Open 144 - Near-Vanilla - GAME OVER!

[ODDin]

Confirm.

[ODDin]

Since it says they joined the site today, I'm guessing they simply didn't understand how the site works. Don't worry TtotheY, no big deal, though you won't be able to participate in this specific game.
In order to join a game on the site you'll have to go into the queue forum. There are several threads there that govern the subscriptions to various types of games - mini games, normal games, theme games etc. You go into the thread you wish, read the subscription rules and reply in said thread with "/in". In some threads you'll sign up for a specific game, in others you'll just sign up in general and will be put in the next game of the type when a new one appears.
If this is your first time playing mafia online, it is highly recommended that you first sign up for a newbie game. Even if you have played mafia online before but on different forums, it is still recommended that you sign up for a newbie game, just to get a feel of how games are played on this site.

[ODDin]

vote: MadCrawdad

, for making us wait so long!

[ODDin]

OMGUS so early in the morning?

[ODDin]

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

[ODDin]

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.

[ODDin]

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.

[ODDin]

It's written right in his profile on the wiki.

[ODDin]

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.

[ODDin]

hohum: the point of the game is to annoy

scum

until they start dropping tells. The strategy of annoying and pressuring everybody and anybody is based on the fact that only scum will crack under pressure.
If I know of a player who may crack and actually claim scum while not being scum, then making it happen doesn't benefit me as town in any way. What I get by pressuring him is getting him lynched - and, as AndyTony has (quite correctly) said, the point is not to lynch

people

, it's to lynch

scum

. Statistically, the chances of him being scum are lower than the chances of him being town. Thus, there's no reason I should want him lynched per se.

And the fact that I actually needed to explain this (especially after what AndyTony said) earns you a FoS.

FoS: hohum

[ODDin]

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.

[ODDin]

Last post addressed at MadCrawdad.

hewitt - that's why I generally don't like pressure tactics.

[ODDin]

I observe the game and look at peoples' behaviour. When I see someone doing something I think is anti-town, contradicting themselves, bringing up faulty arguments, being in connection with other scummy people etc, I point it out and demand an explanation. I do put a certain amount of pressure, of course, but mostly in accordance to the amount of suspicion. That is, I don't attempt to press too hard for the sake of pressure itself if I don't actually have arguments that make me extremely suspicious of said person.
I attempt to calmly state arguments for and against people.

[ODDin]

Logical fallacies are hardly something subjective.

If it were up to me to start discussion? Putting extra votes on somebody to start off a small bandwagon often yields results. This works worse in games with few players (if you have 7 players, 3 votes is already L-1) since bandwagons can get out of hand quickly, but it usually works.
For more effect I might fake a small argument out of something. This is sort of what my "OMGUS so early in the morning" was for, although the emoticon kinda ruined it, as it appeared.

[ODDin]

*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.

[ODDin]

Hey, you were the one who began asking questions, eh?

[ODDin]

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?

Well, I did read his games, and he wasn't "OMG YOU VOTED FOR ME I R SCUM". Plus, I hadn't anything else to go for.

[ODDin]

MadCrawdad: It was an "oh man" reaction when I saw he was the only one at this point I can go for. But I decided in favour of that after all.

[ODDin]

Wait, AndyTony, where did you see anyone here - be it hohum, me or someone else - try to get an easy lynch on Zer0?

[ODDin]

AndyTony - only votes on Zer0 are RVS votes. I talked about his actions in other games, but I didn't advocate lynching him (if he doesn't claim scum, that is).

[ODDin]

AndyTony, I don't see anything wrong with discussing meta. It's valid, fair and often useful information. Of course, it's not a tell per se - roles aren't distributed according to meta. But it does help you put on the correct lens when reading through someone's posts.
Of course, everything depends on context and the circumstances, but that doesn't mean meta is useless or that meta discussion gets us nowhere.

My opinion on Zer0? There's nothing even to get a read from at this point. Just a few neutral posts.

[ODDin]

Also, Zer0, just a suggestion - if you can't stand playing in a game and gets no fun to you, replace out.

[ODDin]

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.

I don't like this. AndyTony is stating his opinions and actually helps the discussion move

somewhere

more than anyone else in the game right now.
I don't see what info he can feed the scum, exactly.

Also, what does "doing it without actually voting [...]"? First you say that him telling too much of his opinions and thinking is bad for the town, because it apparently gives the scum too much info (something I don't agree with in the first place). But then you say that if he voted, it'd be okay?

Also, he didn't really change his opinions much. He was pretty much going around the same points over and over again. So I certainly don't see how this is "opinion flip-flopping".

So, this post contradicts itself and goes nowhere. And before it you've also said you're "looking at AT as if he's scum". I think you're really trying very hard to accuse AT.

Thus,

unvote, vote: pitstop

Another thing:
While I don't agree with Zer0 too much on his point against AT - AT is trying a tad too hard, but I think he's just trying to stir up discussion, which is a healthy thing to do, - I don't really like AT's reaction to it. It seems too defensive and emotional, especially noteworthy in the wake of a discussion on how being emotional is counterproductive to the game.

[ODDin]

Also,

mod, could you prod The Corporation?

[ODDin]

Pitstop, there's a difference between being an easy target and being scummy.
Also, why didn't you address the contradictions in your words that I've pointed out?

[ODDin]

There are 3 mafia members, given that the mafia PM is free for all to see on the first page.
However, I don't see your point here. What does it matter at this point if there are two mafia members or three? It's not like we have much info on our hands, it's

way

to early to be making any sort of arguments based on the number of scum in game.

[ODDin]

... or you could actually read the setup and not have to assume anything.

[ODDin]

It doesn't matter. I would expect players participating in the game to actually read the rules in the beginning of the game. And the mafia PM clearly states that there are three mafia members.

Also, Khamisa, what exactly don't you like about Zer0's play? You say it's bad. Could you quote posts you find bad and explain what makes them bad?
And what do you think about Pitstop?

[ODDin]

Ooh, development. Will read more thoroughly Friday, I hope.
But in the meantime - Khamisa, I thought we've been over that already. It's been chewed on from pretty much any possible direction, I don't really see any point in going back to this - other than you wanting to appear active without actually saying anything useful about what matters at the moment (Pitstop / Cephrir / The Corporation). And no, the lame excuse of saying something against Pitstop in the end of the post doesn't count.
Not to mention that "He will claim scum" sounds like a horribly forced and lame attempt to lynch Zer0.

[ODDin]

Okay, sorry I didn't come back on Friday as I hoped I would, but better late than never, I guess.

In all fairness, I don't like neither Cephrir's nor The Corporation's play at the moment.

But first of all, Pitstop:

Ok, so I will admit the comment I made about the opinion statement was wishy-washy, but I think you're misinterpreting some of it.

I never said he was changing his opinions, I just said his opinions aren't really helping. However, like I said, this is wishy-washy because you point out here that he stuck by his opinions, and I agree with that and it's logical.

I was trying to say that we weren't accomplishing anything. We were laying our cards out on the table, but we never used them and so that's what I'm getting at. This may come across like I just think we should lynch anyone, which isn't true. But what I do feel is that we need to do at least some voting that isn't random, rather than just wasting our time posting opinions 24/7.

But the game is picking up now and so this can be semi-disregarded due to the fact that many people are voting for those who they are suspicious of.

