Mini #553: Over!

[Guardian]

Hey. I'm replacing for Shamrock.

I *might* only be here until June 15, when I go on vacation, but I might have access then so who knows. I see that there are a few votes on me and threats to vote me.

I'll re-read in the next hour or so to find out why, if anyone is online and has any specific questions or suggestions for me let me know.

[Guardian]

On page 19 in my re-read I am super duper confused -- it says B&B replaced IMat, whereas Shamrock replaced Mert.

The opening post says B&B replaced Mert, whereas Shamrock replaced Imat?

So which character string am I replacing, GSGold's or Zyrconium's?

PM-ing the mod to find out, and continuing re-reading....

[Guardian]

Oh... Reading on down the page it is explained. Continuing re-reading .

[Guardian]

Okay, so I've finished reading.

Don't want to read defense & my descriptions of all the players? Then scroll to the bottom, my suspicions are summarized at the end

.

Page 19 is wrong. I replaced Mert and crap.

You are replacing Imat. Bad luck, considering how scummy Imat was.

I disagree with that, pretty strongly.

I think Shamrock's leaving is easily explained and very justified -- the mod told him who he was replacing incorrectly, so he spent the huge amount of time and effort it takes to read a 20 page thread and try and figure out who the scum are, *with incorrect knowledge* -- he thought Mert was himself, confirmed town to him, not Imat.

So, he makes this huge case on Imat, and then the mod announces that "oh shit, actually, YOU are Imat". I'd have been pretty pissed and responded in a OMGUSy way had that happened to me; my whole read on the game being wrong and tainted by the mod's error.

The substantive points on Imat.... I am not the most careful reader when I read games.... but honestly what are they, so that I might refute them? Shamrock's case seemed pretty wrong in a few places.

The other concise/concentrated explanation of suspicion of Imat/shamrock that I could find came from B&B's game summary post, from which I see two main points.

Imat is supposedly linked to Coolbot? I can totally see a townie writing that exactly how he wrote that, that seems like an off read to me.

The other major point, that Imat pushed a bad case on Matt_S... well I agree, strongly. I think this is indicative of Imat being dumb, not being scum, and I didn't see in this post or from anyone who made a case that strongly implied that Imat was anything but stupid. Lots of people have been wrongly suspicious of Matt_S in this game (imo, and I am pretty sure Matt_S is town), not sure why Imat specifically is suspicious here.

If there's more on Imat you'd like me to try to address, I'm all ears.

Any votes or suspicion of me because of Shamrock's leaving I don't think is very warranted at all.

Imagine this situation: You offer to replace in a mafia game to help the site out of the goodness of your heart, and are told you are replacing player X and are town. You read the whole game, and after putting a lot of thought into it, decide that player Y is the most likely scum, and decide to make a long detailed case on player Y.

Then the mod tells you you were actually replacing player Y, not player X. Your whole read on the game is messed up, as you thought player X was you, and confirmed as town in your read, and now in fact player Y is you, and confirmed as town in your read.... and you've just made a huge case about how we should be lynching player Y.

That's exactly what happened to Shamrock, and I'm really disappointed in shakaa for letting that happen to a player. I totally excuse Shamrock's subsequent replacing out considering what happened to him. If I just made a case on player Y, I would be totally flummoxed as to how to go back and refute my own arguments. Put yourself in his shoes.

Imagine you'd made a 1000+ word case on someone who you unknowingly were replacing, were then told you were replacing them, and were asked to refute the argument you just spend hours making. That's a horrible situation to be in, and I am not at all disappointed in Shamrock's decision to just quit the game at that point, that's a horrible, horrible situation that shakka let happen.

I certainly hope the wagon on me is not going to escalate because I think it is poorly founded and there are better alternatives. Now, enough of defense, time to describe my thoughts.

===

Okay, since we had an SK, we likely have one or two mafia left, a vig of some sort, and maybe one or two other power roles. Obviously, the goal is to lynch a mafioso today.

Khelvaster

is a player who attracted a lot of attention, and strong feelings both ways from me, so I'll start off with him. On the one hand, I really am suspicious of the mass name claim suggestion. I think it is clear Coolbot was told either that claiming certain role names would be OK/not countered (in Coolbot's case a non-fellowship name), or that the townie role PM had no names, or both. If he was told both, Khelvaster could have gotten a safe-claim fellowship role name. If he did get a safe-claim name, that would explain his actions, hoping to claim fellowship and clear himself. I think he's been very off in Matt_S, was wrong to ask for a name claim, and has not really helped the game much.

However, I think it is more likely that Khelvaster is a fellowship power role than scum. Until we've found another mafioso,

I will not entertain suggestions for lynching Khelvaster -- he is just too likely to actually be a power role, and forcing him to claim would be really dumb

.

Next,

Matt_S

. From post 15 onwards, I have had a solidly town read on Matt_S all game. Coolbot's actions towards him confirmed this even more, Coolbot didn't look at all like he was trying to distance with Matt_S, he looked like he was trying to mislynch Matt_S. Shakka's misguided removal of Matt_S's post confirms this even further, but I had a pretty strong read on Matt_S at that point.

Of all the players, Matt_S is most likely town to me. I will not entertain notions of lynching him, because we have much better options, and he is veyr likely to be just what he claimed, vanilla town

.

destructor

: The main thing for me with destructor was that I didn't see anything he did that was suspicious most of the game. He did lurk more than any remaining player, and that is a point against his credit, but other than that nothing I read convinced me that he was very suspcious.

I don't have a strong town read on him, but I have a complete absence of reason to think he is scum. If you want to convince me otherwise I am open to it, but barring that I will not be voting destructor.

ting =)

: I have had an on and off thought process with ting=) all game. He has made a lot of sense this game, but there is a disturbing interaction with Coolbot day one. Ting =) makes an excellent read on Coolbot day one... but the read is almost too good. He is spot on that Coolbot is scum, and for the right reasons. What really troubles me is that he unvotes and moves on when other options present themselves.

It could be seen like he was planning to bus, but when no one bought into it, he dropped it and moved on. Aside from that, though, he's been pretty spot on in his logic and reads, and seems like a townie. I am unsure about ting=), but I think that there are better targets than him, and while I am open to be convinced otherwise, right now I don't think he should be lynched.

B&B

: This role has been plagued by replacements, and thus I don't have a strong read either way on it. The most I got before B&B was from GSGold, when he voted Khelvaster 64 and unvoted in 85. It seemed like it could have been unsure townie, but could have been scum hoping for a mis-lynch then seeing the tide turning. B&B seems to be actively looking for scum and providing thoughtful analysis, but his insistence that Imat be lynched is troubling because I don't really see much to that.

I am suspicious of this role/player, but definitely not the most suspicious role/player in the game. I look forward to hearing more from B&B.

My main two suspicions:

massive

: Massive first stuck out to me in post 99, which is the scummiest post of the game (and seems to have largely gone unnoticed?) for a number of reasons. He defends khelv for pretty weak reasoning (bad buddying?), then says coolbot is a townie, in comparison to matt_S, trying to confirm coolbot, who turns out to be the scum Godfather! Then, votes matt_S, and while massive is not unique in inexplicably finding matt_S suspicious, doing so in comparison to 'coolbot-town' just smells really bad. Later he gets really annoyed that shakka won't let the town MISLYNCH matt_S, and hops onto the next easy wagon, ejlicko. The first few posts of day 2, massive is quick to mention the scum might have gotten safe claims, getting away from his assertion that coolbot is town earlier. This both shows backtracking to me and possible inside knowledge that the scum did in fact have safe claims in this game.

Massive has gone on to attack Qman with his cries falling on deaf ears, which leads right to my suspicion of Qman...

I think Massive was tied to coolbot, weakly defended khelvaster, and might have had scum-insider information about the setup. I however do not think he should be lynched today, because we should see if he might have been busing with Qman, the person I think is most likely to be scum. His attack on Qman actually really raises my estimation of him in my eyes, because if Qman shows up scum, we should really consider how likely it is that massive was actually busing, or is really just a townie, and we need to look at the above players with new eyes

Qman

: Qman I feel very strongly is scum. Most of Qman's play has been active lurking, in that he kept trying to get us to ignore the LOTR flavor stuff. For better or for worse (well, probably worse) the LOTR flavor is a BIG part of this mini normal game, and ignoring it just won't fly and doesn't help us catch scum. I think Qman wanted to ignore it because he didn't get the original scum role PM, and wanted to move on to things he could talk about safely without incriminating himself.

He easily wagons ejlicko, and most of his other posts are NOT scum hunting, but are instead defenses of people attacking him, OR posts where he basically tells people to ignore the LOTR flavor and stop scum hunting. His argument with massive seems faked too.

Sethaniel replaces in,

Wow.

I'm not sure how you expect me to respond to a vote with no case behind it.

This after he had posted a lengthy case explaining why he thought Imat was scum? (one that made some decent points, at that.)

If I'd come in and argued that Qman was scummy, I'd at least

try

to refute my own arguments.

Shamrock and massive look like scum to me. I don't want to put Sham at L-1 though, since it looks like we're still waiting for a few people to check in?

This whole post reeks of scum to me. First off, like I said earlier, this isn't at all realistic. If Seth had replaced Imat instead of SHamrock replacing Imat, come in and made a 1000+ word case against Imat, and then was told that he was really replacing Imat, he'd be flipping a gasket, pissed at the mod, not calmly trying to refute his own points that 24 hours ago he thought were likely valid and then discovered that they were completely invalid because he knew for a fact Imat was town. He's placing an unrealistic and unreasonable burden on Shamrock here, and all in all Shamrock's actions are a horrible reason to find Imat scummy.

Then, he expresses intent to place SHam at -1, but wants to wait until people check in ((and he gets approval for it)). Heaven forbid he put a townie at lynch -1 and attract suspicion for it later!!

Qman actively lurked all game, strayed away from the LOTR stuff that replacing scum would have no info about and avoid like the plague, easily wagoned ejlicko, and did very very little scum hunting. Sethaniel replaces in and his replacement is categorized by a fairly uninspiring defense of Qman's lurking and a very ill conceived and suspicion attack on SHamrock

Summary:

Matt_S and Khelvaster are VERY likely townie and town power role, respectively. Should NOT be even considered for lynch today.

We probably have 2 scum and maybe 1 (or 2??? that would make 4 if Khelv is a power role...) power roles among {destructor, ting =), B&R, massive, and Sethaniel}. Of those 5 players, I think the last three are the most suspicious, with Qman/Sethaniel being far and above the most suspicious player in the game for the reasons I outlined.

I think very strongly Sethaniel should be the lynch for today, he is by far the best candidate and most likely to be scum.

I welcome any questions you may wish for me to ask, or insights into things I might have missed.

I can't promise I'll be able to explain Imat & Shamrock's thought processes, as I'm not them & I especially don't understand why Imat thought Matt_S was suspicious or why Shamrock thought Imat was suspicious, but depending on the question I might be able to try. Sorry for the huge post, but well, what do you expect with a 24 page thread :P.

vote: Sethaniel

[Guardian]

I understand what you just wrote, but am unsure how you want me to respond.

Can you phrase a specific question?

I have a first inclination of how to respond even if you can't, but if you could give me some direction that would be great.

Also, what do you think of my thoughts on the other players, particularly Sethaniel?

[Guardian]

I'm too tired to go through and respond comprehensively right now, but I will address one point B&B made.

I think Qman wanted to ignore it because he didn't get the original scum role PM, and wanted to move on to things he could talk about safely without incriminating himself.

Is this a slip up? How do you know that he didn't get the original PM? Did I forget something.

