldn't rule it out, though.

Alright MCD, here's the deal.

You've done quite a few things that have looked scummy, and acknowledge them. Your defense 'I'm dumb, not scum. You gotta believe me!' doesn't float for me. Unfortunately, scum will lie in this game.

[MadCrawdad]

I can't see a reason that the plan won't result in a town town win. I'll wait for a second opinion from Ald before claiming.

[MadCrawdad]

I am indeed the doctor.

Protected:

N1 - The Replacement (d3x)
N2 - Kdub
N3/N4 - Ald

If anyone else claims doc today, feel free to lynch me first...

vote: Kdub

[MadCrawdad]

vote: Andy Tony

[MadCrawdad]

forgot to unvote...

unvote, vote: Andy Tony

[MadCrawdad]

Last night, after him getting hammered, I was wondering if AT was posting so many walls of text, in response, that he actually crashed the server.

GG, all.


Thanks to Crazy and all the replacements.

[MadCrawdad]

@MCD
- Thanks for the kind words?

Nothing but, man. You played a great game.

Once you bussed Kham I couldn't do much but sit and bite my tongue. And then when you bussed Kise I really thought you were probably innocent then.

Hey, in that recent post on D5 where you referred to me an 'operator,' were you trying to signal to me that you knew I was doc?

[MadCrawdad]

There is a secret to my Cephrir defense back on Day 1, but I want to wait until my other game finishes before I reveal.

Yeah. It's called not reading the thread...and it wasn't so secret.

@MCD
Hope to run into you again

Thanks, likewise.

MadCrawdad - You played very well, and the main reason I started to get a little suspicious of you at one point was because you had been so pro-town but were still alive for some reason. You paid a lot of attention to detail and caught stuff that the rest of us missed.

Thanks. You played a good game, too. I had a pretty good town read going on you (based on you pegging Kham so early), right up until you said you were concerned about me for suspecting Kise... then I wasn't as sure about you anymore.

[MadCrawdad]

My guess is that Ceph secretly proposed marriage to her in a scum chatroom from another game, and therefore, she couldn't bear seeing her man lynched here...

[MadCrawdad]

Yeah, but it might have been more helpful, instead of just agreeing with me on AT & Kise, and then saying 'More lynching so-and-so,' if you had actually posted some additional thoughts of your own...