This actually makes some sort of sense, especially considering you actually agree that some things I've said were logical. I still don't like what seemed to me like you pushing too hard against AT, but it doesn't look like you're going to be continuing that line of reasoning, so I can't really push further in that direction. However, I'm more inclined to think that you're not going to continue this line of reasoning since you've seen it's not fruitful - wagon doesn't work, so let's back up.
This looks especially bad considering your inactivity right now. I don't really know if you're active lurking or not, but it's a rather bad time to lurk. It would make perfect sense if you're just waiting to see where the wind blows - should you go with Cephrir or with Corp. So, I would really apprectiate your opinion on this matter ASAP.

Regarding the case on Cephrir: the initial case isn't that strong. However, the discussion raised some all new points against him.
1) Cephrir quickly followed me and put a 3rd vote on Pitstop. Also, the compliment made toward me might have been an attempt at buddying. He knows I'm town, so he's trying to make me think like my argument is solid and good. That's pretty much the original case. It's not that strong in an on its own, but it has a certain point.
2) Cephrir has been quite busy invalidating all arguments against him by making those following them feel bad about themselves and painting them as bad players. He's been accusing Corp of being a newbie - that isn't helpful, an argument is an argument. Later he says:

@Everyone agreeing with a case that doesn't exist: WTF is wrong with you.

This also isn't helpful. Would you have reacted the same way had they been following that same argument against someone else?
3)

Also, why the hell is everyone all over me about this vote and not ODDin?

This is just horrible. Please notice that Cephrir doesn't find me scummy. At no point does he bring an argument against me. Also, he's not merely asking "why is it that you find me scummy and you don't find ODDin scummy". He says "why are you over me and not ODDin". As in, lynch him, not me.
4) He's been accusing Corp of saying he's scum and basing his logic on that. Then at some point he says "I'm voting pitstop because he's scum". No, you're voting for him because you think he's suspicious. (If you're town to begin with, that is.) That's something of a contradiction.
5) On the issue of AT and the secrecy thing going on lately... well, meh. It does make sense, in a way, although it was poorly handled. OccamR might be suspected of rolefishing, but then again, it was kinda asked for.

Corp:
That being said, point 4 above is still correct. A lot of your logic is based on "I think Ceph is scum, now why would a scum do this and that". Especially the "math" argument is disturbing. This is way too much maybes and ifs that don't really go anywhere. Attempting to do such calculations on D1 is fruitless, and only thing it can lead to is you being stuck in the mind frame that your calculations MUST be correct, and then being unable to view things in a different light.
You've been also been saying things like "I'm trying to lynch you because you're scum", which suggest of the aforementioned counterproductive reasoning.

Khamisa:
Even after I've specifically said that I think you're trying to appear active by discussing something (which we've finished discussing long ago), you're still not addressing the current issues. It certainly doesn't remove my suspicions that you're attempting to fake scumhunting.
However, you seem to be about as detached in another game I'm playing with you, so I'm less confident of this actually being a scum-tell.

huhum:
You said you'd "catch up today" five days ago.

So, while the discussion has made me more suspicious of pretty much everybody involved (except perhaps AT, still pretty neutral on him), my biggest suspect at the moment is Cephrir. After him I'd go with Pitstop, Corp and Khamisa falling somewhat behind.

Thus,

unvote, vote: Cephrir

[ODDin]

First of all, I thought it was the second vote. As evidenced, I believe, by me calling it the second vote in a later post. Second, I said you had a good case and agreed with you. Let's say this is genuine. How could I possibly have worded that post agreeing with you to possibly not be seen as buddying?

That is why I feel this, on its own, isn't really strong. However, it does tie up well into the picture I get from all other stated points.

Meh, just Corp really. As for everyone else I'm honestly wondering what merit they see in his case.

But you have put it in a very certain way, as if trying to make people thing "damn, I'm going to look like an idiot if I follow this case". No matter what we might think or say, we often care how others see us and judge us, and attempting to create a parallel of "you follow the case against me = you're an idiot" can be a very useful strategy for scum. This also ties in to the previous point (you potentially buddying me) - it draws a picture of a scum with a tactic of manipulating feelings and emotions.

No, I don't find you scummy; I was just questioning what set the two of us apart in Corp's opinion because the reasons he was attacking me seemed applicable to you as well; knowing that I'm not scum I obviously wouldn't suspect you for the same actions but you get it.

I get it. Again, it's all in how you put it. It didn't sound like valid questioning, it sounded like "lynch him, damn it, not me!". You can say it's just my imagination and you didn't mean it, but I saw what I saw.

"Because he's scum" = slightly overconfident way of saying I find him suspicious.

Considering this overconfidence had no real basis - my argument against Pitstop was fine, but it wasn't rock solid, - and considering how you accused Corp of him being overconfident, this just seems strange.

* * *

The calculation comment was a long hand way of saying, Ceph had spotted a target which could potentially get enough votes. The breakdown of the votes was to explain why Pitstop would be a lucrative target if Ceph were mafia. As you seem to concur he just pushed a little to early and with a little too much glee and gave it away.

By no means do I think my "calculations" are correct, they are ruberry at best, but I think they still do prove the point that Pitstop probably was the most convinient lynch - despite showing no real mafia signs to speak of.

The problem is, this very same calculation would've worked against pretty much everyone. dejkha's vote was more or less RVS, Cephrir couldn't be sure it'd stay there. So basically, Pitstop was "lucrative" only because there was one towny actually maknig an argument against him. Of course, one is more than nothing, but it's not like townies won't accuse people over the day. Pitstop was more or less the first (although there were sort of arguments brought up against people earlier in the day), but even if Cephrir is scum, it'd be stupid of him to think Pitstop would be the last.
That's why your calculations look smart but actually mean nothing other than "there was one towny already voting for pitstop". And if I'm scum and not town, these calculations are even more worthless - the one your scumbuddy just voted for is hardly a lucrative target.

As for your last point, it's not fully correct. The fact alone that you've attacked him doesn't mean you're scum. Cephrir, even if he's town, is in his right to believe you're a town making a mistake and not scum. I don't think his posts are indicative of him knowing that you're town and not scum and speaking in that light. Looks like you're trying to cause him to OMGUS vote you more than anything else.

That being said,

are

you mafia with a well directed attack?

[ODDin]

Since you're not allowing me to argue with you here, all I can do is tell you that you're wrong.

It's a question of interpretation, so I can't really see how we can "argue" about this. I don't know what's going on in your mind so I can't claim to know for certain what you did and didn't mean. From reading your words, I get a certain feeling. Naturally, I don't expect you to say "darn, you're onto me, I am indeed scum". So it's up to other people to judge if they feel the same way or not.

Let me try again. "I'm voting Pitstop because he's scum" = "I'm not voting for Pitstop for the reason you put in my mouth". I guess if you're going to see it that way then I can't stop you.

Oh, got you.

[ODDin]

And haven't you got anything to say on the subject? What do you think about the arguments on Cephrir? What do you of The Corporation, of me, of AT, of Pitstop?

Lurking isn't going to get us nowhere, you know.

[ODDin]

Lurking indeed isn't getting you anywhere, but it's getting me info to think of for myself.

If you're town, then there's no "me" and "others", the town is a single whole and one should try to do the best for the town's sake. Lurking as town is a bad tactic, pure and simple (barring perhaps some special power roles, but the ones in this game don't qualify). Only ones who actually benefit from lurking - of themselves and of others - are scum.
So, where exactly are you going with this? Are you going to shock and amaze us with some groundbreaking info that you got by way of lurking anytime soon?