Nah -- I didn't get a LOTR themed version of the role I received, and considering that we know basically the formatting of the townie role PM, and are fairly sure the power roles had role names, whether I am a townie or a power role, I can be fairly sure that my role PM is *NOT* the original role PM that Zyrconium got.

I think it would be hugely unfair, arbitrary, and against the spirit of what shakaa/MeMe said they were doing by stripping the LOTR influence from the game to give mafia replacements a copy of the original role PM and not town replacements.

In addition, for any further replacements, Talitha is a replacement mod, and shakaa just disappeared it seems, so I doubt Talitha even *has* all the original role PMs.

Anyways, if Qman was replacing a mafioso, I would assume he just got a role PM "you are scum with Coolbot (and X)", without any LOTR flavor.

It is late, hope that makes sense. Might be a few days before I get to respond to you two.

I hope you look closely at Sethaniel, and that no one puts me at lynch -1 before I have a chance to respond. A lynch of Imat, now me, is an easily avoidable lynch of a townsperson.

[Guardian]

I will not entertain suggestions for lynching Khelvaster -- he is just too likely to actually be a power role, and forcing him to claim would be really dumb.

Please think about this some more.

Why? I think there are probably three scum, so if he is scum it is very likely that there is a buddy of his out there, whom we should concentrate on finding first, and then look at him once more to see if maybe it makes sense that he is scum.

If he was in a two member mafia group with coolbot, then we can afford to waste some time lynching town players; Khelvaster would then be the only scum left and we could look closely at him at endgame.

If he is really a power role of some sort, the mafia will realize that he might have a conformable claim and kill him. Lynching him before that happens would be really dumb. While he is unclaimed, he may be a doctor, and may not be. If he is a doctor, we don't want him to claim, if he isn't a doctor, maybe we have a doctor in the setup who can protect him, and the possibility of one existing creates problems for the mafia.

So, lynching him before we find another mafia, (or before endgame, if it gets to 3 players alive and no mafia have been lynched yet) would both be foolish.

What am I missing?

[Guardian]

Hello Guardian.

Damn, why do you have to be so logical? Anyways, other than Imat's poor case against me, and the poor timing of it, there was a comment he made I believe, basically saying that Coolbot was so protown, and he'd be angry if Coolbot turned up scum(this occurred shortly after he said Coolbot was shady). He also made a case for me being scum by stopping a nameclaim, admitted that the same case applied to Coolbot, and then said that he was convinced that Coolbot wasn't scum.

So you see Imat being scummy for

1. Having a poor case on you.
   
2. Saying Coolbot was really town
   
3. Being inconsistent on Coolbot, first being suspicious of him then saying he was town.
   
4. Being inconsistent in that he applied a case to you that you were suspicious, but not applying the same case to Coolbot and concluding that Coolbot was suspicious, and in fact saying Coolbot was town.

This may not be exactly what you mean, but it seems really close. If I've made a major substantive miscategorization or missed something, let me know.

Okay, let's go through this list.

1.

As ill conceived as I think cases on you were (seeing as I think you're the most confirmed town in the game), I don't think Imat was at all unique in being suspicious of you.

Matt_S[5]: massive, Khelvaster, Coolbot, Imat, Talitha

Imat wasn't at all unique in wrongly finding you suspicious. And, in fact, to his credit, was the first to unvote from the climax of your bandwagon, saying in post 191 he didn't want you at lynch -2. I think it isn't that probable that 2/5 of your wagon was scum who piled on together 3rd and 4th. We know Coolbot voted 3rd, you are saying you think Imat decided to wagon 4th on a townie with his buddy and then unvote once one more vote came? I don't see why that's plausible.

Like I was saying, he wasn't unique in being suspicious of you, and at least one other townie, Talitha, the cop, was suspicious of you. Unless there is more about how his case and reasons for being suspicious of you were bad, I don't think that point 1 is an at all reasonable point against him, seeing that there are (at least) three living players guilty of having been oddly suspicious of you.

2.

In post 151 he said Coolbot was probably town, since he carefully read Coolbot's posts up to that point, and didn't see any signs of scumminess. That's Coolbot's posts 0-8. Look at coolbot's posts 0-8. Ting=) caught on to scumminess there, but reading Coolbot's posts alone... really there is little reason to find Coolbot suspicious up to that point. Ting=) managed to see the shadiness in Coolbot's actions, but damn for me that is hard to see at that early stage, especially when you look at Coolbot's well explained reasoning. Imat said he re-read Coolbot in isolation and didn't find any signs of scumminess, and personally, I agree with him, there is very little that looks scummy from Coolbot in his posts 0-8 in isolation. So, I think I've also demonstrated how point 2 is invalid.

3.

Okay, again we are talking about 151 contrasted with 145.

CoolBot has show himself to be shady in this game, I don't know if he warrants a vote,

but his quick bandwagon hops do strike me as trying to get a quick lynch over with, perhaps anxious for the night to arrive.

However, I haven't been looking much at his posts

because I was paying more attention to Matt and Khel at the time.

I'll have to look at CB's posts specifically

.

Ah, finally got the chance to reread CoolBot's posts

. His recent posts do seem somewhat...Defensive, would be the proper word, though who wouldn't be when faced with several votes.

However, they are not as suspicious as I had first said because he hasn't tried to turn it around onto anybody else, he maintains his own innocence without trying to push blame onto the first person he sees

.

Also, rereading his "Bandwagon Hop," he didn't really hop. He had voted Khel originally for the same reason you all did, the Mass Claim. Then, after reading the copious amounts of evidence for and against the Mass Claim, he felt that it wasn't a good idea, but neither was it a scummy idea. When he decided this and then looked at how Matt agreed with this idea but then changed his vote with a rather wimpy excuse, he swapped to Matt, I believe only the second vote on the wagon and probably one of the few with any good reason.

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

Also, I reestablish my FoS: Matt_S, his actions all seem very scummy to me, perhaps too much so to just forget about.

The red and most of the bolding is my emphasis.

I don't think Imat is being contradictory or suspicious here whatsoever.

He first sees what Ting =) was saying about bandwagon hopping, but upon closer inspection of Coolbot's posts, he sees that Coolbot justified his bandwagon hopping well, and that even though the hopping was there, there isn't much justification for thinking Coolbot is scum, not nearly so much as he thought. He admits that if he is wrong he'll look suspicious because of his change in position, and that's something a self conscious townie is apt to do.

I think Imat had good reason to change his stance on Coolbot, and explained it well, and was certainly not being inconsistent. This, to me, refutes point 3 as well.

4.

In post 454 Imat posts a long post by post where he analyzes you Matt_S and comes to the conclusion that you are likely scum again. I think his analysis was bad, but many were analyzing you wrongly at that time in the game, so him analyzing wrong isn't enough for him to stand out as vote-worthy. I tried reading through his posts to find where he admits that his case applies to Coolbot as well, and I missed it.

So I don't see what you are saying in post 4. Until you can direct me to where he does this, I don't think point 4 is valid.

Summary:

I think I've clearly refuted points 1-3, and I don't understand point 4, so I can't evaluate its worth. Unless point 4 is really, really damning, I really am not seeing any good reason to be voting Imat coming from you Matt_S.

Is there something I'm missing?

You make good points on everyone else, but I think there's a lot going against you.

Well, if I make good points, don't you think I might be right?

As I've tried to show above, I disagree that there is much against Imat, and there is literally nothing against Shamrock or Zyrconium.

Even if you disagree with me about Imat, there's a point at which you have to wonder if Imat just played badly, and start analyzing my play.

Was Imat really scummier than Qman and Sethaniel? Not nearly, in my opinion.

In any event, I'll now try to respond to B&B's post.

[Guardian]

Qman could have easily asked for his original pm. You assumed

Oh yeah, I assumed the mod wasn't an idiot, maybe a bad decision with the previous mod.

That is what I did when I replaced in.

You

probably won't ever get the origonal pm and it really sucks for you. (non sarcasm)

!!That's ridiculous. Shakaa keeps looking worse and worse in my eyes as a mod. MeMe told him specifically to REMOVE the flavor from the game as much as possible. That DOES NOT include giving the original PMs to the players, even if the players ask.

Like I said, I assumed the mod was competent, perhaps wrongly.

It doesn't really suck for me that much though. If I am a townie, it isn't like me knowing the phrasing can confirm me, since that is common knowledge at this point. If I am a power role, there may be a strong idea of what character my role corresponds to. Anyways, shakaa definitely SHOULD not have given Qman the role PM, and even if he would have, I doubt that Qman even asked for it, based on how much he wanted to avoid LOTR role PM discussion.

What am I missing?

I can't dwell on this any longer because you being misinformed might mean the mafia are misinformed as well* which would be a great thing for town.


*I'm not even saying you have to be mafia here. If one person is confused, there's a chance another person is confused. So, even if you're not mafia, I don't want to explain any further because doing so would help mafia more than it would help town at this point.

Yeah, I get what you are saying.

Talitha, even if you have them, please do not give the mafia, or town, any more copies of the original role PMS

.

That's against the spirit of removing the theme from the game entirely.

On to your long post...

[Guardian]

I'm posting this so Shamrock might have stuff to respond to. I'm not confident in a lynch based on a predecessor's actions at all. Khelv wanted me to justify my vote, so here is why I think Imat was one of the scummier players in this game.

Fair enough.

I read somewhere in reading the thread that you are used to dumb players playing in newbie games and their replacements getting mislynched... that happens in mini games, and large games too. If I get lynched, that's what would be happening here. I think you are wiser than you self-evaluate to be cautious of lynching an Imat replacement.

Post 0

As it stands I haven't really seen scummy behavior, at least, nothing that guarantees scum, from any of the players. [...] I need further evidence, particularly from those who aren't posting, before deciding.

Right off the bat Imat doesn't scum-hunt. He makes sure to ask others to cast their suspicions, waiting to follow a good case. The part I put [...] is him talking about theory. He doesn't like bandwagons, aparrently.

Okay, I don't think this is a point against Imat. Some players read the last few posts of a game, respond to that, and then do a full re-read. I've done that myself sometimes when I don't have time to fully read immediately upon replacing. Not sure why "him not scum hunting right off the bat" is bad.

Post 1-2

he accuses Matt_S, then he realizes he made a mistake, and un-accuses him. Notice how he doesn't mention the whole vanilla claim thing about Matt_S in his accusations. Also notice how he is careful not to vote here.

Cautious = scum, when Matt_S has few votes? Why?
He had his facts wrong, was corrected, and admitted he was wrong. If anything that's town behavior.

Post 3-4

This has been quoted. Imat decides Destructor might be a little bit scummy, and then he reads Desctructor and decides he is not scummy, saying
"CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me. "

Huh? You mean Coolbot, not destructor, right? In any event, I think I responded this in replying to Matt_S, in post 600. I think Imat was OK here in doing this.

Post 4-11

Imat decides now that Matt_S is scummy (still not taking into account the whole vanilla thing) and votes him... and then unvotes him claiming that Matt_S has too many votes for too little discussion. It really really reads like Imat is trying too hard to be town. I personally don't think L-2 is that dangerous of a place to be, but maybe this is a more personal thing.

(Imat also defends coolbot several times in posts 4-10, but I'm going to put all of the defending of coolbot in a separate section of this post.)

This grouping of posts is a bit all-encompassing/awkward, and misses some details.