AndyTony- I don't think much of his playing and I don't like him [But I won't vote based on that].

Why don't you like him?

Pitstop- The only reason I think he's scum is because I like him. Everyone I hate seems to always be town.

Why do you like him?

[ODDin]

I don't like AndyTony because I just don't.
I like Pitstop, because he has not spoken to me.

Wow.
Also, you forgot to say what you think of me. But seeing your other opinions, I doubt it be anything informative.

Khamisa - you still haven't said what you think about the cases on Cephrir or Pitstop. Maybe there's nothing much new, but it's not like you did something useful - or did anything, really - when there was something new.

I'm really, really troubled with Zer0 and Khamisa right now. They are both lurking in plain sight and being horribly counterproductive. Only thing I can say in their favour is that this seems to be how the play generally.

[ODDin]

All I do is spice it up for myself and make it confusing for others.

Which is obviously anti-town - scum know who's scum and who's town, there's no much point confusing them, really. The only people whom confusion hurts, and pretty badly at that, are the town.
So, I really don't know what to do about you. You're being admittedly anti-town, you're giving us no arguments about you being not scum when asked (saying "I'm not us because I'm not scum and I don't lie" is like saying nothing.)
Now, what The Corporation here did is essentially WIFOM.

The problem is, no, it' not masterful scum play. Zer0's behaviour is poor and counterproductive whatever his role is. If he's town, then he's just hurting his own team pretty seriously, and if he's scum, he's getting himself needlessly close to being lynched without any point or reason.
However, I'm seriously starting to lean towards policy lynching here. A player whose declared goal is to confuse us is pretty damn dangerous.

[ODDin]

I wonder if you understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

[ODDin]

First of all, it takes 7 votes to lynch someone, not 12.
Second, what has that got to do with your horrible anti-town play?

[ODDin]

hewitt - do you think attempting to confuse other players and active lurking are valid town strategies, then?

Also, shouldn't Pitstop be prodded / replaced already?

[ODDin]

Zer0, seriously, what was the point of this? Have you got at least something remotely resembling an argument against dejkha? His lurking has been brought up earlier, but considering his request to be replaced, I don't think we should really hold this against him. Even if he's not replacing out of all his games, he could've decided that he has time for X game but not for X+T games, and this game fell into the T zone.

I don't think replacing out is any sort of tactic or anything, or can even be considered as a tell.

[ODDin]

If you don't like my vote, do something about it.

Gladly.

Vote: Zer0

[ODDin]

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

[ODDin]

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.

[ODDin]

Disagree. This goes beyond utility lynch. I repeat the example of a hated townie role, who requires one less vote to be lynched. While he is townie, he is a danger to the town, and the correct way to play the role is to get lynched ASAP, before this one vote can become the difference between winning and losing.
The same goes here - even if Zer0 is town, he's completely unpredictable and is playing an anti-town game. As the game progresses and people die, each player has more affect on the game, culminating in the endgame. I certainly do not want to see a player playing the way Zer0 is playing right now being one of two townies in an endgame.

So I stand by my opinion that he should be lynched, even though I think he's likely town.

[ODDin]

Zer0 - I'm not voting you for not being productive. I'm voting you for being actively counterproductive. Yes, I actually think that our chances of winning without with lynching you today are higher than our chances of winning without lynching you today, even if you are town (and that's not a certainty as well - the unvoting actually makes me somewhat more suspicious you're trying to play the "look I'm a frustrated townie" game, leeching on the discussion we had early in the game.)

[ODDin]

Okay, please notice something:

I just don't have any response to that selfvote.

I feel like you probably are town

, but obviously you have no plans of ever helping us scumhunt and clearly you will eventually be lynched. It's Empking syndrome. It doesn't really matter whether we lynch you now or later, but

you'll probably flip town.

You suck. [bolded by me]

But later, he says:

Or alternatively, I decided to vote for someone [that is, Zer0] because they're scummy.

It seems to me Cephrir is trying to make up reasons to his actions along the way, as if he doesn't actually know why he's doing stuff and is inventing excuses post-factum. Which makes me think he's got certain reasons to hide his actual motives.

Other things of note:

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.

Asking lots of questions so that scum will slip is a very good play style. It's called contributing. It seems disturbing that you're actually looking for something to attack him for. It's like "damn, you're playing so good that I can't find a reason to lynch you!"


On the other hand, Zer0 seems to be making somewhat more sense, is lurking less and is contributing more, which makes me hope he's going to be less of a hindrance as the game goes on. So I'm somwhat inclined to give him a second chance, especially in light of a very serious suspect.


So, I think I'm going to return to my position before the whole thing with Zer0. I hope letting him live is the right thing to do, be he scum or town.

unvote, vote: Cephrir

[ODDin]

Khamisa, you sure are making a poor job out of making this game more exciting, considering you're one of the players making it least exciting.
Also, in Vengeful 5P you turned out scum, so the "you always play like this" line of defence goes away. So,

FoS: Khamisa

for some serious active lurking, though the case on Cephrir still seems stronger.

Cephrir, why are you giving up? It's hardly over yet.
Could you, for instance, address your contradictory opinion on Zer0? At one post you think he's most likely town and you're going for a utility lynch, in another you say you think he's scummy.

[ODDin]

Khamisa: You didn't say it, I did. I said that since I saw you playing the same way in a different game, it might mean it's just your playing style in general.

[ODDin]

Mod: I'm voting for Cephrir, not Zer0, as of post 423. And I did remember to unvote this time.

[ODDin]

By the way, I think it'd be wise to wait for the replacements to come in and have a say before anyone hammers. I doubt it will actually change the current course of action (although who knows), but I mostly want to hear what they've got to say on the situation before the night - for future reference, that is.

[ODDin]

Mod: I'm voting for Cephrir, not Zer0, as of post 423. And I did remember to unvote this time.

This has been fixed. I apologize for missing it.

Erm, as much as I don't want to be a pain in the ass, this hasn't been fixed, at least not in the latest vote count...

[ODDin]

I'm neutral on him. I don't find the meta on dejkha so damning. Very very mildly, perhaps, but I want far better arguments before I vote or even FoS someone.

Also, the only way in this setup to be anti-town without being mafia is to act in a stupid manner, which isn't the case with him and wasn't with dejkha either.

Why are you so focused on Alduskkel, though? Where are you going with this?

[ODDin]

Also, AT, why did you feel the need to confirm your vote on Ceph?

[ODDin]

AT - I just found it strange you confirm a vote when no new information actually came in. Confirming seems to me like "I was already suspicious of him before, and this new info makes me even more suspicious".

Now, Cephrir makes an interesting point. However, we have lots of players who weren't active during the wagon's build-up - hewitt, dej, hohum, OccamR (I might be forgtting somebody). When Alduskkel came in it was a bit too late to defend you, and this will also be the case when the other replacements come in.
So, the fact alone that you weren't really defended doesn't indicate you're town. It might be a point in your favour, but with the number of inactive players and all the other points against you, my vote stays.

[ODDin]

Khamisa, I don't see what's so terribly wrong about Zer0's question. He essentially asks us what we think about Alduskkel. It isn't the best wording, and I don't think it's the most important thing to ask at the moment, but it's a valid question.

[ODDin]

Khamisa, you should also notice that the case on Ceph isn't based entirely on his note to self. There are inconsistencies and self-contradictions in his posts, he's been accused of role-fishing, of appealing to emotion... do you disagree with all of these and claim they're based on poor logic?
Did you even read the thread properly?

Also, Ceph, you said something about nobody defending you?..

[ODDin]

You're still in the game because yawetag didn't manage to find replacements, but if you can still be with us it'd be cool.

[ODDin]

Why do you bring up the meta argument only now? Why didn't Cephrir bring it up? Can you show us games where he was role-fishing, contradicting himself and appealing to emotion while being town?

[ODDin]

We're waiting for replacements. hohum being back with us is great, but we still need replacements for OccamR, hewitt and The Corporation.
Personally, I don't want to lynch anyone with so many people not able to have a say on the issue.

[ODDin]

I would just like to point out what Alduskkel has already said: Khamisa is horribly active lurking. She read games she wasn't in (some of them from before she even joined the site) in order to present a specific argument.
So, she's actually paying a lot of attention and she's working very hard on the game. Yet she contributes very little and only when it fits her.

This certainly makes me feel like she and ceph and scum buddies, and she's heard his plea and went on to defend him. But even if he does flip town, I'm very suspicious of Khamisa right now.

[ODDin]

EBWOP: "like she and ceph are scum buddies"

[ODDin]

Khamisa, you

are

active lurking, like it or not. Or you were during most of this day, at any rate. It's no "ploy", it's the way you play. There's no other "way to look at it".
If you had spare time to read games you aren't in, it means you had time to properly participate in this game as well (judging by the date you signed in, it's not that you read the game a long time ago, but now you don't have enough time to participate in the game).

[ODDin]

Maybe. He hasn't been replying to questions directed to him since the 15th, which is 8 days.
I'll tell farside.

[ODDin]

Argh. yawetag's previous votecount was incorrect, I've been voting for Cephrir, so just to set things finally in order, I

unvote, vote: Cephrir

hewitt needs to be replaced as well.

That being said, Khamisa emerges as a very interesting suspect indeed. I think I'm pretty much equally suspicious of both Ceph and Khamisa right now. I'll need to think about this a bit more.

[ODDin]

P.S. Huh, I didn't even notice hewitt has been replaced... when did that happen?

[ODDin]

I don't think we'll get much from this avenue. He can probably provide some quote from dej that states he doesn't enjoy playing scum. I doubt Zer0 completely made it up. This still doesn't nearly justify a vote.

[ODDin]

hohum, you could do your part in helping this game out, you know. You promised to reread. Have you? Did you reach any conclusions?

The Replacement - you said you were going to be back with more information five days ago. Any news?

farside - any news on the replacement / prods front? Also, is there a new deadline?

Also, although I really don't like saying this, and it does seem like there are still things to be said and opinions to be heard out, I'm thinking that perhaps a lynch would help move this game forward. No, I don't think it's a good thing for us as town, but I want the game to go.

Another thing is that extremely long days are very good for the town - which makes this somewhat unfair for the mafia.

[ODDin]

Another thing is that extremely long days are very good for the town - which makes this somewhat unfair for the mafia.

Wtf? Who cares?

FoS Oddin.

And way to try to hurry a lynch that you know will be a lynch of me.

1) I don't want to win a game because the chances were unfairly tilted in my favour. Deadlines are partially there to somewhat assist the mafia, because if the town can prolong the discussion as long as it wants, the mafia's chances of winning drop significantly (it has been tried, I believe).

2) As a matter of fact, no, I'm not sure it's going to be a lynch of you. As I've said, I'm pretty comfortable with lynching either you or Khamisa, and depending on the way other people react, I may well change my vote to her.
And I'll say this once again - I wouldn't advocate a lynch if the game was actually active. I'm just trying to move the game and get it going. If the game dies, it doesn't matter much who was leading when it happened.


hohum: cool down.

[ODDin]

There's a big difference between saying "I'm town" and saying "I'm a VT". Also, we still don't know anything. It's not like claiming VT is more of a reason to believe you're not scum than you saying "I'm not scum".
Only thing you achieve by claiming VT is telling scum you're (likely) not a power-role. We town have no real use for this info.

So, your claim was a stupid move, regardless of who you actually are.

[ODDin]

Everyone by default claims to be pro-town. There's a difference between saying "I'm pro-town" (which is null-tell, provides absolutely no information and does not constitute a defence - in this setup, at least; setups with more than 2 sides are a different issue) and saying "I'm a vanilla townie", which, if you're pro-town, VT or not, doesn't help the town and can only potentially help the mafia.

[ODDin]

Just when I thought that zer0 was sort of okay to leave in the game, he felt the need to come and say "nope, I'm still a complete asshole and the more I stay alive, the lower your chances of winning this game become".
So, I really don't know what to do now. I still don't think zer0 is scum, but I've now lost all hope of him getting any better. So, what do you think, is zer0 harming the town enough that lynching him will increase our chances of success?

[ODDin]

You said you had meta info on dej. Provide proof of this info.

Also, if I don't use the forum quote system, I'm not attempting to imply you've actually said something.

I lost hope in you because once again you lapse into being lazy, not paying attention to the game, doing stupid things, using "I'm not scum because I'm not scum" defence and talking to everybody like you're doing us a favour you're even here.

Also, Ceph, weren't you for a zer0 lynch a little while ago? I don't remember you ever backing out of your desire to lynch zer0, until right now.

[ODDin]

pablito: Why it being the highest wagon is a reason to vote ceph? If anything, it should be a reason not to vote him until you actually think he's worthy of lynching.

[ODDin]

Yes, I can choose to not vote. But I choose to vote. In the midst of my read through. I found this. I like it.

This is a gem find.

If it were up to me to start discussion? Putting extra votes on somebody to start off a small bandwagon often yields results. This works worse in games with few players (if you have 7 players, 3 votes is already L-1) since bandwagons can get out of hand quickly, but it usually works.
For more effect I might fake a small argument out of something. This is sort of what my "OMGUS so early in the morning" was for, although the emoticon kinda ruined it, as it appeared.

Duly noted ODDin. Duly noted.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Care to elaborate?

[ODDin]

I think he was trying to quote pablito.

[ODDin]

pablito, Alduskkel: I think hohum was trying to quote, or rather, "quote" (as in, say "so that's what you're basically saying") pablito because he basically repeated pablito's reason (it being the highest wagon), and also, there's an ending quote tag at the end of his post. So, I'm guessing he was trying to quote someone somewhere there. I'm not a mind reader, of course. That's just what I think, it's not really an "argument", and I don't think it matters that much. When hohum shows up, I'm guessing he'll set things in order.
That being said, I think quote tags should be used only to quote something that has actually been said by said player, verbatim, not to express "so what you're basically saying is...".
hohum, if it was a failed attempt at quoting, do unvote and explain what you're trying to say normally (also, preview is your friend). If you did actually want to vote Ceph... do explain yourself.

Khamisa, I also don't see why you vote Zer0 now. Your exact argument has been brought up ages ago and no new info really came up (actually, some new info did come up, zer0 explained his meta on dej, but if anything, this should make you not vote him). Why didn't you vote Zer0 earlier?

[ODDin]

Well, I don't like your actions any more than Alduskkel, hohum. I'm actually less disturbed by the fact you put Ceph at L-1, I'm more disturbed by the fact it took you so damn long to clarify that you did, in fact, do that, instead of failing to quote. You weren't explaining your actions, you were practically relishing in the confusion, sitting on the fence and making your little notes.
Even if not necessarily scummy, this style of play is pretty much obnoxious. And you'd do wise to say what, exactly, you have got against Kise, unless you want to do the whole "you suck but I'm not gonna tell you why" routine again.