Substantively though, really, I agree with most of what you are saying here. This is the part I was saying in that Imat was dumb not to take Matt_S claiming vanilla into account, but a lot of players were dumb in this, including Khelvaster, who I think is likely a town power role, and Talitha, our mod and ex-cop. I don't see why Imat is getting all this blame when obviously a confirmed dead townie made the same mistake, and so did some alive townies (unless Khel & massive are both scum).

Lynch-2 is a much less safe place in mini games than in Newbie games, because in Newbie games there is a much stronger opposition to placing people at lynch -1. In mini games, scum can often get away with ly-1 votes easily, forcing a claim often, or a lynch. I think it is a point in Imat's favor that he unvoted, not a point against him.

post 12

a pitiful attempt to look pro-town. He basically mirrors what has been said before. He does put some suspicion on coolbot; however, you have to take in mind that this is in a post where he accuses much other people, and he also defends CB a whole lot more previously.

"pitiful attempt to look pro-town"????

I think Imat's analysis is clumsy, but he is trying to do analysis on all the players. What is suspicious about this post??? Even if he is agreeing with others, he is going on record as agreeing with certain stances, something scum are not happy doing often.

The less trusting for CB is another point in his favor.

Imat for me mainly looked slightly suspicious in that his attack on Matt_S was dumb, but I really am befuddled as to how this particular post is suspicious.

post 13-17

are a series of very weak posts. They are all 3 lines or under and really don't do much for the town.

Qman is much, much, more guilty of what you are describing here, so much so that it is a categorization of his play, and THAT is suspicious. Even if Imat did this for a few posts, that's fine, not every post that someone makes is a winner. It only gets suspicious when it is an overarching trend.

Furthermore, I think you are overgrouping here, in that some of these posts ARE useful.. Post 14 for example, he asks for ting=) to explain the ejlicko case, because Imat didn't see it (and unlike some other players, didn't end up helping mislynch a townie).

post 18-19

I will give Imat this. It's a case against Talitha. That seems like a pro-town thing to do.

I'm going to look over the case now to make sure.
OMG I re-read it (I admittedly didn't pay much attention on my first read-through, which is why I said "I don’t find anything to comment about it"). This is an incredibly disappointing case. The majority of the points don't follow through. (for instance, Imat makes a claim, then doesn't take into account a later post by Talitha that explains what she was doing and why Imat's claim doesn't make sesne). I think it would be a HUGE waste of my time to write up a post about how bad this case is, but I'll just reccomend that if you (the reader) think I'm scum and don't believe, re-read the case and go to all the posts that Imat cites. It's a horrid case.
We also know now that Talitha was being carefully because she was the detective.
Damn, I wish we still had a detective.

I agree with you.

But his case was just bad; not all mafia players are awesome. He didn't push Talitha to a lynch, or a claim, just attacked her badly. Why is that so suspicious?

post 20-23

only him reacting to the deaths. Seems to think there isn't a vig. Being optimistic maybe? Nah that's too much of a stetch for me. I think the fact that he discounts there being a vig isn't too much of a tell, though I remember earlier thinking different.

Yeah.

post 24-25

Him saying he's been inactive.

Yup.

post 26-29

is Imat making a case against Matt_S. In these he pretty much misinterprets the initial events of the game. Game post 454, and his post 28 is honestly something I'm not going to look at entirely. I glanced over it but I didn't follow the post numbers. I just don't have time. Instead, I just checked Matt_S's responses on game post 460, which does a pretty good job of shooting the attack down, I think. Again, I haven't completely scrutinized this, so if someone believes that this is an awesome case, let me know.

No, this case sucks too. Imat made bad cases.

I think the distinction to take note of here is that he didn't push crap logic cases that he KNEW were bad, he just wasn't very good at figuring out who scum were, and made bad cases.

I see no reason to believe Imat had MALICE in making his cases, only bad judgement.

post 30

This is the type of thing you usually one see with time travel. So Shamrock attacked Imat, who is Shamrock? Wow... Anyway, I don't have time to look over to see which one wins this debate right now, but maybe later. Anyway, that's his last post.

Note that Imat, even, makes some pretty good defenses of Shamrock's post.

Sethaniel brings up Shamrock's post as a great reason to lynch Imat... and even Imat refuted some of the biggest parts of it. Again minus points for Sethaniel.

Evidence of Imat defending coolbot:

I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum

(post 6)

I won't argue the CB vote anymore, if he wants to lurk he'll just look the worse for it, sticking my own neck out for some random player doesn't strike me as a good move anymore. However, what I defended him on in the past still stands, so I personally won't vote for him unless I see something really scummy.

(post 8)

Then he mentions (SEVERAL TIMES: 9,11, 12, ect) that CB should give examples of pro-town people outside the fellowship. This TOTALLY asking CB to do this. He wants CB to do this so that people will believe his claim more.

Well, that's assuming he is scum. From my point of view he wants to evaluate CB... not sure why you think your point of view is more reasonable.

After post 12, as far as I saw, he complete ignores CB. Yeah. What!? Yeah.

I think he's made the evaluation that while CB is minorly suspicious, he is not at all interested in lynching CB. No reason for him to continue mentioning him.

I really don't like Imat's comments towards CB at all. I may need to re-read CB to uncover them better.

I strongly encourage you to do so, especially CB posts 0-8, the posts Imat had available to him when he said he thought CB was town. CB looked town up to then.

Also notice that he claims CB is pro-town because of the claiming issue, but doesn't do the same for Matt_S!?

Well, I think from his point of view (and if I recall correctly others did this too), he thought CB was pro-town because CB claimed information about his role PM FIRST. There is no parallel there, CB went first, Matt_S second. Now, I disagree with Imat's conclusions, but I can see how his logic made sense TO HIM.

If Imat hadn't been replaced, I would be pushing extremely hard for his lynch right now. The closer I look, the scummier he is.

Well, I think if you look even closer, he won't look as scummy.

I think all Imat is guilty of is:

• Making a bad case on Talitha
  
• Making a bad case on Matt_S
  
• Wrongly ignoring Matt_S's vanilla claim.
  
• Wrongly concluding that CB is likely town

While I think all of these involved bad logic on his part, I contend that NONE of them involved malice on his part, just bad judgment, and I don't think there have been any arguments to the contrary.

We can all agree Imat came to some wrong conclusions. Scum? I don't think that's a logical conclusion. I think a lot of what you say is correct, just you make a few key assumptions different than what I do to get you to the wrong conclusion.

[Guardian]

If only the cop and serial killer weren't dead yet, then I could catch you in the act. I'm tempted to give you a shot at Sethaniel, but I'm not sure you

being right

will change my opinion too much.

QFT*

You [Guardian] do provide a good defense for yourself. I need to step back and think about this for a while. I especially need to see how Sethaniel responds to you. Questions will probably come in a couple days.

Fair enough. You appear to be being reasonable.... TOO reasonable... lol

I hope you do give me a chance, because I think there's a strong possibility of me being right about Sethaniel, and 0% chance of me being scum :P.

Also, just thinking of the game, I still want to direct a vig (if we have one) kill. I was in the minority before, but I wonder what you think, Guardian?

I always have mixed feelings about directing vig kills. For me, it comes down to a few things.

1. If there is a way we can have the vigilante kill that would *guarantee* a win, then we direct the kill.
   
2. If the vigilante's claim is in doubt, then we maybe direct the kill.
   
3. If we think that the vigilante sucks/we as a town are better than the vigilante, then we maybe direct the kill.

I don't think 1 applies here.
I don't think 2 applies here either, whomever claims vigilante (and is un-countered) is the vigilante.
3 MAY apply. If the vigilante killed Coolbot OR vlad last night, which statistically is probable, I'd say they're doing pretty darn good on their own.

Considering this, I'd say there is absolutely no harm in SUGGESTING vigilante kills, and if the vigilante killed Talitha or thinks he got lucky in killing scum, he can go with the most popular opinion, but if he made a good kill last night or thinks he will tonight, there is no reason for him to be BOUND by what we suggest that he do.

The problem with directing vig kills is that just like votes, scum can try to influence the decision and get the vigilante to kill townies.

Having an independent vigilante means that a TOWN member is deciding who dies. It also means that since the scum don't know who the vigilante is going to kill, we might get lucky in that if the vigilante is going to kill a townsperson, the scum might kill the same one.

In sum, I think that offering suggestions for our vigilante is a good choice, but I don't think the vigilante should think he needs to be bound by our suggestions, or that we should be annoyed/suspicious of him if/when he claims if he didn't go with our suggestion.

*except for the being right part. What did you say Matt? Do you mean that if he's right he

still

can't change your mind? I really didn't understand the part I crossed out.

Yeah... Matt_S, if I am right about Sethaniel, you'll STILL be suspicious???

[Guardian]

*except for the being right part. What did you say Matt? Do you mean that if he's right he still can't change your mind? I really didn't understand the part I crossed out.

Well, when I was scum with Guardian, he tried to bus me. That game's been standing out in my mind. If Sethaniel does turn up scum, I'd consider busing a very real possibility.

I bus'd once... ergo I always bus? lol.

What game was that, anyways? I certainly remember playing with you, but games blend together.

In any event, if this is what you are thinking... even more reason to go with me and vote Sethaniel, because if I am town maybe I am right and Sethaniel is scum, and if I am scum then maybe I am bus-ing and Sethaniel is scum. :P

BTW everyone, feel free to make cases of your own... to me the strongest case certainly appears to be on Sethaniel, but if you think other players look more suspicious definitely bring that forward.

Today certainly isn't locked into "lynch Guardian OR Sethaniel, no other options." That is most definitely a false choice.

[Guardian]

Oh, yeah... lol, funny game.

I most certainly am not going to claim Serial Killer here.

In addition, my cases when I am town will look similar to my cases here. My case making style varies as little as possible from town to scum... that's really the point . Just in vollville, my predecessor was obviously scum, and here, my predecessor wasn't scum.

[Guardian]

Guardian: basically your defense boils down to Imat being a bad player in this game? Is that correct?

I'd say that's far too basic, so no.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

[Guardian]

What do you think of Sethaniel and massive?

Who are your main suspects?

[Guardian]

I re-read massive.

If Sethaniel is town, then I think massive is the best target/lynch. I see the vig hunting that massive was doing, and that bothers me.

Just, I can't see a massive-Sethaniel scum group, and I find Qman's actions suspicious. Hmm...

[Guardian]

Massive's showing that a mafia member came to your aid. I saw this also, but I didn't come to the same conclusions that Massive did. I don't like this sudden vote switch to MattS.

Why is Massive completely ignoring posts 622, 624, and 625 that all said basically (I might be mis-paraphrasing here) that they're fine lynching him today?

qft. the matt vote really disturbs me. seems like omgus, and poorly reasoned.

massive, why do you think matt is scum, even if he isn't confirmed?

[Guardian]

Okay, I'm going to respond to a few stuff that caught my eye, and then make a case on guardian based on Imat's posts, then a case on guardian from his own posts. I don't have time now to post my thoughts on the others, but I still do think massive is scum.

Wait... you still think Imat/Guardian is scum, or you still think massive is scum? Which?

but there is a disturbing interaction with Coolbot day one. Ting =) makes an excellent read on Coolbot day one... but the read is almost too good. He is spot on that Coolbot is scum, and for the right reasons.

What really troubles me is that he unvotes and moves on when other options present themselves. It could be seen like he was planning to bus, but when no one bought into it, he dropped it and moved on.

Aside from that, though, he's been pretty spot on in his logic and reads, and seems like a townie. I am unsure about ting=), but I think that there are better targets than him, and while I am open to be convinced otherwise, right now I don't think he should be lynched.

I disagree on the bold bit. I attacked coolbot for nearly the whole day, even when bringing up my case on eljcko. I never dropped my attack, I even still mention him in my last post for day 1. If anything, my attack was defelected by massive...

I brought this up at the start of day 2 to massive. He pretty much took the heat for eljcko and assured me that he was town and that coolbot had the same role.

Like I already said - this makes me think that either Massive is scum who was defending his godfather, or that coolbot very cleverly hid behind massive. I'm leaning towards the former.

Actions speak louder than words.

You made a solid case on CoolBot early day one, then unvoted a few posts later, and never voted him again, instead leading a wagon on ejlicko, townie. If you are scum, you distanced with him while making cases on a townie, Coolbot//ejlicko.

You're accusing me of doing the same thing with massive//Qman, and we don't even know the alignment of either.

We DO know the alignment of both the player you made a secondary case on yesterday, and the player you ended up voting.

How are you not setting a double standard by saying your actions are not scummy, but mine are? Especially since we know the alignments of the players your actions involved but don't know mine...?

[Guardian]

Since we know for sure the identity of one scum, the most conclusive argument would be one that ties him to another person. I see a connection between Imat and Coolbot because Imat's defense of Coolbot was

unprompted, and not something you'd expect from a player unsure of another.

Uh... what??

His looking further into coolbot was directly prompted by your own 141... Imat noticed you were strongly attacking coolbot and decided to look into him...

Imat was... you know... commenting on what other people's cases... playing the game... scum hunting...

So saying that he was unprompted in looking at Coolbot is false.

Not something you'd expect? Why not? More on this next post.

Unprompted - There was no need for Imat to defend coolbot AT ALL. Coolbot was nowhere close to being lynched, and his actions were far overshadowed by others. Yet, Imat defends him. In fact, there's only 2 people in the whole game who felt compelled to defend coolbot - Imat and Massive.

So those two are his buddies huh, the two that defended him? Very doubtful. Oh, were mafia that simple.

Now, you could argue that Imat was just being a good townie defending people who's case on them he didn't agree with, but then - why hasn't he been bothered to look at khel, he was under way more pressure than coolbot throughout the whole day?

Limited time and resources?

He only made 3 posts on eljcko for the whole day 1, compared to 8 posts concerning coolbot, who was definetely under less pressure than eljcko.

Also note how Coolbot was under more pressure when Imat entered the game, and Imat was more active when he entered the game?

He was getting less and less involved and eventually replaced out at the time ejlicko was getting attacked. He made roughly the same [proportion of posts about ejlico/total posts by him in the time period] as he did [proportion of posts about Coolbot/total posts by him in the time period]. Why did you ignore this?

Imat has no explanation for defending coolbot.

His defense isn't the kind you'd expect between two townies either.

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

However, I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum, a dangerous position to have on any player, so I won't take action on him yet.

I'd expect that kind of thing from masons. Or maybe a cop and a townie he investigated. NOT from a townie who's mentioned being unsure about the other person's alignment.

Again... why not?

Even when he later 'suspects' coolbot, he does no attacking at all. He mentions minor transgressions, but he always frames them lightly.

Yeah, that makes sense considering he "convinced himself that Coolbot isn't scum"...

You expect him to attack Coolbot with an all out assault after that, or what?

ting=)... It is good to hear from you, but a lot of your assumptions here are way off.

[Guardian]

Okay, Guardian.

What I don't like is the way he sweeps all of Imat's scuminess as just poor judgement.

STRAWman to the rescue?

When BAB pointed out that Guardian's defense of Imat is basically just saying Imat was a lousy player, Guardian replies:

I'd say that's far too basic, so no.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

So you say I attribute everything to poor judgment... and then quote a 3 paragraph post where I explain in detail how I am not just attributing everything to poor judgment...

Super STRAWman! Leaps tall arguments in a single bound!

This is a horrible defense. Bad logic, poor judgement, lousy play - none of them are an excuse for scummy behaviour.

In part, they do. Moreover, I go on to explain how judgment isn't important in figuring out who mafia are, it is MALICE. You completely ignore this.

Everytime someone does something scummy, they might as well just go, ''Oops, I didn't think hard enough. It's not scummy though, my judgement's just taking an off day.'

Again, no. A lot more of Imat's contributions made sense than you give credit for.

I assert that those contributions of Imat that may not be as logical don't have any malice, and no one has argued to the contrary.

You

can't

excuse him like that. Scummy play is scummy play.

First: I just did.
Second, you aren't understanding my argument (or are intentionally straw manning) in making this post, so don't tell me I can't do something you don't understand.

Whether it was prompted by a lack of logic or because he was scum and had malicious intent is something we decide.

Okay, now you understand. See how there is a distinction?

Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he consistently plays badly like so, then his actions were just plain scummy. Not bad play.

I don't meta. Instances like this are why. Meta provides an unreasonable burden of proof.

Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he plays logically and makes good cases, his actions were just plain bad play. Not scummy.

See what I did there?

I think in analyzing his actions in THIS game indicates that his play was just bad play, not scummy. If you want to argue to the contrary, or meta to the contrary, be my guest.

Guardian also keeps mentioning how Imat's play on coolbot was justified. I don't think so, but that's a matter of perspective. I still believe that his defense of coolbot was unprompted, and that his 'suspicions' of coolbot were half hearted affairs.

I think his defense was totally justified. Re-read Coolbot's posts 0-8 in isolation, the posts Imat read before forming his analysis/defense of Coolbot. Coolbot does not look scummy in reading those posts in isolation. Ergo, saying you found him town-like makes sense.

Now, the two people Guardian has suspicions of:
Massive, and Qman.

He's made cases on both of them. I think the case on massive was stronger, but Guardian has put Qman as his top suspicion. I think guardian and massive are both scum, and it reads to me like guardian knew he couldn't ignore the attacks on massive, but also didn't want his partner lynched.

So, he struck a compromise by mentioning suspcions of massive, but ultimately pushing for someone elses lynch.

Obviously, this is just an assumption. It's all hypothetical, but that's how I read his suspcions on massive and qman.

I disagree. I think my case on Sethaniel is stronger. I am beginning to lean that the arguments in general on massive, and the subsequent actions by massive, are suspicious, but my case on Qman is better than mine on massive.

Who is more scummy, me/Imat, or massive? Why?

The game is too confusing for me to give you my description of everyone in the game right this moment but I can tell you I'm really sure that Ting is a good guy and I think Vote; Massive isn't.

What do you think of Sethaniel? Why are you so sure Ting=) is a good guy?

[Guardian]

EEWOP: I meant to include an

unvote

with that post. Right now (especially since I'm inactive) I'm having a hard time figuring out my suspicions in all my games.

However, Guardian:

IGMEOY

big time. You did not completely convince me that you're not scum, but I'm willing to give you a chance for now.

Fair enough.

Love to hear more from you about me/Imat, or about your thoughts on massive & Sethaniel.

[Guardian]

3 posts filled with lots of stuff I disagree with.

Look, you can repeat it all you want, but I patently disagree that we can't analyze Imat's actions and conclude that there wasn't malice behind them. This isn't impossible and doesn't lead to WIFOM. Analyzing whether there is malice behind someone's actions is crucial in mafia.... Saying we can't and saying we should lynch Imat because he had bad suspicions/defense of Coolbot is really really... well, bad.

His attacks clearly look like they made sense to him; he had what he thought were good reasons for them. He came to the wrong conclusions, but none of his attacks were scum pushing crap logic.

For example, what motivation did scum have to randomly attack Talitha? None. Read through that case -- do you think that it was unreasonable for Imat to think what he said he thought? I don't at all.

You say that his defense of CoolBot is unjustified. You can repeat that a townie wouldn't say "CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me." all you want, but it doesn't make it true or logical.

Imat replaced in, was active, and the major case on the time was yours on CoolBot, ting=). You go on to strawman me and say that he was responding to EXCLUSIVELY that post. You had a STRING of posts on Coolbot, it makes a lot of sense that Imat responded to those first and tried to enter the game by making a decisive conclusion on Coolbot. Your rhetoric to the contrary is just false. Imat doesn't do nearly as much defending of anyone later on because he isn't nearly as active... and then replaces out. This doesn't lead to him being scum.

You, ting=), *may* just be misguided in saying this, or may just be pushing and pushing it because you think it is an easy lynch. I'm not sure what I think yet about that, leaning towards the former... which is really frustrating.

What REALLY bothers me, though, is that Empking, the second most confirmed townie in the game, jumps in and says that he finds you townie because you attacked Coolbot -- while at the same time you are saying I am scum because I am attacking HYPOTHETICAL massive scum.

Then, seeing momentum building, Sethaniel jumps on, suddenly saying that he agrees with you and your case on me. This adds even more to the reasons for thinking Qman/Sethaniel is suspicious.

I definitely support strongly a lynch of Sethaniel instead of massive today. massive's continuing to push on unpopular cases, and lack of jumping on the 'ting is right and his case on Imat is great' group leads me to really want to see Qman's alignment before massive's.

[Guardian]

I'm happy I'm v/la in a week or so and will have to replace out, because ting=) is being almost as bad as Albert B Rampage. This is ridiculous, you've convinced yourself I am scum, and twist my words with everything you say, making arguments that I am scum premising them that I am scum.

Sethaniel should be today's lynch, I've made that clear why.

If it came down to massive or {me, Khelvaster, Matt_S, destructor}, I'd support lynching massive.

I'd rather lynch ting=), BoB, and very much Sethaniel than massive at this point though, massive's recent play is very townlike.

There are so many contradictions that ting=) repeats and repeats making ignoring what I say that I am done responding.

[Guardian]

It isn't the hounding it is the ignoring of my arguments.

destructor makes a really good point about that inconsistency -- why were you willing to settle early in the game, but aren't now?

destructor, who do you find suspicious? You were the first to vote massive and then unvoted once the bandwagon grew on him, and then lurked for a bit. What do you think now? Who is your primary suspect?

[Guardian]

It isn't the hounding it is the ignoring of my arguments.

Again, where?

You're not even trying to see my point of view, you are just arguing that I am scum with any possible evidence you can provide for it and trying to refute any evidence to the contrary. Your mind is closed to the subject. You are sure I am scum and aren't listening to me anymore, you are just trying to pick apart my arguments.

I've made it a point to meticulously respond to everything you've said. I'm fairly certain I can just quote myself to reply to any previous argument you choose to repeat.

Like I said about, this is exactly what you are doing -- you are meticulously responding with the pre-conceived notion that my arguments must be wrong because I am scum. You are not analyzing, or considering that just maybe I am town.

Also, I'm quite sure you just skim through my long posts without actually reading and can prove it.

Not in the beginning, but after two or three go rounds, you were just repeating yourself and continuing to not consider the possibility that I'm town, so I stopped reading in-depth.

For evidence of how your mind is made up:

Even when you just voted massive, and we haven't seen if he is scum or not yet, you say

add on: I still think guardian is scum.

Tell me with a straight face that your mind isn't made up and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You're mind IS made up, and you are following your wrong instincts blindly.

Sigh. Massive seems by far to be the presumptive lynch for today, and I am very much sick of talking and talking and talking about hypotheticals in which he may be scum or may not be or whatever. If we lynch him and he is scum and I look tied to him that's fine, we lynched a scum. If he's not, we can give ting=) and Sethaniel very hard look overs tomorrow.

Massive, if you have some inspiring defense now is the time for it.

[Guardian]

I have role based information that contradicts the above.

I'm not going to wifom myself about this.

vote: massive

[Guardian]

I knew it was the hammer. Unless there are some pretty odd setup shenanigans, he is scum and messing with our minds.