[ODDin]

hohum, I'm beginning to wonder if you're reading what's been posted in the thread prior to replying.

Here is me explicitly asking you to explain about your vote on Ceph (post 647, two pages back):

hohum, if it was a failed attempt at quoting, do unvote and explain what you're trying to say normally (also, preview is your friend). If you did actually want to vote Ceph... do explain yourself.

Also, you still didn't actually say what you've got against Kise. I'm understanding it's a meta thing, but calling him a raging homo doesn't help us understand anything, other than your dislike of homosexuals.


Also, it is interesting that you believe your actions are going to bring to your lynch, yet you don't find anything wrong about them. I'm assuming this means you think a majority of players here (those who are going to vote for you, that is) are very poor players indeed. Either that, or you just don't give a flying fuck about this game and its outcome, and really couldn't care less if your faction, whatever it is, wins or loses. I'm inclined to believe the second.

[ODDin]

You did, but it certainly took you some time. In post 675 you're saying that "nobody asked". I'm showing you I very explicitly did ask.

[ODDin]

I didn't threaten to lynch you. Right now, I'm not intending to vote for you - mostly because I don't find you scummy. It was you who said that you predict you're going to be lynched. This means you predict a majority of players is going to vote for you. This means you either think a majority of players play poorly (because you predict they'll be making the wrong move), or you just don't care. Or you think that you being lynched at this point is somehow a clever ploy.

[ODDin]

And get your reasons straight. Either nobody asked you, or people did ask you but you didn't want to answer. Not both.

[ODDin]

Kise, pablito, lobstermania, I'd very much like to hear your thoughts about the game in its entirety. Long posts with comments along the way are more than welcome. If not, at least present a detailed opinion on the current main suspects - Khamisa and Ceph, - and any other interesting thoughts you might have.

Mod: As much as I hate to say this, I believe The Corporation also needs to be replaced. He hasn't been around for quite some time.

[ODDin]

Pablito replaced The Corporation, the first post just hasn't been updated to reflect that.

Oops. Sorry about that, then.

[ODDin]

Response to prod: still here. Had lots of exams + internet decided to die earlier today, came alive just now. Will catch up soon, later today or tomorrow.

[ODDin]

hohum:
1) If you believe cephrir's wagon was pushed by scum, why were you on it? You didn't act like you believed he was town. On the other hand, if you believe it was reasonable to want him lynched, it doesn't make sense to accuse the ones pushing for it.

2) You're accusing AndyTony of wanting to shorten the deadline. This means you believe there was something to be gained out of a longer deadline, a reason to play for another three weeks instead of for another week. However, you hammered cephrir - which is even worse in terms of overall play, since if you know there's a deadline, you can act on that, you're more in a hurry. If you think the deadline is in another two weeks or so, and suddenly you find out somebody hammered, then you didn't get a chance to say something if you wanted to.

3) Why don't you like the Khamisa wagon?

[ODDin]

Hi, still here, will catch up ASAP. Sorry for the absence, been having problems with the internet.

[ODDin]

Heya, the internet should be okay now and I've reread the last 7 pages. Some thoughts:

On AndyTony:
I mostly agree with him. His posts didn't seem OMGUS to me. The only case where it might seem a little OMGUSy is him FoSing MCD, but it isn't really much, since AT brought up more or less decent reasons for that.
Also, he had, indeed, been very verbose throughout the entire game, repeating things lots of times. Even now, you can see him repeating and rephrasing his defence countless times. It's not a bad thing, it's a style of expressing yourself. When he's eager and certain about something, he says it over and over again. Considering this, it really doesn't seem to me he's been trying to make any special point with his case on Ceph.
Asking to shorten the deadline might be a decent case, but he did explain why he asked for it and I can understand that. Also, seeing that hohum hammered before the deadline, and kdub said he'd do that to, going after AT seems somewhat hypocritical.

Alduskkel: I have a feeling you're trying to "make amends" with hohum. He's been accusing you in late D1, so you want to make sure he's fine with you, and thus you follow his points and go for AT. Also, you're latching onto other people's cases almost all the time - ceph, khamisa, AT.

hohum: You promised to answer my questions (post 839), you didn't. You also didn't answer Alduskkel's 843.
Also, I really don't like your attitude towards AT. Your own case against him isn't nearly strong enough to warrant a lynch at this point, and you must see that for yourself. You didn't even say anything regarding MCD's case, you're just saying "good, more arguments on AT". You're being horribly narrow-minded and you're trying to push for an early lynch.

Hopefully this will wake you up and get you to actually answer the questions you've been asked:

vote: hohum

Funny that you went after AT for not answering your own question (and a not very important or meaningful question at that).

FoS: Alduskkel

, for reasons mentioned above.

Also, pablito, you seem unable to be arsed to do lots of things. Unvote D1, catch up. I wonder if you can be arsed to play the game.

[ODDin]

Also,

mod: shouldn't Khamisa be prodded too?

Khamisa's V/LA expires tomorrow. When it does, she will no longer be "immune" to prods.

[ODDin]

AT: Defining OMGUS with votes is, indeed, limiting. The point of OMGUS is that when someone attacks the mafia, the mafia attacks back, since it's important for them to kill the one who might be onto them. Town, on the other hand, don't really care it's them specifically being attacked - they should defend only since it's an attack on someone who is, in their knowledge, 100% town.
So, it doesn't really have to include votes on either side. It's the fact that attacks and suspects someone because they've attacked and suspected him. Now, of course nobody will say that this is, in fact, their reason for striking back. They'll give arguments - or manufacture arguments out of thin air, as the case may be.
The crux of the question is whether your arguments against MCD are indeed fair arguments of a town member who finds something genuinely suspicious, or are they manufactured arguments of a scum member, whose main reason to attack MCD is because MCD put up a case against him.

This is, at any rate, how I understand that whole OMGUS argument against you.

[ODDin]

I have encountered:

1. omgus behavior (with Pitstop briefly. I didn't vote or FoS her for it, I made note of it)

2. OMGUS (the act of omgus - which I've defined more than once and have been wrongfully accused of)

MCD seems to be confusing them with eachother and calling it a discrepency.

---
I introduced the Pitstop "omgus behavior" as just that.

I later referred to it as "omgus behavior".

When MCD asked about it, I also called it "omgus behavior".

---

You should have realised that this is not a distinction most people make. I'm feeling that no one even understood you were making a difference between the two up until this quote. AFAIK, it's not standard to differentiate between these two. You really should've brought this up earlier - pretty much the moment the case was brought up against you.
It almost feels like you wanted MCD to catch you on that, only to explain how wrong he was and how right you actually were.
I doubt that's the truth, but still, this is some scum points to you.

Why is Khamisa V/LA?

What is the point of this question?

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).

Lmao... this is the kinda thing you say when showing the rest of town how scum distanced from each other. This sentence of yours actually links you to AT. What I don't like is the possibility of Al flipping town and then AT (as scum) declaring, "OK I suppose you're cleared, MCD." Might sound weird to you, but

IGMEO the both of you, MCD & AT

.

You're putting words in his mouth, which is bad thing to do. You're saying something which isn't close to what he said, which, if said, might look scummy. This theory of yours has exactly zero evidence to back it up. There is, therefore, no reason to mention this. If you have absolutely no evidence to back a theory - keep it to yourself. Scum points to you.