I'd really thought he was acting town lately too.

[Guardian]

I'm stunned that massive was town.

I won't dally, since I'll likely be able to post much less while on vacation, if not needing to be replaced:

I am a tracker. Night One, Imat tracked Khelvaster, who targeted CoolBot.

This is why I thought massive was lying; Imat targeted CoolBot, and I have no idea how massive's claimed role didn't tell him this.

This is also part of why I was so sure Khelvaster was town; he killed scum night one.



Anyways, good news: Last night I tracked destructor. He targeted Empking.

destructor, do you have any explanation for this other than you being scum who killed out vig?

[Guardian]

I have never breadcrumbed as town. I have three times as scum. No breadcrumbs here. Possibly Imat left something you can find, but I didn't in reading over him.

With investigative roles, I make it a habit of targeting players I am least sure of.

If I got destructor 'did something', that would change my outlook. Seeing Sethaniel or ting=) do something wouldn't really change my actions much -- so why target them?

[Guardian]

Hah. I guess you've tried to lurk your way to victory.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is massive being role-blocked.

Scum RB + Godfather? Could be, with all these power roles.

Either way,

vote: destructor

. Only thing that makes sense is you being scum.

[Guardian]

maybe his watcher part got removed in the normalization of the game.

notice how he wasn't a doctor-watcher, he was a doctor. that would also explain it.

I hammered because I had contradicting information to what he said, and didn't want scum to slip away because of a fake claim.

[Guardian]

BAB, you honestly think there was no chance that someone would unvote him after he claimed? honestly?

[Guardian]

It's so convenient that Imat tracked two people who are both dead.

??? Imat tracked Khelv, who lived the next day.

You were far too rash for a townie to be.

Honestly? With ting=) constantly pushing a case on me and everyone agreeing with it? All I can see that would have happened are either:

A) I claim and we lynch massive anyways -- so why not just lynch him when I had the chance.
B) I claim, you don't believe me, and you lynch me, instead of probable scum -- absolutely horrid scenario.

I had a chance to execute the best possible lynch from the information I had, and had the chance to do so without claiming the information. Why in hell would I have wanted to explain things?

[Guardian]

Why on earth are people even beginning to believe Guardian?

massive received a result in Night 1.

How could he possibly have been roleblocked

if he received a result

?

Woah there.

I am a doctor who learns who targets their nightchoice. I protected Khelvaster night one. No one targeted him.

Cops when role blocked often get the results back "no investigation" or "no result".

Massive easily could have gotten a "no result" result if he were role blocked. Why is this so ludacrous? Hint: it isn't, and you are just saying that cuz you're scum.

He also could have just gotten no return PM from shakaa, and assumed that that meant no result.

Bab, if I recall correctly, you were one of those pushing a Guardian lynch hardest yesterday. Even if you say you're "so close in the middle", how is it that Guardian's tenuous claim somehow tips me above him?

I wonder a little bit about this too -- but maybe he has just seen the light. My claim is hardly 'tenuous'.

I'm presently leaning towards a destructor lynch for reasons I will clarify later.

Don't take too long. I'll be waiting to tell you why you're wrong. ;)

I'm interested in hearing this so you can say why he's wrong and I can disprove your disapproval ;).

[Guardian]

If we had 4 scum, there would only be 7 town roles, and moreover the town would have lost by now -- with 3 town and 3 scum alive, the moderator would end the game.

We obviously have either 1 or 2 scum left, 3 is preposterous.

[Guardian]

I think at this point it would be beneficial (except for a hammer, of course) for the everyone to vote for whoever they think is most suspicious.
Unless some one has a good reason that neither Guardian or Destructor is scum, of course. And if that's the case, please provide you're reasoning.

I'll start.

Vote:Destructor

But I'm so close in the middle I may change soon.

Planning to switch one's votes, and encouraging others to vote at lylo, are both pretty suspect..

Superstrawman strikes again? =P

Uh, where? What are you talking about?

My point was that massive explicitly stated that:

No one targeted him.

He's an experienced player and I believe it's reasonable to assume that if he'd received 'no result', both as a response or by lack of PM from the mod, he would have asked for clarification and certainly would

not

have said "no one targeted' Khelvaster.

What if his role PM said something like 'you will receive a PM if the person you protect was targeted by anyone other than yourself' and he received no PM?

Where's ting?

Desperately hoping that my biggest detractor from yesterday comes back and gets me out of a jam?

And does anyone besides Matt_S have a reason to suspect me besides Guardian's claim?

Sure: lurking.. There's a reason lurking is scummy. You've constantly prioritized other games over this one during the game's course. It is harder for scum to get caught when they don't post a lot.

Sorry. I don't have regular internet access.

Considering the way the game has gone, is there any chance that Shaka may have forgotten to inform massive about Imat targetting khelvaster?

I didn't think my opinion of shakaa could have gotten lower.

Would it be against the rules to ask for confirmation from Talitha? An answer would imply that either guardian is lying or serious mod error, so I'm not sure if this is a valid question.

I think Talitha describing more would likely end up being very unfair to destructor & his buddy, and she's confirmed that.

An RB might be possible. There was only one night kill. That suggests that either empking was a one shot vig, or that the mafia had a roleblocker, figured he was vig, and decided to both block and nk him. I'll go check later if empking was active on the forums during the night phase to find out if he maybe didn't submit a night choice.

Huh, that makes a lot of sense.

Oh, holding off on the voting might be good, bab. I think we only have 2 scum, but on the off chance that we have a 3 man scum group, we're currently in lylo.

Good call.

I need to reread the previous day. The idea that the town had a cop and a doc and a vig

and

a tracker... doesn't quite sound right. Like guardian said though, we could have a scum roleblocker, that might make the game balanced, but that's a pretty ridiculous amount of power roles in a mini. That means that less than half the players are standard townies/goons. Has there ever been that kind of game in a mini normal before?

In a mini, sure. Not sure about a mini normal. Although, this didn't really start off as a mini normal...

I'm not sure about destructor being scum. When khelvaster suggested a name claim, destructor was willing to hop aboard. Considering the way things have gone though, I'm not too sure exactly where that puts him at the moment.

Me either.

I've got to say, I really expected ting=) to attack me wholeheartedly here. His not doing so gives me think someone else is destructor's partner.



Guys I am leaving on vacation in a day or two, but I've asked not to be replaced. I will likely have SOME access while on vacation, and I'd much like to stick through it and get a win for the town. That being said, my access will drop significantly shortly.

[Guardian]

CoolBot never talked to destructor. Destructor asked a direct question of CoolBot on day 1 about whether he thought I fake claimed. Right before this question, destructor said he didn't like CoolBot's wagon hop. So not only did CoolBot never answer the question, but destructor never did anything about his apparent suspicions.

No comments, people?

Well, what you are saying is factually correct.

I didn't think me commenting on it and saying how much I agree with your conclusion that destructor is scum would really benefit anyone :P.

[Guardian]

Posting something like this in all games:

I am leaving on vacation for about 2 weeks. I have no idea what access I'll have, or what access I'll have after vacation. Expect participation to drop a lot. I am sending a preliminary night choice (if I have one) to the moderator should night fall and I am away.

In this game I'd very much like to NOT be replaced if possible, as we are at most two game days from the end, and my role has been replaced enough.

Take care, lynch destructor...

[Guardian]

I am still on vacation, but got internet access and figured I'd say hi.

Only a page to catch up on...

It seems people are starting to think I should be lynched based on expected utility.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, because you are saying if I am town, probably only one scum, if I am scum, probably two scum.

If it is possible that there are two scum, as you are asserting, what if I am really a tracker and there are two scum left? Lynching me loses the game.

Lynching me based off of half thought through assumptions about whether there are two or one scum left is not a great idea. We should instead lynch destructor.

I don't know if I have time to quote things and respond to them. After checking in all my games, and my personal e-mail, if I still have computer time I'll do that.

Summary:
I'm town, lynch destructor.

[Guardian]

I believe that lynching destructor is more likely to end up as a loss. Lynching you first makes sense to me.

why, other than expected outcome?

[Guardian]

Also, in re-reading, I don't see that much to respond to except what destructor wrote... and I don't really see a reason to respond to him as I don't have to convince HIM of anything, he knows he's lying scum.

If there's anything you guys want me to respond to or explain let me know. Otherwise just let's get on with lynching destructor.

[Guardian]

I believe that lynching destructor is more likely to end up as a loss. Lynching you first makes sense to me.

why, other than expected outcome?

Why is using expected outcome bad? I don't see that great of a difference between your scumminess, so the guy whose lynch appears to have better odds of leading to a win should be lynched.

It seems people are starting to think I should be lynched based on expected utility.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, because you are saying if I am town, probably only one scum, if I am scum, probably two scum.

If it is possible that there are two scum, as you are asserting, what if I am really a tracker and there are two scum left? Lynching me loses the game.

Lynching me based off of half thought through assumptions about whether there are two or one scum left is not a great idea. We should instead lynch destructor.

Guardian, why did you target destructor anyways?

With investigative roles, I make it a habit of targeting players I am least sure of.

If I got destructor 'did something', that would change my outlook. Seeing Sethaniel or ting=) do something wouldn't really change my actions much -- so why target them?

I'm pretty flabbergasted that you are planning to lynch me and haven't seen that I responded to both these points already.

I'm going to request a mass claim here, but first I'd like people's opinions.

This is not a bad suggestion.

[Guardian]

Guardian, just because you don't have to convince me doesn't mean others won't learn something from your responses to my posts. You're obviously avoiding answering them.

No one's indicated any desire to see me respond to you except you.

If they want to hear responses, I will maybe go through and respond. If you only want to hear responses, I'm definitely not going to bother.

BTW, I am still on vacation, for about 5 more days.

[Guardian]

I'm pretty flabbergasted that you are planning to lynch me and haven't seen that I responded to both these points already.

I missed the thing about investigating people, but I've already seen your speech about how optimizing the chance of winning is apparently bad. You haven't said that I've miscalculated the expected outcomes, just that I shouldn't. That doesn't make sense.

Look.

You are saying we should lynch me, because if I am scum, then there are definitely 2 scum left. This assumes that there can be two scum left.

If there can be two scum left, and I am town, lynching me loses instantly.

So, you were wrong, and lynching me to prevent losing to a two man scum group with me in it would be quite foolish, and I've seen little other reasoning lately from anyone but desperate destructor about why I've been suspicious, and if a two man scum group is plausible it is just as plausible that destructor is in a two man scum group as the notion that I would be in one (except that I'm NOT in a scum group).

So can you give any links to support your investigating habits?

No.

I don't waste time and effort meta-gaming other players, never-mind myself. Nevertheless, I don't think I've ever been an investigative role in any game that has finished, even if I were to bother to do the digging. My wiki has links to some old games I played in, before I got lazy cataloging, if you want to look through and see where I might have been an investigative role.

I also believe I read this philosophy and/or debated it with someone in some game or in mafia discussion. No idea where, but if you want to look through my thousands of post, happy hunting!

[Guardian]

I am now henceforth indicating my desire to see you respond to destructor.

What would you gain from such a response?

Why do you believe you would gain that?

[Guardian]

I don't want to answer because it will take a lot of time, and I don't think it will be that productive.

Now you turn it around on me and say it is some great mystery as to why I don't want to answer and must be hiding something. Nothing could be further from the case. I am lazy and don't think it will be very useful, and I don't want to bother.

Maybe I will, but most of it is just line after line of rubbish that I don't want to bother replying to, and I know even more certainly that it is rubbish because I know it is coming from scum.

[Guardian]

Regrettably I still have no constant internet access. I can't even remember what I thought was BS about destructor's long post, which is good and bad, I guess.

I'll try to reply ASAP...

[Guardian]

Superstrawman strikes again? =P

Uh, where? What are you talking about?

See below.

My point was that massive explicitly stated that:

No one targeted him.

He's an experienced player and I believe it's reasonable to assume that if he'd received 'no result', both as a response or by lack of PM from the mod, he would have asked for clarification and certainly would

not

have said "no one targeted' Khelvaster.

You were trying to say that massive receiving 'no result' and a

result

that said "no one targeted Khel" to be the same thing.

I'm saying he could have interpreted either the same way depending. Or maybe his role got nerfed and he was no longer a watcher.

What if his role PM said something like 'you will receive a PM if the person you protect was targeted by anyone other than yourself' and he received no PM?

This is illogical, completely ignores what I said in the text you quoted and is pure speculation to boot. massive explicitly stated that no one targeted Khel. Again, based on his experience, I'd say that he would have informed us if his night result was as specific as you're suggesting.

Speculation about why he didn't get the correct result is perfectly reasonable here. 'wtf?'

Where's ting?

Desperately hoping that my biggest detractor from yesterday comes back and gets me out of a jam?

:roll:
Or, wondering where one of the more active players from the last few days is.

Whatever. Note who ting has supported.

And does anyone besides Matt_S have a reason to suspect me besides Guardian's claim?

Sure: lurking.. There's a reason lurking is scummy. You've constantly prioritized other games over this one during the game's course. It is harder for scum to get caught when they don't post a lot.

Sure, but I'm hardly the only player who lost interest in this game at some point. Would I be less suspicious if I decided to flake instead?

Yes, assuming your replacement had normal participation. Lurking IS scummy, for a reason, and you aren't going to talk your way out of that.

Sorry. I don't have regular internet access.

Considering the way the game has gone, is there any chance that Shaka may have forgotten to inform massive about Imat targetting khelvaster?

I didn't think my opinion of shakaa could have gotten lower.

So are we going to entertain that Guardian's defence against evidence posted by massive which directly contradicts his claim comes down to mod-error? Sure, it's possible, but I'd ask this game be abandoned immediately if that was the case.

What if massive was told by talitha that his role had been changed and he forgot? What if talitha has no way of knowing at this point?

Too many what ifs and maybes. I don't think trusting shakaa to have done his job right is at all reasonable given what we know, and you're acting like it is.

But that is straying so far from the point. Short of the presence of some redirecting role (which I would NOT expect in a mini normal) I

know

Guardian is lying because I didn't target Empking last night. And let's not forget who he hammered: a claimed doc.

Let's not forget why I hammered him -- massive most strongly appeared to be lying. :roll:

I need to reread the previous day. The idea that the town had a cop and a doc and a vig

and

a tracker... doesn't quite sound right. Like guardian said though, we could have a scum roleblocker, that might make the game balanced, but that's a pretty ridiculous amount of power roles in a mini. That means that less than half the players are standard townies/goons. Has there ever been that kind of game in a mini normal before?

In a mini, sure. Not sure about a mini normal. Although, this didn't really start off as a mini normal...

My recollection of the 'untheming' was that shaka's problem was purely flavour.

You think MeMe would have come out and said "remove flavor, and change massive's role"? 'wtf'?

I also strongly doubt we have three investigative roles in this game.

If we have a mafia roleblocker and serial killer and a lotr theme and a doctor and a vig, what difference does one more role make? THis game was swingy as anything, and I think shakaa just wanted as much power as possible.

I've got to say, I really expected ting=) to attack me wholeheartedly here. His not doing so gives me think someone else is destructor's partner.

Who might that be?

I think it is ting =) at this point. Sethaniel and BAB have outside chances, but ting =) is looking like the best bet. His vote then unvote of you was just classic scum bullshit.

This is why I didn't want to reply. I mean, I can type paragraph after paragraph with the best of them, but it is just bullshit back and forth between me and destructor at this point: he says "omg that doesn't make sense" I say "omg it does", and its up for the other townies to figure it out.

Something messed up in the setup happened that caused massive to believe he got no result. All I know is I tracked destructor to a dead body, and he must be scum.

It is up to you figure out who to believe, and hearing destructor go on about how im scum and me about how he's scum isn't helpful.

If you have any specific relevant questions ask, and maybe I'll answer, but it is mostly up to you at this point. I've laid out why destructor is scum, and defended myself largely. Read the thread and figure it out.

[Guardian]

ting =) is pretending to be open minded whereas sethaniel is actually being open minded.

[Guardian]

You are not taking both sides into consideration. You appear to be pretending to, and that's what is suspicious.

[Guardian]

More suspicious than a person you actually made a case on?

You haven't done anything to

convince

me to believe you. Your day 3 arguments basically boil down to, 'Look, I have a guilty on him, so nah!'

He lurked. Lynch all lurkers. Win games.

Lurkers post less, and ergo have less chance to look suspicious. Scum want to be less suspicious. Ergo, lurking is a scum tactic. Ergo, lurking is scummy.

You haven't said anything to make me doubt your connection to coolbot either.

Then you aren't reading my posts.

Destructor, likewise is mostly just going, 'I'm town, so that's obviously a lie, nah!'

Before either of you start accusing me of strawmanning, that really is essentially the core of all the day 3 arguments - both of you asking the rest of us who we trust more.

I won't accuse you of straw maning at all -- I only ask WHY you wanted me to continue it by replying to destructor. I totally agree that that is what day 3 has come down to. Why such insistence that I reply to destructor's "I'm town, so that's obviously a lie, nah!"?

Why was it so suspicious that I didn't?

You'll also notice that I've been calling for destructor to claim. I'm not going to lie - I'm more inclined to believe him over you right now, but that's not to say I'm not suspicious of him. I'm suspicious of you both, just him less so.

You're also telling him you'll vote me instantaneously after he claims. How in heck does that make any sense?

[Guardian]

Guardian, you evaded the beef of what I was saying.

There was no beef to evade.

Your defence against evidence that contradicts your claim is, more and more, becoming speculation about what has happened with the setup, to the point where I think most would agree the game should have been abandoned by such a mod-error.

Obviously there is some setup speculation, how else could it be explained. And I've also offered idea of a mafia role blocker, which makes a lot of sense, all things considered. Massive getting no result night 1, Khelvaster not killing night 2...

Also, in the post of yours I quoted when I asked who you thought my scum buddy was, you had just said you thought it

wasn't

ting.

I did. Then ting=) showed that he'd really already made up his mind. I thought he hadn't... but his posts following seem to be trying to appear open minded while single-mindedly subtly guiding towards a me-lynch.

[Guardian]

Then you aren't reading my posts.

I

did

. I didn't buy your points. So I replied. But you blatantly said you did not read mine. This is a circular argument.

no u

I won't accuse you of straw maning at all -- I only ask WHY you wanted me to continue it by replying to destructor. I totally agree that that is what day 3 has come down to. Why such insistence that I reply to destructor's "I'm town, so that's obviously a lie, nah!"?

Why was it so suspicious that I didn't?

Because I thought you'd reply with something other than a 'nah!' post of your own.

How was I supposed to reply to a "nah you're scum" post with anything other than "nah I'm not"? There was no substance to respond to.

You're also telling him you'll vote me instantaneously after he claims. How in heck does that make any sense?

I'll reply when he claims.

Uh, that really, really doesn't cut it.

I did. Then ting=) showed that he'd really already made up his mind. I thought he hadn't... but his posts following seem to be trying to appear open minded while single-mindedly subtly guiding towards a me-lynch.

So your reason for thinking I was town for a while is that I was not on your case. Your current reason for thinking that I'm scum is that I

am

on your case. How is this not omgus?

Before you make another

You appear to be pretending to, and that's what is suspicious.

argument, I replied to that in 792 btw.

And I replied to that reply. Your faked even-mindedness is what is suspicious. If you want me to explain further, tell me what's unclear.

[Guardian]

Guardian: Do you think there's some reason why your claim should be super believable? Because I don't see how out skepticism is surprising.

No, there isn't.

Skepticism is fine -- note how I singled out ting=) and not you, or Seth, both who appear to be leaning the wrong way. You two, unlike ting =), appear to be actually trying to figure things out though. ting =)'s mind has made up, and he's agreeing that that's true, pretty much(!).

I think my play has made sense as pro-town, as has Imats, and I've explained why.

I've also explained why destructor's play makes sense as scum -- lurking, and ties to/stance on coolbot.

You need to look at the play of both players and (hopefully) make the right choice. By no means should that choice be obvious because of my claim.

[Guardian]

I am now henceforth indicating my desire to see you respond to destructor.

Here you ask me to respond to his long post.

I don't think it's fair for you to judge on your own what will, or will not be useful for everyone. You're dismissing his case, and pretty much just holding on to your claim that you saw him nk. You should know what it looks like from everyone else's perspective.

Here you say I am unfairly ignoring his case and that I'd better respond to it.

How was I supposed to reply to a "nah you're scum" post with anything other than "nah I'm not"? There was no substance to respond to.

Then don't reply to his 'nah'. Make a case on him based on something else. Or defend yourself based on something else.

Here you say that his case was in fact bullshit and not worth responding to, and that I in fact should not have responded to it.

Make up your mind, scum.

destructor is surely scum, and if ting =) isn't his buddy, I'll be greatly surprised.

[Guardian]

I think we need seth bab and matt_s... e.g. the likely other townies... back before the game moves forward

[Guardian]

Guardian: please explain how your role-claim fits with your predecessor's actions.

Destructor: explain how your role-claim fits with your actions.

I sense an inequity in the burden of proof for these two demands...

Yeah it comes from the facts that:

First, I have to defend someone else's actions, and destructor has to only defend his own.

And second, Imat was pretty active until he needed to be replaced, while destructor has been trying to lurk towards a victory.



I'll look through and see if there is anything specific that makes Imat's play fit with his role but... I've already defended him in general. His actions make sense. destructor, on the other hand, by dint of lurking, hasn't really come into scrutiny much all game. I'd very much like to see him defend his actions.

As for the notion that I am busing destructor... I welcome it. If you think that could be the case, by all means let's lynch destructor, and I'll deal with explaining how I wasn't busing him tomorrow, should I survive the night. Right now it seems that people are skeptical that I am town and are skeptical that he is scum. Both are true, and I bet it would be easier to convince you of one if the other is out of the way. Ergo, if we lynch destructor, once he shows up scum I think you'll have an easier time seeing that I'm town.

[Guardian]

Guardian, you brilliantly

defend[ed] someone else's actions

earlier in the game. Why are you so resistant now?

BAB, and everyone, I am getting pretty frustrated with this crap. If you're going to think I'm suspicious, tell me why and let me explain it, but this sort of question is driving me nuts.

Where the heck do you all get off saying I am "so resistant" to do X, and Y, and Z, and that that is somehow suspicious!? First it was to defend Imat, then to respond to destructor, and now this.

I mean really, what the heck?

I am "resistant" because I don't think there will be much there that I haven't already covered. I'm managing expectations.

Good god, my realizing that I've already done most of what I can do to explain and defend Imat isn't suspicious, it is me being pragmatic and realistic.

[Guardian]

I thought of two things that he might claim. If he'd claimed vanilla, I'd have voted him, despite what I said earlier. I was expecting him to claim survivor, which I would have brought.

For the record, this 'gambit' makes sense and possibly would have been a pro-town thing to do.

I still think ting =) is des's partner, despite this, but it removes suspicious slightly.