Hohum: you're avoiding posts 839 (mine), which ask you questions you really should answer. This is (pathetic / childish / scummy) (circle the correct answer, possibly more than one).
You sort of answered al's question, though quite poorly. I guess that earns you a medal.
Also, you don't own the game. I guess it makes you feel all happy and important to tell us whom we lynch and whom we don't, but this is only 1/13 your decision.

pablito: This is *exactly* the time to notice lurkers. Because scum want to lurk. If the scum team sees lots of townies arguing among each other - it's the best time for them to sit back and do nothing, while the townies are busy lynching each other.
It's important to lift your head from what's currently going on and shake up those who aren't responding much. Everyone should have a say. If you don't do this, you're allowing the scum to easily slip under the radar, and then later in the game, when you go back to reread - for instance, to see how people reacted to someone who has later flipped town or scum - you discover that some people didn't say anything on the subject, and there's nothing you can discern from that.

So, @all: please say your thoughts on the current events. Mainly, on AT / MCD / Al (unless you already have, of course).

Kise: While I can resepct that you may be busy at the moment, you are still expected to read the entire game. You knew its length when you agreed to replace. If it was too much for you, you shouldn't have agreed to replace in the first place.

Alduskkel: Saying "I fully agree with X and have nothing to add", while being far from good playstyle and productive scumhunting, might be accepted to a degree. Yes, it might happen that you fully agree with someone's points and have nothing to add to them. (Although you've used it a second time in this game already - which, while also theoretically possible for a townie, suggests you're a lack of trying on your part). However, MCD doesn't think AT is vote-worthy at this point. You think AT is more scummy than what MCD thinks. You have said so yourself. Now, *this* does require that you say something more than "I agree with MCD". You can't say "I fully agree with X and have nothing to add" and then reach different conclusions.

But now you changed your vote. And I don't care that you say in advance you don't care about what people say. It's still true, and it's still a reason to suspect you.

Now, MCD's last 2 posts are quite interesting. I still don't agree with all of his points on AT (I mainly don't agree with the point on him repeating his case - it really makes sense to me), but the inconsistencies do add up to something not so pretty.
Also, AT earlier disregarded some of those simply by saying "there were lots of posts in between so it doesn't matter". You should show which posts in between exactly changed your way of thinking, not just say "lots of things happened".
The last issue with dej and AT seems very interesting, however. And it does make sense that they are partners - also in view of the latest AT-al exchange.


Current top suspects, in that order:

1) Al:
- Latching onto other people's cases.
- Doing very little scumhunting.
- What seems like buddying to hohum. He was attacked by him D1, and then he switches to attack his target.
- Changing opinions quickly.
- Saying in advance why his actions may give birth to suspicion against him - yet doing nothing to defend himself properly.

2) Khamisa
- active lurking.
- inconsistent opinion on zero.
- attempting to manufacture cases when pushed, by bringing up issues which were very old at the time and had no advances in them since her last post.

3) hohum
- attempting to take control over the game and tell other people what to do
- wanting to *lynch* someone instead of actually scumhunting.
- blatantly disregarding question.
- what seems to be active lurking throughout most of D2. Everything he says is entirely based on what he said and did D1, he brought nothing new to the table.

4) AT
- MCD's post 984, excluding the argument of repeating his points too much + what I said in the top of this post.
If you consider the possibility of him being Al's partner it might bring him up higher in the list of suspects, but I generally don't like basing arguments on connection before one of the suspected members flips scum.
So, if I suspect Al and AT as a scum team, I'm going to go for Alduskkel first - whom I suspect as scum regardless.

5) Kise
- said above in this post.
- not wanting to read the thread and saying he thought he might die N1, for which I see no reason other than an implied way of saying "look, I'm town".

So,

unvote, vote: Alduskkel

Also,

Now searching for a replacement for The Replacement.

LOL

[ODDin]

Changing your opinion seems like flip-flopping and looking for the best place to place your vote. Combined with the circumstances, this looks especially bad. You're attacked by hohum? You attack his target. You're accused of being in a scum-team with AT? You suddenly don't suspect him. Also, considering how adamant you were in believing that everything that MCD says is pure truth - but then after you actually read what he's referring to, you find almost all of it not very suspicious?

As for the last issue - it seems you're trying to stop people from accusing you in advance. If you say "I know this looks scummy", it must mean you aren't actually scum, right? Wrong. These things remain scummy, and you better defend against them.

[ODDin]

Wow.

hohum went up to top suspect together with Al, can't really decide whom I suspect more. The reason, obviously, is intentional sabotage of the scumhunt.

I'm going to keep my vote on Al because I don't see a reason to change it. I'm willing to join a wagon on hohum should one arise, though.

[ODDin]

Failing to answer questions directed at you is sabotaging the scumhunt. You're essentially saying "scumhunt all you want as long as you eventually find AT guilty". Or, to quote the song, "you can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say."
You are not exempt from questioning and you must realise that people are in their right to question you and suspect you. If you aren't mafia, then you should have no problem answering these questions and explain your pro-town reasons for doing everything you did, so that we don't suspect you and are then free to go suspect someone else - like AT, for instance.

[ODDin]

pablito, you're confusing what I've said with what Kdub has said. Unlike him, I'm not specifically attacking the lurkers, and I'm not at all certain that there must be a scum among those currently lurking. Only lurker I'm attacking is Khamisa, and I'm attacking her based on her actions during D1, which were *active* lurking, not simply lurking, and there's a very big difference here.
What I'm saying is that we must not forget about people who are lurking and not realy participating, and that we should get try to get them to post more and better express their opinions. I am not advocating attacking lurkers who aren't active lurkers only for because they are lurkers.

I'm saying that lurking is generally wise tactic for scum to lurk in certain situations. Also, when people lurk much, you have little info about them and their interactions with others later in the game, which hurts the town later on even if they're town. That's why I think it's pretty obviously a good thing to stir up the lurkers and get them to post more and express their opinions.
And, of course, I'm not saying we should stop looking at everyone else and pursuing other lines of investigation.

So, now that we're hopefully clear, I'd like everyone who hasn't done so yet to state their opinion (in as much detail as possible) on AT, Alduskkel, MCD and hohum. And no, this isn't an attack on anyone.

Also, since I think I haven't done so myself and I better practice what I preach, here's my opinion on MCD:
My read on him is mostly town. He's been active D1 and D2, he's consistent, he's asking generally good questions and has a good eye. The exchange with AT was a bit muddy, although it's not entirely his fault. I don't agree with all of his arguments, some of them are too weak IMHO and a matter of playstyle more than anything else - but I can see where they're coming from, and can see how a town player could follow these arguments.
That being said, he does seem to be tunneling on AT a bit too much today. He's recently expressed opinion on Alduskkel, which is also good. But MCD, what is your opinion on other players? hohum and kise, for instance?

[ODDin]

Hey guys, I got pretty sick yesterday so I'm in no condition to process complex information right now.
So, that's a sort of V\LA for the next couple of days or so.

[ODDin]

Response to prod: I'm still here, though I did say I'm sick and won't be around, so I don't think a prod was really in order. I'm feeling somewhat better and I'll try to catch up during the weekend.

Sorry, forgot about the V/LA.

[ODDin]

@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?

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?