[Guardian]

I was fully prepared to build a case about how destructor's claim was bs, but looking back at his discussion of role-claim, it all fits.

Explain?

unNK able townie?

Does that really make any more sense than tracker, especially considering that neither the SK nor godfather had such immunity?

ps: I'll let destructor explain how his role fits in with his actions before I explain how he's scum, if that suits everyone.

I believe I can do better job explaining in new ways how destructor's actions DON'T fit with him being town, than how Imat's DO.

[Guardian]

I've got a question of my own. Guardian: Are you going to track ting?

It seems to me that saying who I am going to track beforehand is a great way to get that person killed, or me killed.

Hm, that might not be such a bad thing.

Yeah, actually, I could promise to track ting =) if that makes sense to you guys. ting =) dying as town would be revolutionary for me, and if I die, then there is lots of WIFOM around ting =) but at least you can't mislynch me.

[Guardian]

well, I don't see any point in no lynching, as I'd be really surprised if there is yet ANOTHER power role, and if we don't lynch destructor he'll obviously make the kill, so there won't be anything new for me to track.

[Guardian]

If destructor was lynched today, then the remaining mafia would have to kill. Catching ting =) doing that, or having ting =) not do it, or die and thus not be scum, would all be useful developments.

Who was I planning to track? BAB or Sethaniel or ting =). Seeing ting =) not kill or either of them kill would be most telling.

[Guardian]

I'm still leaning towards a Guardian lynch, with the buddy probably being Sethaniel.

Hmm. Why does this seem plausible to you?

In speculating at who could be my partner, I think you've struck upon a point in my favor, that maybe I can use to help convince you guys des is the scum here -- who would make sense to you as my partner?

destructor? if so, lynch him not me.
ting =)? lol?
Matt_S? doubt he's scum.
sethaniel? my top suspect as soon as I replaced in?
bab? Maybe this looks plausible to you, but I see no particular reason to believe this.

I think I've made a pretty strong case for why it is plausible to believe ting =) is destructor's partner. There's no one who makes sense to such a degree for me. Food for thought.

[Guardian]

I'm still leaning towards a Guardian lynch, with the buddy probably being Sethaniel.

Hmm. Why does this seem plausible to you?

In speculating at who could be my partner, I think you've struck upon a point in my favor, that maybe I can use to help convince you guys des is the scum here -- who would make sense to you as my partner?

destructor? if so, lynch him not me.
ting =)? lol?
Matt_S? doubt he's scum.
sethaniel? my top suspect as soon as I replaced in?
bab? Maybe this looks plausible to you, but I see no particular reason to believe this.

I think I've made a pretty strong case for why it is plausible to believe ting =) is destructor's partner. There's no one who makes sense to such a degree for me. Food for thought.

[Guardian]

Again, the where you bussed me really sticks in my mind. I'm getting a lot of vibes that remind me of your scum incarnation rather than your town incarnation. I can't give specific instances,

I'm pretty sure you are town. This kind of argument saddens me though. It IS your decision to make, but I can't respond in any meaningful way to this... I vaguely remind you of when I was scum, in comparing it to a game where I played poorly as town? I mean... :|

but I can ask this. What would you have done if massive wasn't at L-1 when he claimed?

No thought required to answer that one: I'd have voted him immediately, revealed my information, and explained that he needed to be lynched.

[Guardian]

I disdain meta-ing, but since you already are:

Off the top of my head, this is a town game where I've played well, if you want to read it: viewtopic.php?t=5879.

Possibly the reason you are associating me with scum-ness is that I played normally as scum that game and badly as town. (shrug)

[Guardian]

Guardian, I don't get why Ting and Matt_S can't be your scum partner. A more elaborate explanation is necessary.

Matt_S is almost surely a town vanilla townie. I've argued for this previously.

Ting =) I'm busy arguing that he is destructor's partner, and he's busy pretending to be making up his mind while it seems to me practically inevitable he's going to vote me.

Then again, if we lynch destructor-scum, none of this will be of issue -- you'll only have to deal with whether I could have been bus-ing destructor or not -- and like I said that's a situation I'd LOVE to be facing as opposed to this where a significant group are leaning towards lynching me.

Your case was just that I believed destructor more than you. I hence disagree with the words, 'strong', 'plausible', and 'believe' in your post.

If you're going to call strawman, then point me to your case. Or a summary of it.

Strawman. Summary: see above -- the part where you're pretending to evaluate but in reality have already made up your mind.

When you first said that, you made a case on both massive and seth. I thought that if you were scum, massive was your partner who you were distancing with, and that seth was town who you were trying to mislynch. I'm now thinking that if you're scum, besides the possibility of you bussing des, maybe I got the two switched.

First I'm busing massive, oh wait, now des, or no -- then seth. Damn... I'm attacking so many people... how could this be explained?

Wait... maybe I'm... SCUM hunting.

something defending himself against Matt_S's wrong opion that he's scum

That's unnecessary.
....
You are just the better lynch.

Again, the where you bussed me really sticks in my mind.

You too with the busing? Well if you are reminded of the time I was busing and you think I'm busing, lynch destructor. If not, who do you think I'm busing? Lynch destructor or lynch them. Don't lynch me, since I'd prefer for the town to win this one, and it seems very likely that we have 2 scum left and lynching me and the town wining are mutually exclusive goals.

[Guardian]

The meta on bussing is so dumb right now it hurts. Especially when BMscum tries to convince me that my play was ideal scum play when I lynched his scum partner (scum power role, no less) on day one.

FWIW...

[Guardian]

Summary: see above -- the part where you're pretending to evaluate but in reality have already made up your mind.

Again, how is that different from

Your case was just that I believed destructor more than you.

We've already done a page long back and forth on this. I'm dropping it until you bring up something new.

It is different because instead of posting:

I'm pretty sure Guardian is scum. Look, des is town for reasons A,B, and C, and Guardian is scum for reasons D, E, and F.

You posted something more like:

Hm. Des and Guardian. Des and Guardian. Damn, I dunno. Des could be scum for A & B... Guardian could be scum for C & D... ah, it is all so close, so hard to decide. Well... I mean I guess I favor Guardian being scum... but you know we don't want to lynch a townie here... I mean maybe Des is scum and Guardian is town... but I keep thinking it is Guardian. Oh Guardian, I'm so sorry I keep finding you suspicious if you are town, but.... well I need to mislynch a townie so what else can I do, right? -AHEM- So uh... well, I'm probably going to go with Guardian but... these things are always so hard.

Obviously the above is a caricature and highly exaggerated to make a point. However, I think the point is a valid one, and

the way in which the manner you present your thoughts contradicts your actual thought process

is what is suspicious. You want it to seem like you've been considering this at length and are undecided, when in reality it is pretty settled in your mind that you want me lynched. This leads me to believe you are scum with destructor and trying to win the game right here right now, by lynching me and NK-ing another townie.

[Guardian]

I'm pretty sure Guardian is scum. Look, des is town for reasons A,B, and C, and Guardian is scum for reasons D, E, and F.

Guardian, I WAS doing this for the better part of day 2. I made long posts going, 'Guardian is scum for reasons D,E and F.'

Your reply was to say that you weren't going to bother to read it. I already said this, there's no point on me making cases on you if you aren't even going to care to reply.

I replied to the extent that made sense, iirc. If I was just being "lazy", sorry (by "lazy" I mean determining that doing something is not worth my effort, especially when compared to other game tangents/arguments). I do that sometimes and may continue to. If there is more we have not gone over that you want to respond to badly feel free to bring it up, and I might respond.

From my recollection, we went back and forth for a bit and then it got to the point where I'd thought we dealt with it already. Note how I wasn't hounding that you were scum yesterday -- your behavior then was wrong but could have made sense from a town perspective.

Obviously the above is a caricature and highly exaggerated to make a point. However, I think the point is a valid one, and the way in which the manner you present your thoughts contradicts your actual thought process is what is suspicious. You want it to seem like you've been considering this at length and are undecided, when in reality it is pretty settled in your mind that you want me lynched. This leads me to believe you are scum with destructor and trying to win the game right here right now, by lynching me and NK-ing another townie.

You

know

my thought process? Really? I

am

still deciding.

I don't

know

your thought process anymore than I

know

your alignment. However, I can analyze your words and motives, and draw conclusions.

The point is well put by you -- yesterday you were hounding me, but now that I have a guilty on destuctor you "appear" to back off, but your conclusions always seem to be pushing for my lynch. It is unwise to write things off in mafia as coincidences, and me getting a guilty on destructor and you seemingly pretending to take a more moderate stance vs. me, but still uniformly saying I should be lynched, looks pretty darn suspicious.

Again, we've gone through all this before already, 2 pages or so back. You're not bringing up anything new.

You specifically requested me to explain how you were straw-maning me, and to rehash previous arguments to do so if necessary.

If you're going to call strawman, then point me to your case. Or a summary of it.

I'm not bringing up anything new, I'm just re-bringing into the light my arguments that you've apparently forgotten.

===

I think this lynch should be correctly figure-out-able by dint of destructor's claimed role. UNnk-able townie just doesn't make much sense. First of all, like I've said, does it make any sense at all that the town has an UNnk-able role and the

one man only team, who has to survive the whole game with two other killing roles, the SK, was NK-able while a random townie wasn't

??? Shakaa was pretty bad, but how could a mod conceive of that being even remotely close to fair?

Second, des hasn't played in accordance with that role at all. UNnk-able townie should play as the most vocal (and hopefully town looking) player in the game. Granted that is not always possible, but destructor's hanging back is complete opposite of how you'd expect this role to play. That role desperately wants to be targeted at night by scum, and destructor's play just doesn't match up to that.

In addition -- some have noted his agreeing with the mass claim as making sense. To me it looks like scum who have a powerful fake claim (Frodo, perchance?) and possibly a partner who's almost confirmed themselves by mimicking the townie role PM.

And UNnk-able townie should vehemently oppose a role claim -- once claimed, the UNnk-able townie loses a lot of its utility, and since UNnkT is such a powerful role, losing one of its two main draws (sucking in scum NKs) by mass claiming is a pretty poor play. Sure an UNnkT has the other possible power of being confirmed somehow, and then never being lynched or killed, but that's not much good at all if all the other power roles are dying around you, as would happen in a mass claim.

Also, comparing destructor to Imat: Imat's unsureness and towards the end peripheral play can be explained by disinterest. He got replaced. Destructor stuck it through and lurked, and lurked, and lurked some more. Who wins by lurking? Scum.

[Guardian]

Guardian, what do you mean by one man only team?
in fact this part kind of confused me:

I think this lynch should be correctly figure-out-able by dint of destructor's claimed role. UNnk-able townie just doesn't make much sense. First of all, like I've said, does it make any sense at all that the town has an UNnk-able role and the

one man only team, who has to survive the whole game with two other killing roles, the SK, was NK-able while a random townie wasn't

??? Shakaa was pretty bad, but how could a mod conceive of that being even remotely close to fair?

A random townie? What are you talking about?

Okay, so the SK is all on his own to win the game. The townies are part of a team. How is it fair to NOT give the SK an ability that SKs traditionally get, and then go and give that same SK-esque ability to a member of the town?

Guardian: I'm not too familiar with the concept of safe-claims. Wouldn't the god-father be given the "frodo" name-claim?

Possibly. Often scum can talk pre-game or are given a list of fake claims for all of them to share.

[Guardian]

Matt_S, an UNNK townie is more powerful than a tracker. Much so. If the town believes an UNNK the scum can never ever ever get rid of him. If you think tracker unbalances the setup, UNNK does even more.