On AT and MCD, yet again: it seems logical to me that MCD would reread D1 again, and seeing everything together would decide that things look scummier to him now than they did before. Also, AT, the fact that you gave an answer doesn't yet mean everyone is obligated to believe the answer is true. There are lots of behaviours that can be explained from a town perspective, with more or less stretching and effort. When lots of such questionable behaviours are brought together, even if each of them has been provided with a seemingly reasonable explanation, it does raise an alert on one's scumdar. Very rarely do you see things which are completely impossible to explain from a town perspective, and whose only possible explanation is that said player is scum.

AT: (this was written while reading pages 41-47. Some of the points I'm about to say were already answered at some point, or stated by other people. I just didn't feel like erasing what was already written.)

You are continually giving MCD more credit for forming a wagon on you than he deserves. He gave many of the points and asked many questions, yes, but if he really wanted to push a wagon, he could've done it with more ease - he could've voted voted you, for instance...
It feels to me you wish to make him look more aggressive than he actually is.

dex's post 1045 expresses quite well what I think on the subject. I entirely agree with it.

Also, you didn't answer what I said on you in post 991, which is a distinct argument from MCD's arguments.

You said that your relationship with Al doesn't suggest you being partners. It does. You were having a long exchange, in which he basically brought up no new points and which came down to a "did not / did too" level, and then he magically changes his opinion on you and goes to vote someone else entirely. You should realise that from a bystander's point of view, this very much does look like you two are scum partners. Yes, it's his "fault" more than it is yours, but nevertheless, it is there. Denying this seems to me like you automatically saying "no I didn't" to everything suggesting you might be scum.

Post 1081 (and a bit before too), AT attempts to make it appear as if d3x is tunneling him. He's almost forcing d3x to tunnel him. d3x's actions from before didn't seem like tunneling to me at all, and his explanations of his behaviour were perfectly reasonable, yet AT still claims d3x is tunneling him. Also, d3x very clearly said his vote was a pressure vote. This means he doesn't neccesarily want to get it to a lynch, and it doesn't mean he's forgot about other players.
AT seems to have moved to defending himself by discrediting his attackers, which is scummy.
Also, I'd like to note you're misunderstanding d3x's words.

Meh. My 'special interest' is that you asked me my thoughts. I just so happen to think that MCd has some valid points. Trying to paint it as anything but that is scummy, in my eyes.

"it" in this sentence does not refer to "valid points", but rather to "AT saying that d3x is tunneling, instead of just answering questions posed by AT".

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.

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

@Khamisa: you manufactured a case against Zer0. More specifically, you picked up old things that were discussed before and made a case out of them as if it was something new, and not old stuff that have been brought up and put down already at that point. You also didn't really follow on this case or do much about it. You didn't ask many questions, you didn't develop the case anywhere. You just grouped together some old evidence, presented it as a nice shiny case, and proceeded to lay low.

@d3x: what is you opinion on Al? Do you agree / diagree with the points I've made against him in post 991?

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

I'm going off of post 450 for that earlier statement - - I'm pretty sure Oddin was earliest on the Ceph wagon, and that by 450 you see the only people on it are Replacement and MCD.

No, that was actually The Corporation, currently pablito. I'm pretty certain it was him who started the whole cephrir thing.

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

@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.

I just don't feel comfortable with this. Sure, when somebody posts a defence, then if it's worth anything you would expect people to get convinced by it. However, I can't help but feel that this "OMG you are so correct the case against you is so wrong" attitude is... wrong, somehow. Feels somewhat off, really. Combined with the point of AT telling Kise how not to fall under his scumdar, this certainly paints an interesting picture.
This is hardly something to go by at this point, but this should be noted for future interest, should one of these two ever flip scum.

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

Replying to pablito's post 1085:

1) I'm not sure if there's a specific accusation about my behaviour D1 or something that needs to be explained. At the point I voted for pitstop he wasn't anywhere near a lynch, so I didn't feel a need to wait with my vote. I felt his actions were scummy, I voted. Also, it was the beginning of D1 and nobody was in danger of being lynched - voting for someone based on actual arguments of any sort at that point usually helps stir up discussion.

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.

Also, when I write my posts, I'm usually writing them while reading stuff (and they aren't written in chronological order, I insert things back into the post as I read to fit it thematically). So my general feeling and mood may vary throughout the post - I might read something, get pissed, and write a paragraph about that. Later I might read something else and at that point I'm no longer pissed, and I write it in a different mood.
This post, for instance, was being written while carefully reading pages 41-47, which took a few hours I think.

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

hohum: You know, even if in the end you're right, AT is scum, Khamisa is town, whatever - you're still a bad player who is ruining the fun for everyone else.

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

pablito: You have a point on Khamisa in theory, but I don't think we've focused on her all that much, and I certainly don't think it's Kdub's personal fault even if we did.
And if you feel we've been too stagnant, why don't you do anything to change this? If you have interesting question to ask people, new avenues we haven't explored yet - go ahead and ask. Investigate Kdub, whom you're voting. Investigate Kise, whom you're suspecting. Pose questions for them to answer, call them on the behaviour you find suspicious. Saying "this sucks but I'm not going to help" isn't helping.

Do I currently agree with a Khamisa lynch? She's not my best option (that would still be Al), but I can live with that. I agree with practically all points against her.

[ODDin]

P.S. I can't help but feel my post came out muddier than intended, I'm somewhat tired ATM. If it did, do ask for clarification.

[ODDin]

AT: Not necessarily. In this situation, it makes the most sense that Al is your partner, that you were arguing in order to create the appearance that you're not partners, and then later he moved on to attack someone else and now he's actually defending you. So the situation is: he attacked you, and we think "they can't be partners, they attacked each other and argued a lot", but now he's actually defending you, and thus his attack didn't cause any actual damage (getting you closer to being lynched).
Also, you didn't reply to all of my points on you. Like what I said in post 991, for instance.

[ODDin]

Khamisa: I might have not worded myself too well. "Manufacture" indeed isn't the best term here. But what bothers me is that:
1) You brought up a case which was old at the point, and which you were already aware of - nothing changed between your posts before the case on zer0 and the post where you presented the case. Zer0 and his play wasn't really discussed in between and no new info came up. And then you suddenly brought up the case, and as if it was something new too.
2) You didn't continue to push in that direction much. You presented a case, but you barely tried to stand behind it. It didn't feel like you really cared for it or wanted to push it forward, rather it felt like you were doing your "duty" by presenting some case you dug out, and that's it, no need to do anything else.

Also, I'll repeat AT's question since you didn't really answer it: you claim to have felt the caes on ceph was wrong, that is, you thought he was innocent. You even had a case of your own, sort of - the one on zer0. Why did you do so little effort to defend ceph and push the lynch towards the direction which was, in your opinion, better? If you didn't think the case on ceph was sound and reasonable, why didn't you share that with us? Saying "I don't get the case" isn't an excuse. It was repeated many times by many people. Hell, MCD actually accused AT of repeating it

too much

. So, other than you being lazy, there's no excuse to not understanding the case during the horribly long D1 - and the case sat there unchanging for the most of it. So why didn't you defend ceph?

[ODDin]

You're slightly contradicting yourself there. You were accusing MCD of pushing a wagon against you and tunneling on you. However, he didn't vote you, and hohum didn't vote because of him too. So, I think it's unfair to accuse him of leading a wagon against you and causing people to vote for you - it wasn't because of him. I think it's fairly clear at this point that most of the people in this game DO NOT find MCD's case on you serious enough to warrant a lynch - at least not at this point, as there are far better suspects.
Thus I find it really strange you continue to be so defensive and practically throw accusations at anyone who even dares to mention the possibility you might be scum.

Also, you failed to answer the part of post 991 which I really wanted you to answer, which is its beginning:

I have encountered:

1. omgus behavior (with Pitstop briefly. I didn't vote or FoS her for it, I made note of it)

2. OMGUS (the act of omgus - which I've defined more than once and have been wrongfully accused of)

MCD seems to be confusing them with eachother and calling it a discrepency.

---
I introduced the Pitstop "omgus behavior" as just that.

I later referred to it as "omgus behavior".

When MCD asked about it, I also called it "omgus behavior".

---

You should have realised that this is not a distinction most people make. I'm feeling that no one even understood you were making a difference between the two up until this quote. AFAIK, it's not standard to differentiate between these two. You really should've brought this up earlier - pretty much the moment the case was brought up against you.
It almost feels like you wanted MCD to catch you on that, only to explain how wrong he was and how right you actually were.
I doubt that's the truth, but still, this is some scum points to you.

And to clarify my standing on you at this moment:
1) I DO NOT find you repeating your case on ceph scummy.
2) I feel the inconsistencies in your words mentioned by MCD were sufficiently explained by you and clarified quite enough. I DO NOT find these things suspicious. (However, I don't think that finding these issues to be suspicious is suspicious either. That is, while I myself don't agree with these points in the case against you, I don't think it's absurd for others to follow these points, and I do think that a town player could agree with these points - thus, I don't think accusing you based on this points to be a scum-tell.)
3) I DO find you instructing Kise suspicious, and don't find your explanation on this issue satisfying.
4) I DO find you being very defensive and accusing back anyone who has brought up any points against you (hohum, MCD, Al, d3x) somewhat suspicious. This includes painting MCD as more aggressive and more responsible of the wagon against you than he actually is.
5) The point on the OMGUS issue quoted above - pending clarification.

[ODDin]

the best I can do is offer links to completed games where I indeed allowed myself to play like an idiot and mislynch. I've cost the town more than once for that and am to this day a believer that a new player always runs the risk of looking scummy when trying to "make up for lost time" so to speak.

Provide these links please (and point out where exactly in said game your actions were similar to the ones discussed).

[ODDin]

A few points of interest:

1) As a matter of fact, when I asked for links, I meant links for the same thing d3x later asked for - games where you have instructed people on how to avoid your scumdar. Apparently there aren't any. The links you have provided point somewhat in your favour on this, yes, but still aren't fully enough. I admit, I haven't read them yet, and frankly I don't think I'll find time to read them before the deadline (lots of stuff to do). But even if all you claim about these games is 100% true, it's not enough to clear your name. The action of telling someone how to potentially avoid your scumdar seems very scummy to me, no matter how much emotional reasoning you give it. I still see a scum you benefiting much more from it than a town you.

2) There's a big difference between misinterpreting one's words and missing a post. Obviously, d3x missed the post where I asked for links. This isn't what I call misinterpreting. Doing it on purpose would mean that he, as scum, did see the post where I asked for the links, and thought it would benefit him to pretend this post didn't exist. This is ridiculous, as such a move can get scum nowhere. You claiming that this is intentional misinterpretation, while this quite obviously isn't, is another instance of you trying to discredit your attacker. The proper response is "well, you're wrong, you missed post X", not "aha, you're misinterpreting and twisting my words, see post X".

3) AT, claiming that there isn't a case on you is ridiculous, and claiming that there aren't any points out there which aren't originally MCD's points is also ridiculous. There are plenty of points which weren't brought up by MCD - or which aren't part of his original case, at any rate. There is a case on you, with many arguments. This case can be wrong, yes, but this doesn't mean it's not a case. This is yet another example of you discrediting the ones attacking you.

Why I'm voting Al:
He's flip flopping like there's no tomorrow, changes his opinions disturbingly often, and seems opportunistic.

On the Khamisa case:
If we're already in the meta business, you might want to check out open 147, another example of Khamisa playing scum: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11459
It's very short, so it shouldn't be a hard read. And there she also plays similarly to this game. I think I even brought it up somewhere D1. (And when I mention "another game I'm playing with her" over there, it's this game.)

[ODDin]

Points on AT which aren't part of MCD's original case:
1) Discrediting the ones attacking him as a mean of defence. This includes:
1.1) Accusing MCD of leading a wagon on himself, which isn't actually the case, if you consider the ones actually voting him at the point.
1.2) Accusing MCd of tunneling, saying he's less productive than he was yesterday, implying that questioning himself isn't productive scumhunting.
1.3) Stating that there isn't at all a case against him, and calling the case stupid and bad, and effectively implying that everyone following the case is a bad mafia player.
1.4) Discrediting d3x, by calling his play poor multiple times, and accusing him profusely.
1.5) Post 1282 - saying that what Al is saying is "nonsense".

2) Arguing much over semantics, which is used to discredit his attackers and back down from false statements without actually admitting them to be false.
2.1) The OMGUS issue (introducing an extremely narrow definition of OMGUS, and making a difference between "OMGUS" and "OMGUS behaviour", which was obviously not clear for anyone but himself during a large part of the discussion).
2.2) Further on, the semantic argument on acknowledgment versus acceptance, which is essentially backing down from false statements. d3x didn't actually do what AT said he did - so the definition of AT's statement is conveniently changed to what d3x did do (which boils down to "reading the post").

Point 1 is, in fact, the main reason I'm suspecting you at the moment (practically only thing I'm taking from MCD's case is the Kise issue). And you've climbed up in my list of suspects.
At the moment, it's quite hard for me to decide whom I suspect more between AT, Al and Khamisa. They all seem pretty scummy to me.

[ODDin]

1.3) This is no better than you telling me all my defenses are "bad", you know?

Wrong, especially considering I didn't call your defences bad. You defended quite well against MCD's original argument. If I didn't think you defended against them well, they'd be part of my case - and they aren't. However, you are also using poor and scummy methods for your defence, specifically discrediting your attackers. Granted, you're not discrediting your attackers INSTEAD of answering to the case against you (which is what scum usually do), you're doing so IN ADDITION to answering to your case. This doesn't mean it isn't scummy, however.

[qoute="AndyTony"]Can you elaborate on what brings me to the TOP of that list?[/quote]
You're not exclusively at the top of the list. What brought you up in my eyes, however, is your behaviour towards d3x. It made it pretty clear that you discrediting your attackers is indeed a pattern and a method of defence, and not something which is exclusive to MCD. With MCD, you accused him f stuff he did in the game - tunneling you, mainly. You stretched it more than you should have, but it had some basis in fact. With d3x, you're just generally discrediting him and his play, using every tiny thing to try and portray his play as poor. From reading your discussion with d3x, it seems most likely to me that you calling d3x's play poor comes from a calculated decision to do so, as a mean of achieving something. And this makes it very very scummy.

[ODDin]

I wish to apologise for not being very active lately, and I don't think I'll be able to say anything of use before the deadline.
All in all, though, I am fine with a Khamisa lynch.

[ODDin]

Bah! Go town!

[ODDin]

Wee, victory is ours!

I admit to not really following the game after I died, though. (I checked to see who was lynched / NKed and what the general status of the voting was, but didn't actually read through it - had lots of exams going.) Anybody care to briefly summarise what happened after my death?

I did notice hohum replacing himself, though. That's one big mental note right there.