[Guardian]

Quite busy.

Quite frustrated with Matt_S's stubbornness, and pedantic nature. I've already went back and forth with you on some of the stuff, or have already done it and that's why I'm not going to bother to quote and respond to it. If I've missed something that doesn't fit into these categories, please ask it again.

Lots of what you are asking me to say has been said, and when you ask me to do X, and I don't do X again since I've done X, and you respond "Yeah gee, you're scum, since I won't be convinced unless you do X and you ignore my requests to do X." it gets frustrating as anything.

If this response annoys you Matt_S, you're completely within your rights to want to lynch me for it. You're also completely within your rights to re-read my posts in isolation and see how I've already made a case on destructor and defended Imat's actions, and re-evaluate the game instead of beating the same drum over and over.

One thing I do think is worth responding to:

Then I have my gut feeling against Guardian, and Imat's behavior. So I should vote Guardian.

I'm all about gut. It can be a legitimate scum hunting tool, and townies use it and scum lie about it alike.

However, sometimes it is useful to try and quantify gut, for us to understand it and try to both evaluate the likelihood your gut is right, and the likelihood you are scum making this gut up.

To all: Imat's behavior I think I've explained. Any further questions there, ask them.

[Guardian]

Guardian: You accuse destructor of lurking yet ignore your predecessors' lurking. That's what I want you to respond to.

Thanks for making it clear. Really the things you were asking were going over my head a bit.

Anyways, instances like this, exactly this, is why lurking is so anti-town. If everyone lurks, you can't tell the difference between town and scum, and lynch the wrong people (e.g. like planing to lynch me). Imat was wrong to lurk.

I have two significant responses though, (both of which I already made.....). Imat got replaced, and his activity went from very active to barely creeping to nothing. This is contrasted starkly against destructor's consistent low post rate and non-replacement. Both things imply to me that Imat lurked for external to game reasons, and destructor lurked for in game reasons. Destructor has admitted this -- he "wasn't interested" in the game.

Lurking for in game reasons and sticking around with minimal activity is suspicious. Lurking because life gets busier, having a discernible trend of activity, and getting replaced because you couldn't contribute enough are two starkly different things.

This whole tangent, btw, ignores my arguments for Imat being town and destructor being scum......

Matt_S, your vote is WRONG, and we need every townie's vote today to lynch destructor.

[Guardian]

Cost-benefit analysis: what do either guardian or des gain from lying to us today?

if we lynch des and he's town, we'll know guardian's scum and lynch him tomorrow.

if we lynch guardian and he's town, we'll figure des was lying and lynch him tomorrow.

Do both of these scenarios seem to suggest that there are two scum left, or only guardianscum?

If Guardian's the only scum left, he's dead meat, so we can assume that if he's scum, then he has a partner. Destructor could have a partner, but it's not certain. I've used this point before, but Guardian hasn't acknowledged it as legitimate.

It is NOT legitimate.

Destructor could be in a 3 man scum group, in which case lynching me loses immediately.

Consider: if I am indeed town, the town had a tracker, a cop, a doctor-watcher, and a vigilante. There was also an SK in the game. Do you think such a game would be likely to hold only 2 mafia? Granted shakaa was a bad mod, but to conjecture that there were only 2 maifa seems a tad unreasonable, at least inasmuch as you are using it to determine that voting me is the best course of action.

We're not getting anywhere new, and I'm tired of Guardian ignoring my points.

I could just as easily say I'm tired of you keeping your head in the sand Matt_S.

Not in these exact words or so explicitly, but I've made the points of this post and the previous post earlier, and you keep asking me to make them. I hope they finally get through.

[Guardian]

How could it possibly make sense for unNKable townie destructor to vote for

anyone

other than the player claiming to have a night result involving him targeting someone?

[Guardian]

So, ting =) is not scum in a 2 man scum group.... unless he is scum with destructor. Big freakin' surprise.

[Guardian]

You did exactly what I was afraid I would do.

Huh?

However, everything you say adds up.

Huh??

Sethaniel and all his predecessors have 54 posts, and you have 81.

Relevant how?

However, the fact that you're pushing for someone's lynch other than the person who claims to have evidence that you're scum is unnerving.

unnerving? that's all?

However, I don't think this would be a tactic of someone who has a buddy.

Why??

I still want to

Vote Guardian

.

Emphasis on

want

, I guess?

[Guardian]

I still haven't seen anything form you about why destructor is scum that doesn't involve lurking and trusting that you aren't scum.

Having a case of deafness and/or blindness?

The MOST recent of the numerous times I've argued for destructor being scum not based on lurking or me being town was post 858.

I think this lynch should be correctly figure-out-able by dint of destructor's claimed role. UNnk-able townie just doesn't make much sense. First of all, like I've said, does it make any sense at all that the town has an UNnk-able role and the

one man only team, who has to survive the whole game with two other killing roles, the SK, was NK-able while a random townie wasn't

??? Shakaa was pretty bad, but how could a mod conceive of that being even remotely close to fair?

Second, des hasn't played in accordance with that role at all. UNnk-able townie should play as the most vocal (and hopefully town looking) player in the game. Granted that is not always possible, but destructor's hanging back is complete opposite of how you'd expect this role to play. That role desperately wants to be targeted at night by scum, and destructor's play just doesn't match up to that.

In addition -- some have noted his agreeing with the mass claim as making sense. To me it looks like scum who have a powerful fake claim (Frodo, perchance?) and possibly a partner who's almost confirmed themselves by mimicking the townie role PM.

And UNnk-able townie should vehemently oppose a role claim -- once claimed, the UNnk-able townie loses a lot of its utility, and since UNnkT is such a powerful role, losing one of its two main draws (sucking in scum NKs) by mass claiming is a pretty poor play. Sure an UNnkT has the other possible power of being confirmed somehow, and then never being lynched or killed, but that's not much good at all if all the other power roles are dying around you, as would happen in a mass claim.

Also, comparing destructor to Imat: Imat's unsureness and towards the end peripheral play can be explained by disinterest. He got replaced. Destructor stuck it through and lurked, and lurked, and lurked some more. Who wins by lurking? Scum.

I've made many arguments for why destructor is scum. You've just ignored them. I'm going to re-read the game and see if you really are 100% confirmed... because you are confirmed via claiming townie first and CoolBot confirming that your role PM == the townie role PM...

As much as I'd convinced myself you are confirmed innocent, I can't see a townie blissfully keeping his head in the sand as much as you.

Also:

You did exactly what I was afraid I would do.

Huh?

Why were you afraid you'd do it?

The lurking part is now irrelevant.

That's not true at all. He lurked during day 1 and 2, and didn't get replaced, indicating he lurked as a strategy. Lurking as a strategy is a point against him. I've been over this.

I don't think destructor would do this if he had a buddy because it only prolongs the day and gives more time to find his potential buddy.

You are making so many assumptions that I don't see as justified I don't even know where to begin. First, who says Sethaniel isn't destructor's partner? Second, who says destructor logically thought this through? Third, why would prolonging the day be bad for destructor? Fourth, why do you think this action was designed to prolong the day?

Those are just the easiest four to mention...

[Guardian]

BAB, Seth, if either of you is destructor's buddy, congratulations.

If you are not, how about convincing Matt_S that he's wrong? I'm pretty fed up with his arguments tbh. We've been back and forth on most of them and he keeps holding unreasonable stances and accusing me of not making any arguments.

If you want to vote me and lynch a townie in some desperate hope that destructor had only one partner, go ahead and do that as well.

I'm like 90% sure ting =) is destructor's buddy, and 99.9% sure it is either ting =) or Matt_S. Anyways, go for it. I'm pretty sick of Matt_S, and I don't care enough to waste more time on him.

[Guardian]

wondering...

mod: What would happen at a deadline if two people are tied?

[Guardian]

well we can either break this deadlock and lynch destrucor, break and lynch me, or not break and no lynch.

wait... is no lynch really that bad an option here? I mean, what do we lose from a NL? I can't see anything.

Anyways still town tracker here. get active ;p

[Guardian]

destructor, honestly, whatever it pisses me off but I am beyond getting worked up about it.

I've laid everything out there, and this game is there for the town to vote destructor and try to win or vote me and lose. If you want to go on a "feeling" and lose the game go for it.

---

destructor voted someone else at likely LYLO when a town power role claimed to have a result incriminating him. From his perspective, that means that role is 100% lying and 100% should be lynched.

Him voting for anyone but me then makes absolutely no sense, and the fact that Matt_S, ting =), and now you are even CONSIDERING voting me over destructor after those shenanigans is just beyond me. He literally cannot be town. it makes absolutely no flipping sense. Yet you continue to chase rainbows.

[Guardian]

BAB, I wish for you to address the end of post 930.

2 is the main thing preventing me from voting to Guardian right now. It doesn't seem quite fair or normal that the mod would do that. HOWEVER:
i) was it quite fair that there were town roles outside and in the fellowship?
ii) was it normal that our doctor had a semi-tracking role also?

i) I'd say it was unfair to scum if anything, so destructor's claimed role makes it even more unfair.
ii) Again unfair to scum, so destructor's claimed role makes it even more unfair.

I assume the mod had a more balanced setup rather than a less balanced setup. destructor's claimed role seems to lead to an obviously less balanced and more unfair setup.

[Guardian]

I'm making my decision tomorrow, so if anyone has any words before my vote you should make them soon.

You've said you found him scummier and that I'm arguing better and now are getting into arguments with me over details. I'll be extremely miffed if you throw the game based on a last minute feeling.

I'm only ignoring things to the extent they make no bloody sense. In destructor's position I could also see myself voting Sethaniel -- it is a nifty WIFOM scum trick.

But in his alleged position of UNnkable town, I absolutely cannot see myself doing it and you saying you can see yourself doing it is absurd to me.

If you can see yourself as an innocent player voting anyone else but an information role who claims that he knows you are scum with 100% certainty, you need to rethink your mafia strategy.

my info conflicted massive's, yes. Either the mod sucked, or there was a RB. Either of those are much more plausible than destructor voting seth on the notion that he has me already and should shoot to prove that Sethaniel is my scum partner. If I get lynched and was scum destructor would have all the leeway he needs to pursue Sethaniel on the morrow. He only voted Sethaniel to factionalize the town and get people in a town vs. Sethaniel & Guardian mindest, and it seems to be working bloody well on you BAB.

No matter how bad the mod is you assume they TRIED to balance the setup. destructor's role, and its being UNnkable, when the mod CHOSE NOT TO USE THAT MECHANIC on the two roles that HAVE IT 90% of the time and then CHOOSING TO USE IT on a TOWN role that appears in <5% of all games is absolutely RIDICULOUS, and beyond the mod even ATTEMPTING to have a balanced setup.

Even were I an independent observer, I'd bet my mafiascum career on this

. It is unfathomable to me how one townie and now perhaps two are convinced I am scum and he is merrily telling the truth.

If you (plural) lynch me over destructor you personally are 100% responsible for throwing away a win-able game.

[Guardian]

Good game all. Great job town in mopping this one up :).

Thanks to everyone -- except shakaa.

destructor did an excellent job this game and in the end he lost because of a very powered town and mod-ing difficulties.

I blame myself for not getting destructor lynched; if I'd managed that I'd have NK'd BAB and we'd have likely won.

The only advice off the top of my head, destructor, is be skeptical of late game power role claims, especially in an already very-powered game. Tracker and NK Immune both made little sense... but then again neither did Backup :). I think overall you played well, and made the right decision in the end. Thanks for the nomination.

Matt_S, good job at not believing my lies :).